Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11

Nuclear Criticality Safety Fundamentals [Slides]

Objectives of this presentation are: 1. Explain the difference between radiation safety vs. criticality safety, 2. Define criticality, 3. Explain the three types of chain reactions, 4. Define two terms scientists use to characterize criticality, 5. Explain what occurs during a criticality accident, 6. Identify prevention measures for avoiding a criticality accident, and 7. Identify the parameters that effect criticality of a system.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Hanford Site Composite Analysis Data Package: Exposure Scenarios and Radionuclide Specific Dose Conversion Factors

This data package summarizes the exposure assumptions, equations, and methods used to calculate radionuclide-specific unit dose factors and the radiological doses for both groundwater and atmospheric pathways as a part of the updated Hanford Site Composite Analysis (CA). An All Pathways Representative Person exposure scenario is considered to evaluate exposure via both groundwater and atmospheric transport pathways. The radiological dose assessments for both groundwater and atmospheric pathways are included in the performance assessments (PAs) for various Waste Management Areas at the Hanford Site. This data package calculates exposure route-specific and total unit dose factors for CA-specific radionuclides of concern based on the exposure assumptions used in the CA and PAs. This data package also presents the results and comparison of the radionuclide-specific unit dose factors based on the exposure assumptions used in the revised Hanford Site Composite Analysis and Hanford Site performance assessments for low-level waste disposal facilities.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

FRMAC Assessment Manual Volume 1 (Overview and Methods)

The Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC) Assessment Manual is the tool used to organize and guide activities of the FRMAC Assessment Division. The mission of the FRMAC Assessment Division in a radiological emergency is to interpret radiological data and predict worker and public doses. This information is used by Decision Makers to recommend protective actions in accordance with Protection Action Guides (PAGs) issued by government agencies. This manual integrates many health physics tools and techniques used to make these assessments.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

A comprehensive final summary of the MCNP calculations performed concerning the UW 137 Cs release event

This document combines and supersedes earlier reports (e.g. LA-UR-19-32358 and LA-UR-20- 22216) that discussed MCNP-calculated conversion factors (count rate per unit activity per unit area) for collimated 2”x2” NaI detectors (Ludlum model 44-10 and Thermo model SPA3) in contact with various surfaces of interest to the University of Washington 137 Cs release event. These surfaces include: Exterior surface of round and rectangular ducts, Exterior surface of outdoor brick work, Exterior surface of cast iron pipes, Exterior surface of an O 2 filter assembly For each surface, the calculated conversion factors allowed inferences on 137 Cs activity on interior surfaces based on exterior contact measurements of the 662 keV photopeak count rate. The MCNP calculations included the effect of attached collimators (i.e. either a Pb/Sb-based Ludlum or a W-based “Rees” model) on detector response. As a consequence, the conversion factors only apply to the appropriate collimated 2”x2” NaI detector operated in pulse height analysis (PHA) mode. Other assumptions affecting the calculations and valid application of the conversion factors will be outlined below.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Analysis of Air-Purifying Respirator (APR) and Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Cartridge Performance Testing on a Hanford AP Tank Farm Exhauster Slipstream (Volume 1)

Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) tested four types of chemical cartridges for use in air-purifying respirators (APR) and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR). These tests were undertaken to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide adequate performance1 for APRs and PAPRs used to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) from vapors exiting the Hanford AP tank farm exhauster slipstream. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) considers cartridge testing to be a valid approach for establishing cartridge change schedules. Testing commonly is applied in situations where mixtures of COPCs exist and where other approaches, such as manufacturer recommendations and modeling, are less reliable. The tests were designed and conducted to assure measurement and/or control of the key variables OSHA identified as important to estimate the cartridge service life, including temperature, humidity, COPC concentration, breathing rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity. Cartridge testing on a slipstream from the Hanford AP tank exhauster was conducted on March 23-24, 2018. This testing focused on both APR and PAPR cartridges. Previous testing of APR cartridges was conducted on the AP exhauster in June of 2016. However, an AP exhauster upgrade was completed in September 2016. In the most recent testing, slipstream vapors from the new AP exhauster were fed to two respirator cartridge test stands, one for the PAPR respirator cartridges and the other for the APR respirator cartridges. Both the APR and PAPR test stands were developed by WRPS in collaboration with HiLine Engineering (Richland, Washington). Multipurpose APR cartridges—SCOTT 7422-SD1 and SCOTT 7422-SC1 (SCOTT Safety, Monroe, North Carolina)—were assessed on separate days using the APR cartridge test stand. Multipurpose PAPR cartridges—MSA OptiFilter TL (MSA Safety Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and 3M FR-57 (3M Company, Maplewood, Minnesota)—were also tested consecutively over the same two days as the APR cartridge tests, using the PAPR cartridge test stand. Sample media (i.e., sorbent tubes) were used to collect samples of the vapor stream entering and exiting the respirator cartridges, and the samples then were analyzed for COPC concentrations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was tasked with conducting an independent analysis of the analytical results and making recommendations based on the results for respiratory cartridge performance and service life. The key conclusions from the analysis are described below.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Measuring aerosol collection efficiency for the Bladewerx “New Speclon TM 5” and the older “Speclon TM 5” filter

Bladewerx TM LLC (Rio Rancho, NM) manufactures instrumentation, neutron shielding and activation foils for the radiation protection industry. Specializing in portable alpha/beta air monitors and sample counters, Bladewerx is the source of Speclon TM PTFE filter media that they recommend for high-resolution alpha spectroscopy. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) utilizes Speclon TM filter material in CAM (Continuous Air Monitor) samplers for workplace air monitoring. The LANL Aerosol Engineering Facility received air filter material from Bladewerx, referred to as “New Speclon 5” in this document, in order to distinguish from filter material that was previously received (referred to as “Speclon 5” in this document). In this document, the aerosol collection efficiency and airflow resistance (pressure drop) were measured for the New Speclon 5 filter material.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Turbo FRMAC Implemetation of IAEA Radiological Assessment Methodologies for Nuclear and Radiological Emergencies.

This report documents the findings of an assessment of the Turbo FRMAC software's ability to implement International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) guidance for calculating Operational Intervention Levels (OIL) 1 & 2 for nuclear and radiological emergencies. The IAEA OIL and U.S. Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC) Derived Response Level methodology and implementation in respective tools were compared, as demonstrated through benchmarking activities for a nuclear power plant source term and potential radionuclides of concern for radiological dispersal devices. This comparison revealed some shortcomings in Turbo FRMACs ability to perform IAEA OIL calculations and resulted in recommended software modifications to be considered for future development.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

PORFLOW modeling of Vadose zone flow and transport for the E-area intermediate level vault

In support of the E-Area Performance Assessment, a two-dimensional model of water flow and radionuclide transport through the E-Area Intermediate Level Vault (ILV) and local vadose zone has been developed using the PORFLOWTM software. The purpose of the model is to calculate flux to the water table for radionuclides eluted from the ILV during its operational life, the period of institutional control, and times following site closure. Results of model calculations will be used by a three-dimensional PORFLOW model of transport through the aquifer to determine radionuclide concentrations at a hypothetical 100 meter well and at the site boundary where contaminated groundwater could be assessed by members of the public following site closure. While newly developed, the model structure closely follows that used in the 2008 PA while incorporating a refined computational mesh, updated material properties for the vadose zone soil and vault concrete, revised infiltration rates, and new solid-liquid distribution coefficients. The model also addresses degradation of concrete hydraulic properties by blending soil and concrete water retention curves over a 500 year period. That is, the hydraulic properties of ILV concrete start out as fresh concrete at the time of site closure and degrade to soil properties over a 500 year time period. This approach has not been used previously in E-Area PA’s. The model has been used to calculate water flow through the ILV vadose zone and, on a trial basis, transport of a limited number of radionuclides from the waste region inside the ILV to the water table. Figure ES-1 provides a view of the model and an example of water flow after the concrete has substantially degraded. Figure dimensions are in centimeters. The red area in the left hand side figure is the waste disposal region within the ILV. Colored bands in the figures indicate different soil and concrete regions. Figure ES-2 shows a calculation of flux to the water table (mol/yr) for U-234 and its one-year half-life decay chain (U-234 → Th-230 → Ra-226 → Pb-210). Pb-210 flux is too small to show on the same scale used for Th-230 and Ra-226 in Figure ES-2. The model has also been used to make a preliminary evaluation of the release of tritium from TPBAR disposal containers that will be place in the ILV. A separately calculated tritium release rate as a function of time was used as a source in the PORFLOW model. The TPBAR disposal schedule and tritium release rate differ from the values used in the 2008 PA. Results from these initial trial runs are compared to calculations made for the 2008 PA ILV analysis. In brief, a new PORFLOW model of flow and transport through the ILV vadose zone has been developed and tested. The model is ready to be used for PA calculations.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Report of the Sixth Regional Review Meeting of the Radiological Security Partnership.

The Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission (AERC) and the United States Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) co-hosted the 6th Regional Review Meeting on Radiological Security involving representatives from over 20 countries, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), and the World Institute for Nuclear Security. The purpose of the event was to discuss the implementation of, and plans for, high-activity radioactive source security (RSS). The U.S. DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of Radiological Security (ORS) fully sponsored this review meeting. Participants were welcomed to Colombo, Sri Lanka, and the meeting was formally opened by Nirmali Karunarathna of the Sri Lanka Atomic Energy Regulator Council who emphasized the strong partnerships among the participants. The opening Ceremony and Lamp Lighting included dignitaries from the sponsoring countries. Robert Hilton, Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Colombo, and Kristin Hirsch of the ORS gave other opening remarks that highlighted the social benefit from radiological sources in medicine, industry, and agriculture, while stressing the importance of addressing the risks associated with the malicious use of radiological sources. Emphasis was placed on the importance of partnerships among all the participants to help ensure the success of securing radiological materials throughout the world and the opportunity to share information and experiences. AERC was acknowledged with special thanks for hosting this event. A participant list is included as Attachment A, and the meeting agenda is provided as Attachment B. All presentations were made available to participants. The following sections summarize the meeting’s presentations, discussions, issues, suggestions, and recommendations.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Shutdown Dose Rate Code Suite

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) shutdown dose rate (SDDR) code suite calculates gamma dose rates at a location of interest due to activation of materials. The code suite is based on the rigorous two-step (R2S) method that involves two radiation transport calculations: (1) neutron radiation transport to determine neutron fluxes in the material for which activation calculations will be performed and (2) gamma radiation transport to determine dose rates at a location of interest, due to material activation. The ORNL SDDR code suite is used to determine an importance function that characterizes the neutron’s importance to the final SDDR when the Monte Carlo radiation transport method is used. This report demonstrates how the ORNL SDDR code suite is implemented through the following codes: Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) code Version 5-1.60, Oak Ridge Isotope Generator (ORIGEN), MSX suite of utilities, Neutron Activation Gamma Source Sampler (NAGSS), and Automated Variance Reduction Generator (ADVANTG). For this demonstration, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) SDDR benchmark problem is used and the dose rate result is compared to previously published work.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Applicability of Public Dose Limits to Individuals on the Nevada National Security Site

Historically all persons working on the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) were considered subject to worker dose limits when calculations of potential dose from the air pathway were conducted to demonstrate compliance with Title 42 United States Code (USC) Chapter 85, “The Clean Air Act,” and Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61, Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).” Calculations were also conducted for the all-pathways potential dose to demonstrate compliance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order DOE O 458.1 Chg. 3, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment.” The need to evaluate environmental air sampling locations and past regulator questions about the existence of persons potentially subject to public dose limits being on the NNSS drove this assessment (letter from EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] Region 9 to DOE/Nevada Operations Office, dated September 3, 1999). This assessment also supports determining those persons subject to public dose limits from the all pathways perspective. A person that is a member of the public is subject to public dose limits.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

NTS-SS-SNL-NMSITE-2017-0004,"Contamination Monitor Left in Service After Inadequate Calibration" Causes Not Fully Addressed (ES&H Causal Analysis Report)

Sandia National Laboratories Radiation Protection department did not successfully address the causes leading to the issue NTS-SS-SNL-NMSITE-2017-0004, “Contamination Monitor Left in Service After Inadequate Calibration”, nor identify through the verification and validation process that corrective actions were not fully implemented and effective at addressing the issue(s). This report is the third causal in four years associated with the iPCM12 instrument and the Radiation Protection Instrumentation (RPI) organization within Radiation Protection (00628).

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Analysis of Respirator Cartridge Performance Testing on Hanford Tank A-101

Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) conducted tests on two types of chemical cartridges for use in air purifying respirators (APR) to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide adequate performance1 to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) from vapors emanating from the headspace of tank A-101 on the Hanford Site. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) identifies cartridge testing as a valid approach for establishing a cartridge change schedules.[3] Testing is commonly applied in situations where mixtures of COPCs exist, and where other approaches, such as manufacturer recommendations and modeling, are less reliable. The tests were designed and conducted to ensure measurement and/or control of the key variables OSHA identified as important to estimate cartridge service life, including temperature, humidity, COPC concentration, breathing rate, and cartridge adsorption capacity. Testing was conducted over a period from July 22-24, 2016, using headspace vapors from Hanford tank A-101 under static conditions2 fed to a respirator cartridge test stand developed by WRPS in collaboration with HiLine Engineering (Richland, Washington). Multipurpose respirator cartridges, SCOTT 7422-SD1 and 7422-SC1 (SCOTT Safety, Monroe, North Carolina) were assessed on separate days with A-101 headspace vapors. Sample media (sorbent tubes) were used to collect samples of the vapor stream entering and exiting the respirator cartridge, and were subsequently analyzed for COPC concentrations. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was tasked with conducting an independent analysis of the analytical results and making recommendations based on the results for respiratory cartridge performance and service life. Key conclusions from the assessment of the 59 COPCs in this study are described below: • Based on d measured cartridge inlet vapor concentrations from tank A-101 headspace, both ammonia and N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) exceeded their Occupational Exposure Limits (OEL).3 These measurements were generally consistent with maximum A-101 headspace measurements previously obtained for these two compounds. • Ammonia had respirator cartridge outlet concentrations that exceeded 10% of the OEL for both cartridges tested, indicating breakthrough for each. For the SCOTT 7422-SD1 cartridge, ammonia appeared to breakthrough above 10% of its OEL after 2 hours. For the SCOTT 7422-SC1 cartridge, ammonia breakthrough appeared to occur after 8 hours. 1 “Adequate performance” refers to the breakthrough criteria used in this analysis—that is, sustained cartridge outlet concentrations above 10% of the OEL. For some COPCs, an alternate threshold has been applied when necessary due to higher detection limit (DL)/reporting limit (RL) values for specific compounds. Ultimately, Industrial Hygiene professionals will use these results along with specific hazard assessments to determine service life and cartridge use that provides the necessary performance. 2 These tests were conducted under static conditions absent waste-disturbing activities in the subject tank or tank farm. 3 Occupational Exposure Limits accepted for Hanford Tank Farm use are based on OELs established by a U.S. governmental agency or national professional organization (e.g., OSHA, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists), or if no U.S. OEL exists, standard toxicological practices are applied to develop OELs using non-U.S. exposure limits, other established OELs for chemical surrogates when available, or other standard procedures. The OEL for NDMA was established in 2005 based on the MAK (Maximale Arbeitsplatzkonzentration) Commission standard adopted in Europe. iv • Despite respirator inlet measurements for NDMA that were in excess of its OEL, all corresponding outlet measurements, from both respirator cartridges, were below analytical DL 1 for the

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Analysis of Air-Purifying Respirator (APR) and Powered Air-Purifying Respirator (PAPR) Cartridge Performance Testing on a Hanford AP Tank Farm Exhauster Slipstream: Volume 2 Raw Analytical Data

As the Tank Operations Contractor for U.S. Department of Energy operations at the Hanford site in Washington State, Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) is responsible for managing highly radioactive wastes stored in tanks at Hanford. WRPS tests air-purifying respirator (APR) and powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) chemical cartridges commonly used at Hanford Tank Farms to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide adequate performance for APRs and PAPRs used to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) from any vapors exiting headspaces in the storage tanks. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard promulgated in Title 29 of the Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(b)(2) specifies that for protection against gases and vapors, employers shall implement a schedule for cartridges to ensure that change-outs occur before the end of service life. The change schedule can be based on objective information or data that ensures cartridge change-outs occur before the end of their service life.[2-5] The primary function of the WRPS Cartridge Test Program is to obtain objective data to determine service lives for the APR and PAPR cartridges used at Hanford Tank Farms. WRPS contracted with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to analyze the test data and offer an independent analysis and any recommendations. Volume 1 of this report summarizes data analysis of APR and PAPR cartridge testing on vapors from the AP tank farm exhauster. Previous testing of APR cartridges was conducted on the AP exhauster in June 2016. However, an AP exhauster upgrade was completed in September 2016. Two different APR cartridges from SCOTT Safety (Monroe, North Carolina) were assessed for the new AP exhauster source, along with two different PAPR cartridges—one from MSA Safety Inc. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and another from 3M (Maplewood, Minnesota). Volume 2 provides an introduction to the raw data, including analytical laboratory analysis results that supported the analysis and conclusions documented in Volume 1.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Development of a High-Energy Neutron Sniffer and Subsequent Dose Quantification for High-Energy Particle Accelerator Shielding Surveys

The objective of this research is to design a portable neutron detector that is lightweight and responds to neutrons with energies of 20 MeV and greater. The instrument will be used as a ‘sniffer’ probe for identifying shielding weaknesses at high-energy particle accelerators and be paired with a plastic scintillator to quantify the high-energy neutron dose equivalent. The sniffer probes are two different sizes and comprised of either cesium iodide or sodium iodide, all doped with thallium, making a total of four detectors. The probes were calibrated to respond only to radiations with 8 MeV electron equivalent energy or higher, vastly reducing detector response from background and lower energy radiations. The sniffer probes were tested using californium- 252 and americium-beryllium sources, followed by high-energy (up to 800 MeV) neutron exposures at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center Weapons Neutron Research (WNR) facility. The sniffer probes were then used to identify areas around the accelerator facility where elevated levels of high-energy radiation was present and the plastic scintillators were placed in these locations to determine the high-energy neutron dose equivalent. The dose equivalent is calculated by measuring the 12 C(n,2n) 11 C reaction, which has a 20.4 MeV neutron threshold. Two locations behind the WNR facility were identified with the probes and the dose equivalent rates from neutron energies above 20 MeV were calculated to be 1.24 mrem/h behind flightpath 30-left and 1.53 behind flightpath 30-right. Of the four sniffer probes, the 2-inch x 2-inch cesium iodide is the recommended probe for performing high-energy shielding surveys. The larger crystal size yields higher sensitivity at lower count rates and the more dense material increases the likelihood of interaction within the crystal.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

2019 LANL Radionuclide Air Emissions Report

In June 2020, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) submitted letter ESHQSS: 20-025 to Region 6 of the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This letter transmitted the 2019 LANL Radionuclide Air Emissions Report to the EPA. This report summarizes LANL operations, air emissions of radionuclides, and subsequent off-site dose consequence from these emissions for calendar year 2019. This report is issued to meet requirements of 40 CFR 61 Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities. This regulation, called the Radionuclide NESHAP, establishes a limit of 10 millirem per year to the maximally exposed member of the public and requires an annual report to be submitted to the appropriate EPA Region by June 30th of each year. LANL’s off-site dose from airborne emissions of radionuclides in 2019 was 0.43 millirem. The normal practice is to issue this report directly to EPA Region 6 in June of each year, and then after the report is accepted by the EPA, re-issue the report for inclusion in the LANL Electronic Public Reading Room (EPRR). This second part is usually done in July of each year, but this step was overlooked in July 2020 due to other commitments. We regret this error. This omission was noted in late 2020; we are submitting the 2019 LANL Radionuclide Air Emissions Report to the EPRR now in December 2020. Aside from the addition of this cover sheet explaining the delay, the report is unchanged from the version submitted to EPA Region 6 in June.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗