Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Radiation protection”

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 235 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

PNNL-Richland Campus Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2022

This report documents radionuclide air emissions that result in the 2022 highest effective dose equivalent (EDE) to an offsite member of the public, referred to as the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The report has been prepared in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” and Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246-247, “Radiation Protection–Air Emissions.” The dose to the PNNL Richland Campus MEI from routine major and minor point source emissions in 2022 from PNNL Richland Campus sources is 2.1E-5 mrem (2.1E-7 mSv) EDE. The dose from all fugitive sources is 1.2E-6 mrem (1.2E-8 mSv) EDE. The dose from radon emissions is 9.2E-9 mrem (9.2E-11 mSv) EDE. No nonroutine emissions occurred in 2022. The total radiological dose to the MEI from all PNNL Richland Campus radionuclide emissions, including fugitive emissions and radon, is 2.3E-5 mrem (2.3E-7 mSv) EDE, or more than 100,000 times less than the federal and state standard of 10 mrem/yr, with which the PNNL Richland Campus is in compliance.

40 CFR 61 Subpart↗
DOE OSTI2020

PNNL Richland Campus Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2019

This report documents radionuclide air emissions that result in the 2019 highest effective dose equivalent (EDE) to an offsite member of the public, referred to as the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The report has been prepared in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” and Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246-247, “Radiation Protection–Air Emissions.” The dose to the PNNL Richland Campus MEI from routine major and minor point source emissions in 2019 from PNNL Richland Campus sources is 1.4E-5 mrem (1.4E-7 mSv) EDE. The dose from all fugitive sources is 1.3E-6 mrem (1.3E-8 mSv) EDE. The dose from radon emissions is 1.5E-10 mrem (1.5E-12 mSv) EDE. No nonroutine emissions occurred in 2019. The total radiological dose to the MEI from all PNNL Richland Campus radionuclide emissions, including fugitive emissions and radon, is 1.5E-5 mrem (1.5E-7 mSv) EDE, or more than 10,000 times less than the federal and state standard of 10 mrem/yr, with which the PNNL Richland Campus is in compliance.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗
DOE OSTI2021

PNNL Richland Campus Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2020

This report documents radionuclide air emissions that result in the 2020 highest effective dose equivalent (EDE) to an offsite member of the public, referred to as the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The report has been prepared in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” and Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246-247, “Radiation Protection–Air Emissions.” The dose to the PNNL Richland Campus MEI from routine major and minor point source emissions in 2020 from PNNL Richland Campus sources is 1.5E-5 mrem (1.5E-7 mSv) EDE. The dose from all fugitive sources is 2.0E-6 mrem (2.0E-8 mSv) EDE. The dose from radon emissions is 9.3E-9 mrem (9.3E-11 mSv) EDE. No nonroutine emissions occurred in 2020. The total radiological dose to the MEI from all PNNL Richland Campus radionuclide emissions, including fugitive emissions and radon, is 1.7E-5 mrem (1.7E-7 mSv) EDE, or more than 100,000 times less than the federal and state standard of 10 mrem/yr, with which the PNNL Richland Campus is in compliance.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗
DOE OSTI2022

PNNL Richland Campus Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2021

This report documents radionuclide air emissions that result in the 2021 highest effective dose equivalent (EDE) to an offsite member of the public, referred to as the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The report has been prepared in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of the Environment, Part 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities” and Washington Administrative Code Chapter 246-247, “Radiation Protection–Air Emissions.” The dose to the PNNL Richland Campus MEI from routine major and minor point source emissions in 2021 from PNNL Richland Campus sources is 1.7E-5 mrem (1.7E-7 mSv) EDE. The dose from all fugitive sources is 1.2E-6 mrem (1.2E-8 mSv) EDE. The dose from radon emissions is 2.1E-9 mrem (2.1E-11 mSv) EDE. No nonroutine emissions occurred in 2021. The total radiological dose to the MEI from all PNNL Richland Campus radionuclide emissions, including fugitive emissions and radon, is 1.8E-5 mrem (1.8E-7 mSv) EDE, or more than 100,000 times less than the federal and state standard of 10 mrem/yr, with which the PNNL Richland Campus is in compliance.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗
NASA NTRS2015

Deep Space Storm Shelter Simulation Study

Missions outside of Earth's magnetic field are impeded by the presence of radiation from galactic cosmic rays and solar particle events. To overcome this issue, NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems Radiation Works Storm Shelter (RadWorks) has been studying different radiation protective habitats to shield against the onset of solar particle event radiation. These habitats have the capability of protecting occupants by utilizing available materials such as food, water, brine, human waste, trash, and non-consumables to build short-term shelters. Protection comes from building a barrier with the materials that dampens the impact of the radiation on astronauts. The goal of this study is to develop a discrete event simulation, modeling a solar particle event and the building of a protective shelter. The main hallway location within a larger habitat similar to the International Space Station (ISS) is analyzed. The outputs from this model are: 1) the total area covered on the shelter by the different materials, 2) the amount of radiation the crew members receive, and 3) the amount of time for setting up the habitat during specific points in a mission given an event occurs.

Dugan, Kathryn↗
DOE OSTI2020

Feedback on Forty-year Long Clean-up Operations of a Contaminated Soil for Environmental Purpose - 20026

One of the CEA facilities in France is the place of miscellaneous mapping and clean-up operations since the 1980's. The final purpose of the conducted work deals with the environmental remediation of the building. In France, the absence of a regulatory framework for the management of sites polluted by radioactive substances, especially as the lack of release thresholds, has led to develop different approaches of soil radiological characterization. The geostatistical approach is part of them. Preliminary investigations are an unavoidable step prior to clearance and remediation. First, historical analysis enables to define site perimeters to investigate as well as to precisely locate expected contaminated parts. For radioactive pollutants, the media (water, soil, air) and transfer routes participate in the definition of the investigation perimeter and thus also need to be identified through a geological study. At the same time, functional analysis leads to choose the best measurement means which could provide useful information when combined with visual inspection. An equipment well adapted to easy-to-measure radionuclides as gamma emitters, such as gamma probe or on-site gamma spectrometry, is usually selected as a non-destructive assay. Coupled with spatial positions, processed on-site radiological data can be mapped. Data processing consists in mapping and kriging before a geostatistical analysis in order to identify the zones of interest to be targeted. Selected zones are not only linked to high level count rates but also to low level ones so that a pollution-free reference is known in the area. This data processing also enables to categorize waste types according to their origin and contamination levels. An expected volume of different waste then follows as well as the waste characterization equipments. In-depth investigations, e.g. core drillings and samplings, naturally ensue to aim at remediation optimization through the assessment of environmental impact. After clean-up operations, non-destructive assays as well as destructive samplings enable to check the effective clearance. Following this methodology in the present remediation work, results of the first non-destructive assay campaign highlighted a long-lived transuranic radionuclides contamination in the concrete flagstone. Successive non-destructive assays were then performed in the defined zones of interest. Count rates measured with a surface probe were first mapped. The best localization of destructive assays, i.e. core drillings at a 1 meter depth, came from this surface mapping followed by a geostatistical analysis. The concrete flagstone was totally removed. Then, the depth of soil to remove under the flagstone was optimized from the results of radiological activities measured in core drillings samples. A new surface mapping was then drawn after this partial soil excavation. The sand and demolition rubble samples, homogeneously constituted from the flagstone fragments, were analyzed by gamma spectrometry. Meanwhile, waste drums and other containers were also measured by gamma spectrometry and passive neutron measurement devices. All these results have brought miscellaneous pieces of information. In this context, major issues appear in terms of physical constraints such as the premises tininess as well as of soil sampling techniques and in terms of measurement performances assessment and the representativeness of homogeneous samples. The choice of radiological soil and waste characterization devices is described in the light of enhanced performances by keeping in mind radiation protection requirements and a willing to always optimize waste categories (very low level waste) and volume. The improvement of the characterization methods appears through this forty-year long work while sharing the feedback of encountered difficulties. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

General Employee Radiological Training: 24 Month Refresher (Course #47968)

GERT is required by the 10 CFR 835, the Federal Regulation on Radiation Protection that we follow here at LANL. It’s the training for non Rad Workers who may enter Radiological Controlled Areas (RCAs) and Radioactive Material Areas (RMAs) in an unescorted manner. If your work assignment requires access to areas posted for higher radiological hazards like Radiological Buffer Areas (RBAs), Radiation Areas, Contamination Areas, and others you are required to have Rad Worker training. Once you complete this training you will be qualified to access RCAs and RMAs at LANL without an escort. However, you are not qualified to operate radiation producing devices, work with radioactive material, or do work where you may receive greater than 100 mrem of exposure in a year.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
NASA NTRS2012

Concept for Hydrogen-Impregnated Nanofiber/Photovoltaic Cargo Stowage System

A stowage system was conceived that consists of collapsible, reconfigurable stowage bags, rigid polyethylene or metal inserts, stainless-steel hooks, flexible photovoltaic materials, and webbing curtains that provide power generation, thermal stabilization, impact resistance, work/sleeping surfaces, and radiation protection to spaceflight hardware and crew members. Providing materials to the Lunar surface is costly from both a mass and a volume standpoint. Most of the materials that will be transferred to other planets or celestial bodies will not be returned to the Earth. In developing a plan to reconfigure pressurized logistics modules, it was determined that there was a requirement to be able to utilize the interior volume of these modules and transform them from Logistics Modules to Storage/Living Quarters. Logistics-to-living must re-utilize stowage bags and the structures that support them to construct living spaces, partitions, furniture, protective shelters from solar particle events, galactic cosmic radiation, and workspaces. In addition to reusing these logistics items for development of the interior living spaces, these items could also be reused outside the habitable volumes to build berms that protect assets from secondary blast ejecta, to define pathways, to stabilize high traffic areas, to protect against dust contamination, to secure assets to mobility elements, to provide thermal protection, and to create other types of protective shelters for surface experiments. Unique features of this innovation include hydrogen-impregnated nano fibers encapsulated in a polyethelyne coating that act as radiation shielding, flexible solar collection cells that can be connected together with cells from other bags via the webbing walls to create a solar array, and the ability to reconfigure each bag to satisfy multiple needs.

Kennedy, Kriss J.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Epidemiological Studies of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation and Cancer: Rationale and Framework for the Monograph and Overview of Eligible Studies

Abstract Whether low-dose ionizing radiation can cause cancer is a critical and long-debated question in radiation protection. Since the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report by the National Academies in 2006, new publications from large, well-powered epidemiological studies of low doses have reported positive dose-response relationships. It has been suggested, however, that biases could explain these findings. We conducted a systematic review of epidemiological studies with mean doses less than 100 mGy published 2006–2017. We required individualized doses and dose-response estimates with confidence intervals. We identified 26 eligible studies (eight environmental, four medical, and 14 occupational), including 91 000 solid cancers and 13 000 leukemias. Mean doses ranged from 0.1 to 82 mGy. The excess relative risk at 100 mGy was positive for 16 of 22 solid cancer studies and 17 of 20 leukemia studies. The aim of this monograph was to systematically review the potential biases in these studies (including dose uncertainty, confounding, and outcome misclassification) and to assess whether the subset of minimally biased studies provides evidence for cancer risks from low-dose radiation. Here, we describe the framework for the systematic bias review and provide an overview of the eligible studies.

Berrington de Gonzalez, Amy↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗
DOE OSTI2020

Groundwater and Intruder Radionuclide Screening

Solid Waste Management (SWM) operates the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (ELLWF) where low level on-site and off-site solid waste streams are buried. The facility has been in operation since late 1994 and is currently projected to remain in operation until 2065. This facility can accommodate a broad range of waste forms resulting from the six different types of disposal unit options (i.e., varying degrees of engineered barriers → trenches to concrete vaults). This facility is currently operating under a Performance Assessment (PA) issued back in 2008, along with several subsequent supporting Special Analyses (SA). The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) developed the prior PAs and SAs and has been tasked to update the facility’s PA. For operating the E-Area facility, a Waste Inventory Tracking System (e.g., WITS) is actively employed by waste generators where every radionuclide entering the facility (to be buried in one of its many disposal units) must be either directly or indirectly accounted for. Since there is a large number of radionuclides in existence (>3,000), the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP-107) has provided guidance on the subset of radionuclides requiring further assessment in landfills such as the E-Area LLWF. The ICRP-107 publication provides critical radiological information on 1,252 radionuclides of 97 elements. This database is the critical starting point for developing a consistent inventory limit system. The explicit measurement and tracking of all radionuclides are not necessary when process knowledge, burial history, and radiological aspects are factored into conservative groundwater and intruder screening processes. Across the DOE complex these screening processes have been historically performed using the methodology suggested by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) as presented in their original report (NCRP 1984) and then refined in a later report (NCRP 1996). In the recommended screening models employed within this report the traditional NCRP models are updated to better handle progeny and better reflect the known characteristics of E-Area. This improved screening process is referred to as the “NCRP-like” method. Various upgrades to the traditional NCRP methodology have been used by others (e.g., NRC funded effort by Kennedy and Strenge 1992). The more detailed models by Kennedy and Strenge (1992) were considered in this effort and are compared to the results from the more traditional NCRP-like models. The groundwater and inadvertent intruder screening analyses presented in this report start with this 1,252 radionuclide list and reduces it down to more manageable lists that are applicable to the various disposal unit types contained within E-Area. In order to reduce this starting list, some level of exposure risk must be considered acceptable. Historically, a dose (or concentration level) has been compared with a screening criterion set to 1% of a performance measure (e.g., a beta-gamma dose not to exceed the 4 mrem/yr beta-gamma performance measure x 0.01 = 0.04 mrem/yr). Thus, if a radionuclide produced a bounding or screening-level dose (or concentrations) less than the screening criterion, it could be safely removed from further consideration. Several tiers of screening and bounding level analyses have been considered in this report.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Groundwater and Intruder Radionuclide Screening

Solid Waste Management (SWM) operates the E-Area Low-Level Waste Facility (ELLWF) where low level on-site and off-site solid waste streams are buried. The facility has been in operation since late 1994 and is currently projected to remain in operation until 2065. This facility can accommodate a broad range of waste forms resulting from the six different types of disposal unit options (i.e., varying degrees of engineered barriers → trenches to concrete vaults). This facility is currently operating under a Performance Assessment (PA) issued back in 2008, along with several subsequent supporting Special Analyses (SA). The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) developed the prior PAs and SAs and has been tasked to update the facility’s PA. For operating the E-Area facility, a Waste Inventory Tracking System (e.g., WITS) is actively employed by waste generators where every radionuclide entering the facility (to be buried in one of its many disposal units1) must be either directly or indirectly accounted for. Since there is a large number of radionuclides in existence (>3,000), the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP-107) has provided guidance on the subset of radionuclides requiring further assessment in landfills such as the E-Area LLWF. The ICRP-107 publication provides critical radiological information on 1,252 radionuclides of 97 elements. This database is the critical starting point for developing a consistent inventory limit system. The explicit measurement and tracking of all 1,252 ICRP-107 radionuclides can be reduced when process knowledge, burial history, and radiological aspects are factored into conservative groundwater and intruder screening processes. Across the DOE complex these screening processes have been historically performed using the methodology suggested by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) as presented in their original report (NCRP 1984) and then refined in a later report (NCRP 1996). In the recommended screening models employed within this report the traditional NCRP models are updated to better handle progeny and better reflect the known characteristics of E-Area. This improved screening process is referred to as the “NCRP-like” method. Various upgrades to the traditional NCRP methodology have been used by others (e.g., NRC funded effort by Kennedy and Strenge 1992). The more detailed models by Kennedy and Strenge (1992) were considered in this effort and are compared to the results from the more traditional NCRP-like models. The groundwater and inadvertent intruder screening analyses presented in this report start with this 1,252 radionuclide list and reduces it down to more manageable lists that are applicable to the various disposal unit types contained within E-Area. In order to reduce this starting list, some level of exposure risk must be considered acceptable. Historically, a dose (or concentration level) has been compared with a screening criterion set to 1% of a performance measure (e.g., a betagamma dose not to exceed the 4 mrem/yr beta-gamma performance measure x 0.01 = 0.04 mrem/yr). Thus, if a radionuclide produced a bounding or screening-level dose (or concentrations) less than the screening criterion, it could be safely removed from further consideration. Several tiers of screening and bounding level analyses have been considered in this report.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Improved accuracy of S-value-based dosimetry: a guide to transition from Cristy–Eckerman to ICRP adult phantoms

Background: In 2016, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) published the results of Monte Carlo simulations performed using updated and anatomically realistic voxelized phantoms. The resulting specific absorbed fractions are based on more realistic human anatomy than those computed in the stylized, geometrical Cristy–Eckerman (CE) phantom. Despite this development, the ICRP-absorbed fractions have not been widely adopted for radiopharmaceutical dosimetry. To help make the transition, we have established a correspondence between source and target tissues defined in the CE phantom and those defined in the ICRP phantoms. Results: The ICRP phantom has 79 source regions and 43 target regions in comparison with the 23 source and 18 target tissue regions defined in the CE phantom. The ICRP phantom provides tissue regions with greater anatomical detail. Some of this additional detail is focused on radiation protection and dosimetry of inhaled/ingested radioactivity. Some, but not all, of this detail is useful and appropriate for radiopharmaceutical therapy. We have established the correspondence between CE and ICRP phantom source and target regions and attempted to highlight the ICRP source tissues relevant to radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT). This paper provides tables and figures highlighting the correspondences established. Conclusion: The results provide assistance in transitioning from CE-stylized phantoms to the anatomically accurate voxelized ICRP phantoms. It provides specific guidance for porting the total absorbed activity for regions as defined in the CE phantom to regions within the ICRP phantoms.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2022 (Final Report)

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), one of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science’s 10 national laboratories, provides innovative science and technology development in the areas of energy and the environment, fundamental and computational science, and national security. There are three DOE offices within the Richland area. Two are responsible for the Hanford Site, whereas the Pacific Northwest Site Office (PNSO) oversees PNNL. PNNL prepares this Annual Site Environmental Report to meet the requirements of DOE Order 231.1B, Environmental, Safety and Health Reporting, and DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, assuring that the public is informed of any PNNL-Richland Campus or PNNL-Sequim Campus event that could adversely affect the health and safety of the public, site staff, or the environment. The report provides a synopsis of ongoing environmental management performance and compliance activities for operations that occur on the PNNL-Richland Campus in Richland, Washington, and at the PNNL-Sequim Campus near Sequim, Washington. It describes the location of and background for each facility; addresses compliance with applicable DOE, federal, state, and local regulations, and site-specific permits; documents environmental monitoring efforts and their status; presents potential radiation doses to staff and the public in the surrounding areas; and describes DOE-required data quality assurance methods used for data verification. The ASER summarizes site compliance with federal, state, and local environmental laws, regulations, policies, directives, permits, and Orders, and provides environmental management performance benchmarks and their status to the public, regulatory agencies, community officials, Native American tribes, and public interest groups.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Radon Survey of Los Alamos National Laboratory Buildings and Los Alamos County Residential Buildings

A radon survey of office spaces was of interest to LANL for several reasons. First, exposure to natural radon in LANL office spaces has been considered to be outside the regulatory reach of the federal regulations and the U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) orders, and thus has not been studied as extensively as occupational exposure to other radionuclides and is not subject to the same rigorous radiological controls. Second, a general survey of radon concentrations in LANL workspaces was of interest to management to ensure safe environments for workers and is in keeping with the intent of OSHA requirements. Though radon in LANL offices would not be derived from enhanced radioactive sources, radon exposure in general office spaces has the potential to significantly impact worker risk. The purpose of the 2009 radon survey was to measure and document indoor radon levels across a broad spectrum of office-type workspaces and neighboring homes. The measured concentrations were compared against those measured across the United States and across the world. The results were also compared against a wide variety of radiation protection thresholds such as (1) the action levels of 148 Bq m -3 (the U.S. EPA action level for public housing), (2) ≈1,200 Bq m -3 OSHA threshold for office spaces, (3) effective dose threshold of 1 mSv threshold for defining a radiological worker, (4) 50 mSv occupational effective dose limit, and (5) 0.1 mSv and 1 mSv limits for public exposures from the air pathway and all pathways, respectively.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Assessment of Potential Dose and Environmental Impacts from Proposed Testing at the INL Radiological Response Training Range

This assessment uses screening-level models to calculate potential environmental impacts from proposed tests at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Radiological Response Training Range (RRTR) site. Proposed tests could be conducted using 11 different radioactive material types that include K2O, LaBr3, KBr, Cu, Zr, F, Ga, Ga2O3, NaNO2, Ga-68, and Tc-99m. The tests could potentially release radioactive material to the atmosphere and radionuclides and other contaminants to the soil, which could leach into the unsaturated zone and migrate to the aquifer. Atmospheric transport of radionuclides to potential human receptors and time-integrated air concentrations were calculated with a Gaussian plume model and three years of hourly meteorological data. Potential surface-soil impacts were calculated with the computer program mixing-cell model (MCM). Groundwater impacts were calculated with the computer programs MCM and GWSCREEN. Radiological doses from potential atmospheric releases were calculated for public receptors off the INL Site and for workers at nearby INL facilities. Results were compared to regulatory dose limits. Maximum potential groundwater concentrations were estimated in the aquifer below the NSTR site and compared to drinking water standards or risk-based screening levels for resident tap water. Soil concentrations were calculated and compared to risk-based screening levels for workers and potential future residents. All impacts were estimated assuming 12 tests are conducted annually using all 11 material types for a period of 15 years. This document provides the resources to enable a subject matter expert in the field of environmental assessments to replicate the modeling and calculations. The methodology and parameters are presented in the text. All electronic files, including computer-code input, output, executable files, batch files, scripts, and spreadsheet files are contained in a zip file that can be accessed by selecting “Additional Information” (select Native File) in the INL Electronic Document Management System (EDMS). It is highly unlikely the test scenarios evaluated in this ECAR will adversely impact human health based on comparisons of calculated dose and concentration against regulatory standards and risk-based screening levels. Conservative estimates of dose to workers and the public from atmospheric transport of possible radionuclide releases are far below federal radiation protection standards. Conservative estimates of potential contaminant concentrations in groundwater are less than federal drinking water standards or screening levels. Predicted radionuclide concentrations in surface soils are below risk-based screening levels, except for Ge-68 (material Ga-68) for the worker. The Ge-68 soil concentration can be made less than the worker PRG, if the number of annual tests using Ga-68 is reduced from 12 to 6. However, the sum of ratios still exceeds one because of the high K-40 ratio. If the EF of the worker (number of days the worker is in the contaminated testing area) is reduced from 225 days/yr (default value for full time worker) to 112 days/yr, the Ge-68 ratio is less than one and the sum of ratios is less than one. Actual radiation doses and groundwater and surface-soil concentrations are likely to be much less than those calculated because of the conservative assumptions and parameters employed in the modeling. For example, atmospheric-transport calculations assume the entire inventory of each material type is readily released to the atmosphere and no plume deposition, depletion, or radioactive decay occurs during transport. The calculations also assume the same meteorological conditions (e.g., wind velocity, wind direction, stability class) that produce the maximum 95th percentile concentration (i.e., concentration representing the 95th percentile of a distribution of concentrations derived from 3 years of hourly meteorological data) at each receptor location are the same for all 12 tests during the year, and each receptor is assumed to be present during all 12 tests. The surface-soil assessment assumes the entire inventory of each test is deposited in the top 5 cm of soil. No atmospheric dispersal is assumed, and the radionuclides are subject only to leaching and radioactive decay. The groundwater-pathway modeling is conservative in that it is one-dimensional in the unsaturated zone (no lateral spreading/dilution) and assumes the entire inventory of contaminants infiltrates into the ground at the same location for every test. This is especially conservative for particulate radionuclides because they would have to dissolve or corrode first and some would be dispersed into the atmosphere. The groundwater receptor is also assumed to consume water directly from a hypothetical well positioned in the location of maximum concentration. In addition, conservative degradation rates were used, and volatilization was not considered for the nonradioactive chemical

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI1994

Nuclear Safety [Vol. 35, No. 2, July-December 1994]

Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 179 Consideration of Postaccident Consequences in the Determination of Safety Objectives for Future Nuclear Power Plants in France, D. Queniart, A. Sugier, and J. Lochard; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 187 Nuclear Safety Research: The Phebus FP Severe Accident Experimental Program, P. von der Hardt, A. V. Jones, C. Lecomte, and A. Tattegrain; 205 Containment Performance Analysis of the Advanced Neutron Source Reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, S. H. Kim, R. P. Taleyarkhan, and V. Georgevich; 213 Assessment of Fission Product Deposits in the Reactor Coolant System: The DEVAP Program, G. Le Marois and M. Megnin; 222 Erratum to “A Review of the Available Information on the Triggering Stage of a Steam Explosion," Vol. 35, No. 1, CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 223 Effects of Normal Aging on Calibration and Response Time of Nuclear Plant Resistance Temperature Detectors and Pressure Sensors, H. M. Hashemian; DESIGN FEATURES: 235 Defense in Depth Against the Hydrogen Risk—A European Research Program, F. Fineschi; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 246 Technical Note: A Preliminary Analysis of the Risks to Hong Kong Resulting from Potential Accidents of Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant, Z. Shi and X. Wei; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 253 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; SPECIAL SECTION ON TMI-2 VESSEL INVESTIGATION PROJECT: 256 Three Mile Island—New Findings 15 Years After the Accident A. M. Rubin and E. Beckjord; 269 Relocation of Molten Material to the TMI-2 Lower Head, J. R. Wolf, D. W. Akers, and L. A. Neimark; 280 Insight Into the TMI-2 Core Material Relocation Through Examination of Instrument Tube Nozzles, L. A. Neimark; 288 Physical and Radiochemical Examinations of Debris from the TMI-2 Lower Head, D. W. Akers and B. K. Schuetz; 301 Results of Metallographic Examinations and Mechanical Tests of Pressure Vessel Samples from the TMI-2 Lower Head, D. R. Diercks and G. E. Korth; 313 Margin-to-Failure Calculations for the TMI-2 Vessel, J. Rempe, L. Stickler, S. Chavez, G. Thinnes, R. Witt, and M. Corradini; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 328 1993 Accident Sequence Precursor (ASP) Program Results, L. N. Vanden Heuvel, J. W. Cletcher, D. A. Copinger, J. W. Minarick, B. W. Dolan, and P. D. O’Reilley; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 339 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 345 Proposed Rule Changes as of June 30, 1994; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 234 Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 356 1995 International Incineration Conference; 358 Fifth International Controls and Instrumentation Conference; 359 ANS International Topical Meeting on Safety of Operating Reactors; 359 Fifth International Conference on Nuclear Criticality Safety; 360 International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment Methodology and Applications; 351 The Authors; 357 Reviewers of Nuclear Safety, Vol. 35.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗