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 343 records · Page 19

SU-E-T-200: IBA ProteusOne Compact Proton Therapy System Radiation Survey Results

Purpose: This study summarizes the results of an initial radiation survey of the Willis-Knighton Cancer Center in Shreveport, Louisiana. The facility houses an IBA ProteusOne compact single room proton therapy unit coupled with a C230 cyclotron that operates at a maximum energy of 230 MeV. Methods: A calibrated survey meter was used for the photon measurements to obtain reliable results. A neutron detector was used as the measuring instrument for neutrons. The locations of the survey and measurements were planned carefully in order to get a proper evaluation of the facility shielding configuration. The walls, ceiling, vault entrance, and the adjacent environment were each surveyed with suitable measurement instruments. A total of 22 locations were chosen for radiation survey. Dose equivalent values were calculated for both the photon and the neutron radiation using measured data. Results: All measured dose values are presented in millisievert per year. The highest dose measured at the vault entrance is 0.34 mSv/year. A dedicated shielding door was not present at the time of the measurement. The vault entrance area is considered as a controlled area. The shielding design goals are not to exceed 5 mSv/year for the controlled area and 1 mSv/year the uncontrolled area. The total combined neutron and photon dose equivalent values were found to be compliant with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality radiation protection regulatory codes. Conclusion: In our efforts to evaluate the radiation levels at the Willis-Knighton Cancer Center proton treatment facility, we have found that all the measured values of the radiation shielding are below the critical radiation limits per year. Since the total dose measured at the vault entrance is below the shielding design goal, a shielding door is not required at this proton treatment vault.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

Regulatory Guide on Conducting a Security Vulnerability Assessment

This document will provide guidelines on conducting a security vulnerability assessment at a facility regulated by the Radiation Protection Centre. The guidelines provide a performance approach assess security effectiveness. The guidelines provide guidance for a review following the objectives outlined in IAEA NSS#11 for Category 1, 2, & 3 sources.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗

Induced Radioactivity Analysis for the NSRL Linac in China Using Monte Carlo Simulations and Gamma Spectroscopy - Paper 141

The Synchrotron Radiation Facility of the National Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (NSRL) located in Hefei, China consists of a 200-MeV electron linear accelerator and an 800-MeV electronic storage ring. Constructed in 1989, the 200-MeV Electron linac is one of the earliest high-energy electron linear accelerators in China. The NSRL is a large-scale experiment device, having been operated more than twenty years, so it is hard to give a historical recount about the injection of NSRL Linac. Lower-energy electrons emitted from the accelerator electron gun are progressively accelerated to about 200 MeV in five acceleration tubes, and then are injected into the electron storage ring, reaching the final energy of 800 MeV. The linear accelerator is a traveling wave linear accelerator, consisting of pre-injection, four 6-m acceleration segment, some beam sensing elements, and focusing inserts. The electrons are accelerated in the acceleration tubes to 32 MeV, 74 MeV, 116 MeV, 158 MeV, respectively, and the electronic energy reaches 200 MeV at the end of the acceleration trip. A scraper is used for beam collimation and is located at the end of each acceleration tube, with a length that increases with the energy to provide sufficient collimation. The NSRL Linac was retired in 2012 due to a plan to upgrade the facility. The decommissioning produced many real challenges related to the methods to handle the large size of the device and the time required to store structural materials until the radioactivity is reduced in the waste repository. These problems should be solved as soon as possible in order for the upgrade to proceed smoothly. At present, no prior decommissioning experience existed in China on such a high-energy electron linear accelerator. Therefore, the decommission project provided an opportunity to study and evaluate the challenges, in particular, involving the induced radioactivity for the purposes of radiation protection. For a well-shielded accelerator facility, the induced radioactivity is an important source of radiation for people who perform the decommissioning. In addition, information on the level of induced radioactivity is needed for disposing of the retired accelerator materials. Therefore it is significant to predict such radioactivity level accurately. However, the induced radioactivity study for such type high-energy electron linear accelerator is very seldom. Particle accelerators that operate at energy greater than 10 MeV will produce induced radioactivity due to well-known photonuclear interactions. However, the assessment of such as induced radioactivity of large-scale installations is a time-consuming process. Experimental methods are time-consuming and require special radiation safety measures to protection the investigators. On the other hand, empirical formula cannot yield sufficiently accurate results. Therefore, Monte Carlo simulation method is the primary means to study such problems. In the decommissioning process of the NSRL Linac, the induced radioactivity assessment will be based on Monte Carlo simulation method as the main auxiliary means to expand a series of studies. (authors)

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗

Feasibility study on real-time {gamma}-ray spectrum / dose measurement system

In recent years, radiations have been used very often especially in the medical field. Radiation protection is carried out properly there. However, the medical staffs sometimes focus not so seriously on their exposure dose, because treatment of patients is the first priority in hospitals. In the past study, there were radiation monitors developed which can indicate the pulse height spectrum and/or dose. However, there were no monitors which can show the gamma-ray energy spectrum and dose at the same time. A monitor, which we design, can estimate the energy spectrum of gamma-rays in the medical atmosphere, with which the dose can be evaluated simultaneously and accurately. The purpose of this study is to develop a spectrometer (monitor) which can show gamma-ray spectrum / dose simultaneously in real time to make the medical staffs understand the risk of radiation precisely and to finally decrease their exposure dose. For this purpose we newly developed a conversion procedure from the measured pulse height spectrum to energy spectrum in real time. The details are also described in this paper.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

Epidemiologic Study of One Million U.S. Radiation Workers and Veterans

The single most important question in radiation epidemiology is determining the level of health risks associated with radiation exposures that occur gradually over time. The study of one million early U.S. radiation workers and veterans has been designed to provide information on risk following chronic exposures by focusing on occupational groups with differing radiation exposure patterns, including intakes of radionuclides. The cost-efficient study builds on the investments made and foundations laid by investigators and government agencies over the past 30-40 years, which have established early worker cohorts that can now provide answers to questions on the lifetime human health risks associated with low-level radiation exposures. Within the overall goal of the epidemiologic study of one million U.S. radiation workers and veterans, this project had a total of nine specific aims which included studies of six populations for multiple endpoints including cancer overall mortality, leukemia and non-cancer mortality. The six populations included: Mound, Ohio, workers exposed to polonium, tritium and plutonium; nuclear power plant workers within the Landauer dosimetry and Nuclear Regulatory Commission data files; industrial radiographers; Mallinckrodt uranium workers; uranium workers who linked with the US Renal Data System; and nuclear weapons test participants. Over 400,000 workers and atomic veterans are included in these populations, with vital status being determined and analyses of all causes of death undertaken. A critical, integral component of the studies has been comprehensive evaluations of dosimetry involving, in many cases, complex dose reconstructions, and assessments of uncertainties. The work has also involved development of state-of-the art statistical approaches and modeling. All nine aims were accomplished successfully, resulting in publication of two NCRP documents, 13 literature papers, numerous Boice Reports in Health Physics News and many presentations of the work at scientific meetings. Furthermore, recommendations have been developed for an approach to integrate epidemiologic observations with radiation biology for risk assessment and biological models of radiation effect. The results of this project, as well as ongoing epidemiology studies of US radiation workers and veterans, are providing much-needed insights into complex issues regarding cancer and non-cancer health risks from low dose irradiation, how to apply a "dose and dose rate effectiveness factor" to scale the risks from the A-bomb survivor data to current occupational and environmental circumstances, and how to evaluate risk following intakes of radioactive substances. In addition to application to radiation workers, the results of the studies can provide guidance as society debates the role of nuclear energy and deals with nuclear waste, threats of terrorist attacks with nuclear/radiological devices, the remarkable increase in medical exposures to CT scans and nuclear imaging, and to NASA as radiation protection for astronauts on long-duration mission beyond low-Earth orbit is planned.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Evaluation of Potential Dose to Off-site Receptors from On-site Removable Contamination - 18521

Calculations used in making corrective action decisions estimate the maximum potential dose to on-site receptors exposed to contamination from nuclear testing activities at U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Management Nevada Program Soils Activity release sites. At many of these release sites, removable contamination is present at levels that require controls to be in place under Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 835, 'Occupational Radiation Protection.' When significant levels of removable contamination are present at a release site, it may be necessary to evaluate the potential dose to off-site receptors from removable contamination that has the potential to be transported off the contaminated site. The protocols described herein could be used to evaluate the potential dose to off-site receptors to ensure that corrective action decisions consider both on-site and off-site potential receptors. The calculation of estimated dose to a receptor can be accomplished by establishing a scenario that describes the exposure (e.g., time and pathway) of the individual to the radiological contamination and by using the properties of the contaminants (e.g., dose conversion factors). Radiological contamination transported from the site has the potential to expose off-site receptors under a potentially large number of exposure scenarios that cannot be comprehensively defined. However, a scenario was developed to represent a maximally exposed off-site receptor. Because the estimated dose to the maximally exposed off-site receptor based on maximum post-closure release site activity levels is less than the on-site dose decision level, corrective action decisions at the Nevada National Security Site Soils Activity release sites are also protective of potential off-site receptors when significant levels of removable contamination are present. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Radioactive Waste Disposal Strategies within the US Army Corps of Engineers FUSRAP - 18328

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) highest priority is the protection of human health and the environment and public and worker safety during the cleanup, transportation, and disposal of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) material. In addition to following all appropriate federal and state rules and regulations, the USACE has its own safety program that ensures that we are being protective. One aspect of the USACE FUSRAP is the radioactive waste disposal strategies that we must consider. The USACE will only dispose of FUSRAP material in a facility that is licenses/permitted to accept it. The estimated exposures to facility workers and members of the public from the permitted disposal of FUSRAP wastes is evaluated as part of this process. The USACE uses the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process to study and remediate FUSRAP sites. An evaluation is performed to decide whether it is best to manage the waste on-site or off-site and the requirements for disposal. The action selected must be protective of human health and the environment and must comply with regulations. When making the decision, there are several other factors taken into consideration including cost of the disposal and whether the public and state agencies support the action. Prior to determining disposal options, wastes must first be characterized. This involves an evaluation of both site history and analytical data. Determining the proper disposal requirements and subsequent disposal option involves: Characterizing the waste as stated above. This is important because there are several regulatory agencies which may oversee management of the waste. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the US Department of Transportation, and state hazardous waste and/or radiation protection agencies may all have varying degrees of involvement. Identifying disposal requirements. Certain wastes must be disposed at licensed radioactive waste disposal facilities. Wastes containing US EPA regulated hazardous waste must be disposed at permitted hazardous waste disposal facilities. Certain wastes must be disposed at facilities licensed/permitted for both radioactive and hazardous waste. Some lower activity wastes may be accepted for disposal at other types of landfills. Considering acceptance criteria of the disposal facility. Radionuclides and/or hazardous constituents in the waste, as well as physical and chemical form of the waste, are evaluated to ensure they meet the acceptance criteria of the receiving facility's license and/or permit. If they don't, another disposal location must be used. Considering the accessibility and location of the disposal facility. Some facilities are able to accept shipments only by truck and others can accept material via railcar as well. The distance to a disposal facility impacts the risk of transportation accidents and efficient use of project resources such as the number of trucks required to perform the transportation. These factors are also important in evaluating whether material can be cost effectively shipped to a disposal facility. Evaluating the compliance status of the receiving facility. It is not assumed that just because a facility has a license or permit that it is acceptable for the USACE' waste. Prior to selecting a facility for disposal of FUSRAP waste, a site visit, audit and consultation with the US EPA is required to determine whether there are any known relevant violations at the facility. Facilities that have violations that negatively impact the USACE or US EPA approval of the facility are not used for disposal of FUSRAP waste. Once a facility is selected. The USACE procures contracts, or utilizes existing contracts, to facilitate the transportation and disposal action. Additionally, the USACE continues to consult with US EPA routinely to confirm the compliance status of the facility. Considering state acceptance of wastes to a facility. The USACE seeks to obtain written authorization from the facility state regulator indicating the action is compliant with existing licenses, permits, laws, and regulations. Each of these factors is considered by the USACE in selecting a FUSRAP disposal location. The goal is to provide safe, cost effective disposal which is protective of human health and the environment and which complies with all regulatory requirements. These steps all feed in to the disposal strategy consideration that USACE must go through for our FUSRAP waste streams. There are a number of challenges in the process to include In order to achieve the Congressional mandate of completing cleanup work under FUSRAP in a more cost effective, timely manner, while assuring protection of public health and safety. USACE must determine all disposal options that are available for the types of waste at each FUSRAP site. As a solution, completion of a disposal strategy document can help ensure this goal is met and will foster consistency across the FUSRAP. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

SU-E-T-568: Neutron Dose Survey of a Compact Single Room Proton Machine

Purpose: To ensure acceptable radiation limits are maintained for those working at and near the machine during its operation, a comprehensive radiation survey was performed prior to the clinical release of Mevion S250 compact proton machine at Stephenson Oklahoma Cancer Center. Methods: The Mevion S250 proton therapy system consists of the following: a superconducting cyclotron to accelerate the proton particles, a passive double scattering system for beam shaping, and paired orthogonal x-ray imaging systems for patient setup and verification via a 6D robotic couch. All equipment is housed within a single vault of compact design. Two beam delivery applicators are available for patient treatment, offering field sizes of as great as 14 cm and 25 cm in diameter, respectively. Typical clinical dose rates are between 1 and 2 Gy/min with a fixed beam energy of 250 MeV. The large applicator (25 cm in diameter) was used in conjunction with a custom cut brass aperture to create a 20 cm x 20 cm field size at beam isocenter. A 30 cm − 30 cm − 35 cm high density plastic phantom was placed in the beam path to mimic the conditions creating patient scatter. Measurements integrated-ambient-neutron-dose-equivalence were made with a SWENDII detector. Gantry angles of 0, 90 and 180 degrees, with a maximum dose rate of 150 MU/min (for large applicator) and beam configuration of option 1 (range 25 cm and 20 cm modulation), were selected as testing conditions. At each point of interest, the highest reading was recorded at 30 cm from the barrier surface. Results: The highest neutron dose was estimated to be 0.085 mSv/year at the console area. Conclusion: All controlled areas are under 5 mSv/year and the uncontrolled areas are under 1 mSv/year. The radiation protection provided by the proton vault is of sufficient quality.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

A Technical basis for in-house calibration of 252 Cf neutron source emission rates

10CFR835 stipulates that radiation protection instruments must be calibrated at least annually. Accordingly, calibration of dose rate instruments are reliant on well-known reference fields. The neutron-free-in-air facility (NFIA) located at TA36-0214 provides such a capability for neutron remmeters. One of the reference NFIA sources, 252 Cf, must be replaced every 8-10 years due to its relatively short half-life (2.645 ± 0.008 y). In the past, each newly purchased 252 Cf source has been calibrated at NIST using the Mn-bath technique prior to shipping to LANL. However, because of COVID-19 complications, the most recently acquired 252 Cf source (FTC-CF-7167) has been stored at LANL pending approval to ship to NIST for calibration. Due to the considerable expense in transporting the source to and from NIST, this TBD was written to demonstrate that new sources can be accurately calibrated via intercomparison measurements with older NIST-calibrated 252 Cf sources. It had been previously noted that such measurements yielded emission rates that agreed very well with the official rates established by NIST

252cf↗

Shielding and Activation Analyses for Beam Test Facility at SNS

The beam test facility (BTF) will be a copy of the accelerator front end of the Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) facility and will be used for test and development of new front-end equipment, for conducting research in accelerator physics (in a further build-out) for the SNS second target station moderator development (tests). The BTF is assembled and will be operating in the radio frequency (RF) on-site annex building. Negatively charged hydrogen ions (H{sup -}), generated at the ion source, will be accelerated to 2.5 MeV. The facility is capable of producing one-ms-long pulses at 60 Hz repetition rate with up to 50 mA peak current. This beam will be safely terminated in the beam stop. In order to support the BTF project from a radiation protection point of view, neutronics simulations and activation analyses were performed to develop shielding around the beam stop, evaluate dose rates in case of an accident and to evaluate the radionuclide inventory at the facility end-of-life for decommissioning. The challenge of the analyses was to consider low energy charges particles reaction physics to fit the calculations into our routine transport and activation methods as practiced for the much higher energy spallation environment. (authors)

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗

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↗

WE-H-204-00: History Committee Symposium

“William D. Coolidge, Inventor of the Modern X-ray Tube” David J. Allard, M.S., CHP - Director, PA DEP Bureau of Radiation Protection William David Coolidge 1873–1975 was a research scientist and inventor of the modern X-ray tube. Besides Roentgen, with his 1895 discovery and subsequent studies of X-rays, perhaps no other individual contributed more to the advancement of X-ray technology than did Coolidge. He was born in Hudson, MA and received his Bachelor of Science degree from MIT in 1896. That same year he went to Europe to study under renowned physicists of the time. Coolidge received his Ph.D. summa cum laude from the University of Leipzig in 1899 and soon after joined the staff of MIT. While studying at Leipzig, he met Roentgen. In 1905 he was asked to join the newly established General Electric Research Laboratory in Schenectady, NY. He promptly began fundamental work on the production of ductile tungsten filaments as a replacement for fragile carbon filaments used in incandescent light bulbs. This improved light bulb was brought to market by GE in 1911. It was subsequent application of his tungsten work that led Coolidge to his studies in X ray production. Circa 1910, the state-of-the-art X-ray tube was a “gas tube” or “cold cathode” type tube. These crude X-ray tubes relied on residual gas molecules as a source of electrons for bombardment of low to medium atomic number metal targets. In 1912 Coolidge described the use of tungsten as an improved anode target material for X-ray tubes. Shortly after in 1913 he published a paper in Physical Review describing “A Powerful Roentgen Ray Tube With a Pure Electron Discharge.” This tube used a tungsten filament as a thermionic source of electrons under high vacuum to bombard a tungsten anode target. Great improvements in X-ray tube stability, output and performance were obtained with the “hot cathode” or “Coolidge tube.” With some variation in filament and target geometry, this 100 year old invention is the same basic X-ray tube used today in medicine, research and industry. In 1932 Coolidge became Director of the GE Laboratory, then in 1940 Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1941 he was a member of a small committee, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to evaluate the military importance of research on uranium. This committee’s report led to the establishment of the Manhattan Engineering District for nuclear weapons development during WWII. Coolidge lived to be over 100 years old, he had 83 patents to his credit, numerous awards and honorary degrees, and in 1975 was elected to the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. At the time he was the only inventor to receive this honor in his lifetime. Dr. Coolidge was also the first recipient of the AAPM’s highest science award - named in his honor. From notes of a day-long interview with Coolidge’s son Lawrence in the mid-1990s, previous biographies, publications, books, GE literature, historic photographs, e.g., a wonderful 1874 photo stereoview card with 1 year old baby “Willie Coolidge”, and other artifacts in the author’s collection, this presentation will review Dr. Coolidge’s amazing life, work, accomplishments and awards. “History and Archives Resources at AIP for AAPM and its Members” Gregory A. Good, Ph.D. - Director, AIP Center for History of Physics Melanie J. Mueller, MLIS - Acting Director, AIP Niels Bohr Library & Archives The American Institute of Physics established the Center for History of Physics and the Niels Bohr Library & Archives in the 1960s. Our shared mission is: To preserve and make known the history of the physical sciences. This talk will explore the many ways that AIP’s two history programs support the historical and archival activities of AAPM. Topics will include our ongoing oral history program, web outreach through exhibits and teaching guides, and archiving for AAPM and other Member Societies. We will focus in particular on materials in our collections related to the history of medical physics and to the history of AAPM. We will unveil and demonstrate a new “Archives Portal” that we are designing specifically to be useful to AAPM and its members. Learning Objectives: Study the background of the medical physicist - William David Coolidge Examine the time-line for his success Review the publications conceptualizing his works and progressions Realize what he invented Evaluate the importance of the invention Relate the success to national prominence Uncover how he influenced medical physicists today Find out how he was celebrated by the AAPM View the AIP established Center for History of Physics Consider the significant efforts and vision to preserve the history of medical physics Learn about the Niels Bohr Library & Archives Look back in time at medical physics in the 1960s Unveil and demonstrate a new “Archives Portal” that will be useful to AAPM.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

WE-H-204-01: William D. Coolidge, Inventor of the Modern X-Ray Tube

“William D. Coolidge, Inventor of the Modern X-ray Tube” David J. Allard, M.S., CHP - Director, PA DEP Bureau of Radiation Protection William David Coolidge 1873–1975 was a research scientist and inventor of the modern X-ray tube. Besides Roentgen, with his 1895 discovery and subsequent studies of X-rays, perhaps no other individual contributed more to the advancement of X-ray technology than did Coolidge. He was born in Hudson, MA and received his Bachelor of Science degree from MIT in 1896. That same year he went to Europe to study under renowned physicists of the time. Coolidge received his Ph.D. summa cum laude from the University of Leipzig in 1899 and soon after joined the staff of MIT. While studying at Leipzig, he met Roentgen. In 1905 he was asked to join the newly established General Electric Research Laboratory in Schenectady, NY. He promptly began fundamental work on the production of ductile tungsten filaments as a replacement for fragile carbon filaments used in incandescent light bulbs. This improved light bulb was brought to market by GE in 1911. It was subsequent application of his tungsten work that led Coolidge to his studies in X ray production. Circa 1910, the state-of-the-art X-ray tube was a “gas tube” or “cold cathode” type tube. These crude X-ray tubes relied on residual gas molecules as a source of electrons for bombardment of low to medium atomic number metal targets. In 1912 Coolidge described the use of tungsten as an improved anode target material for X-ray tubes. Shortly after in 1913 he published a paper in Physical Review describing “A Powerful Roentgen Ray Tube With a Pure Electron Discharge.” This tube used a tungsten filament as a thermionic source of electrons under high vacuum to bombard a tungsten anode target. Great improvements in X-ray tube stability, output and performance were obtained with the “hot cathode” or “Coolidge tube.” With some variation in filament and target geometry, this 100 year old invention is the same basic X-ray tube used today in medicine, research and industry. In 1932 Coolidge became Director of the GE Laboratory, then in 1940 Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1941 he was a member of a small committee, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to evaluate the military importance of research on uranium. This committee’s report led to the establishment of the Manhattan Engineering District for nuclear weapons development during WWII. Coolidge lived to be over 100 years old, he had 83 patents to his credit, numerous awards and honorary degrees, and in 1975 was elected to the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. At the time he was the only inventor to receive this honor in his lifetime. Dr. Coolidge was also the first recipient of the AAPM’s highest science award - named in his honor. From notes of a day-long interview with Coolidge’s son Lawrence in the mid-1990s, previous biographies, publications, books, GE literature, historic photographs, e.g., a wonderful 1874 photo stereoview card with 1 year old baby “Willie Coolidge”, and other artifacts in the author’s collection, this presentation will review Dr. Coolidge’s amazing life, work, accomplishments and awards. “History and Archives Resources at AIP for AAPM and its Members” Gregory A. Good, Ph.D. - Director, AIP Center for History of Physics Melanie J. Mueller, MLIS - Acting Director, AIP Niels Bohr Library & Archives The American Institute of Physics established the Center for History of Physics and the Niels Bohr Library & Archives in the 1960s. Our shared mission is: To preserve and make known the history of the physical sciences. This talk will explore the many ways that AIP’s two history programs support the historical and archival activities of AAPM. Topics will include our ongoing oral history program, web outreach through exhibits and teaching guides, and archiving for AAPM and other Member Societies. We will focus in particular on materials in our collections related to the history of medical physics and to the history of AAPM. We will unveil and demonstrate a new “Archives Portal” that we are designing specifically to be useful to AAPM and its members. Learning Objectives: Study the background of the medical physicist - William David Coolidge Examine the time-line for his success Review the publications conceptualizing his works and progressions Realize what he invented Evaluate the importance of the invention Relate the success to national prominence Uncover how he influenced medical physicists today Find out how he was celebrated by the AAPM View the AIP established Center for History of Physics Consider the significant efforts and vision to preserve the history of medical physics Learn about the Niels Bohr Library & Archives Look back in time at medical physics in the 1960s Unveil and demonstrate a new “Archives Portal” that will be useful to AAPM.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

SU-D-209-06: Study On the Dose Conversion Coefficients in Pediatric Radiography with the Development of Children Voxel Phantoms

Purpose: Conversion coefficients of organ dose normalized to entrance skin dose (ESD) are widely used to evaluate the organ doses directly using ESD without time-consuming dose measurement, this work aims to investigate the dose conversion coefficients in pediatric chest and abdomen radiography with the development of 5 years and 10 years old children voxel phantoms. Methods: After segmentation of organs and tissues from CT slice images of ATOM tissue-equivalent phantoms, a 5-year-old and a 10-year-old children computational voxel phantoms were developed for Monte Carlo simulation. The organ doses and the entrance skin dose for pediatric chest postero-anterior projection and abdominal antero-posterior projection were simulated at the same time, and then the organ dose conversion coefficients were calculated.To verify the simulated results, dose measurement was carried out with ATOM tissue-equivalent phantoms for 5 year chest radiography. Results: Simulated results and experimental results matched very well with each other, the result differences of all the organs covered in radiation field were below 16% for 5-year-old child in chest projection. I showed that the conversion coefficients of organs covered in the radiation field were much larger than organs out of the field for all the study cases, for example, the conversion coefficients of stomach, liver intestines, and pancreas are larger for abdomen radiography while conversion coefficients of lungs are larger for chest radiography. Conclusion: The voxel children phantoms were helpful to evaluate the radiation doses more accurately and efficiently. Radiation field was the essential factor that affects the organ dose, use reasonably small field should be encouraged for radiation protection. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(11475047)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

WE-H-204-02: Part 1: History and Archives Resources at AIP for AAPM and Its Members

“William D. Coolidge, Inventor of the Modern X-ray Tube” David J. Allard, M.S., CHP - Director, PA DEP Bureau of Radiation Protection William David Coolidge 1873–1975 was a research scientist and inventor of the modern X-ray tube. Besides Roentgen, with his 1895 discovery and subsequent studies of X-rays, perhaps no other individual contributed more to the advancement of X-ray technology than did Coolidge. He was born in Hudson, MA and received his Bachelor of Science degree from MIT in 1896. That same year he went to Europe to study under renowned physicists of the time. Coolidge received his Ph.D. summa cum laude from the University of Leipzig in 1899 and soon after joined the staff of MIT. While studying at Leipzig, he met Roentgen. In 1905 he was asked to join the newly established General Electric Research Laboratory in Schenectady, NY. He promptly began fundamental work on the production of ductile tungsten filaments as a replacement for fragile carbon filaments used in incandescent light bulbs. This improved light bulb was brought to market by GE in 1911. It was subsequent application of his tungsten work that led Coolidge to his studies in X ray production. Circa 1910, the state-of-the-art X-ray tube was a “gas tube” or “cold cathode” type tube. These crude X-ray tubes relied on residual gas molecules as a source of electrons for bombardment of low to medium atomic number metal targets. In 1912 Coolidge described the use of tungsten as an improved anode target material for X-ray tubes. Shortly after in 1913 he published a paper in Physical Review describing “A Powerful Roentgen Ray Tube With a Pure Electron Discharge.” This tube used a tungsten filament as a thermionic source of electrons under high vacuum to bombard a tungsten anode target. Great improvements in X-ray tube stability, output and performance were obtained with the “hot cathode” or “Coolidge tube.” With some variation in filament and target geometry, this 100 year old invention is the same basic X-ray tube used today in medicine, research and industry. In 1932 Coolidge became Director of the GE Laboratory, then in 1940 Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1941 he was a member of a small committee, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to evaluate the military importance of research on uranium. This committee’s report led to the establishment of the Manhattan Engineering District for nuclear weapons development during WWII. Coolidge lived to be over 100 years old, he had 83 patents to his credit, numerous awards and honorary degrees, and in 1975 was elected to the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. At the time he was the only inventor to receive this honor in his lifetime. Dr. Coolidge was also the first recipient of the AAPM’s highest science award - named in his honor. From notes of a day-long interview with Coolidge’s son Lawrence in the mid-1990s, previous biographies, publications, books, GE literature, historic photographs, e.g., a wonderful 1874 photo stereoview card with 1 year old baby “Willie Coolidge”, and other artifacts in the author’s collection, this presentation will review Dr. Coolidge’s amazing life, work, accomplishments and awards. “History and Archives Resources at AIP for AAPM and its Members” Gregory A. Good, Ph.D. - Director, AIP Center for History of Physics Melanie J. Mueller, MLIS - Acting Director, AIP Niels Bohr Library & Archives The American Institute of Physics established the Center for History of Physics and the Niels Bohr Library & Archives in the 1960s. Our shared mission is: To preserve and make known the history of the physical sciences. This talk will explore the many ways that AIP’s two history programs support the historical and archival activities of AAPM. Topics will include our ongoing oral history program, web outreach through exhibits and teaching guides, and archiving for AAPM and other Member Societies. We will focus in particular on materials in our collections related to the history of medical physics and to the history of AAPM. We will unveil and demonstrate a new “Archives Portal” that we are designing specifically to be useful to AAPM and its members. Learning Objectives: Study the background of the medical physicist - William David Coolidge Examine the time-line for his success Review the publications conceptualizing his works and progressions Realize what he invented Evaluate the importance of the invention Relate the success to national prominence Uncover how he influenced medical physicists today Find out how he was celebrated by the AAPM View the AIP established Center for History of Physics Consider the significant efforts and vision to preserve the history of medical physics Learn about the Niels Bohr Library & Archives Look back in time at medical physics in the 1960s Unveil and demonstrate a new “Archives Portal” that will be useful to AAPM.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

WE-H-204-03: Part 2: History and Archives Resources at AIP for AAPM and Its Members

“William D. Coolidge, Inventor of the Modern X-ray Tube” David J. Allard, M.S., CHP - Director, PA DEP Bureau of Radiation Protection William David Coolidge 1873–1975 was a research scientist and inventor of the modern X-ray tube. Besides Roentgen, with his 1895 discovery and subsequent studies of X-rays, perhaps no other individual contributed more to the advancement of X-ray technology than did Coolidge. He was born in Hudson, MA and received his Bachelor of Science degree from MIT in 1896. That same year he went to Europe to study under renowned physicists of the time. Coolidge received his Ph.D. summa cum laude from the University of Leipzig in 1899 and soon after joined the staff of MIT. While studying at Leipzig, he met Roentgen. In 1905 he was asked to join the newly established General Electric Research Laboratory in Schenectady, NY. He promptly began fundamental work on the production of ductile tungsten filaments as a replacement for fragile carbon filaments used in incandescent light bulbs. This improved light bulb was brought to market by GE in 1911. It was subsequent application of his tungsten work that led Coolidge to his studies in X ray production. Circa 1910, the state-of-the-art X-ray tube was a “gas tube” or “cold cathode” type tube. These crude X-ray tubes relied on residual gas molecules as a source of electrons for bombardment of low to medium atomic number metal targets. In 1912 Coolidge described the use of tungsten as an improved anode target material for X-ray tubes. Shortly after in 1913 he published a paper in Physical Review describing “A Powerful Roentgen Ray Tube With a Pure Electron Discharge.” This tube used a tungsten filament as a thermionic source of electrons under high vacuum to bombard a tungsten anode target. Great improvements in X-ray tube stability, output and performance were obtained with the “hot cathode” or “Coolidge tube.” With some variation in filament and target geometry, this 100 year old invention is the same basic X-ray tube used today in medicine, research and industry. In 1932 Coolidge became Director of the GE Laboratory, then in 1940 Vice-President and Director of Research. In 1941 he was a member of a small committee, appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to evaluate the military importance of research on uranium. This committee’s report led to the establishment of the Manhattan Engineering District for nuclear weapons development during WWII. Coolidge lived to be over 100 years old, he had 83 patents to his credit, numerous awards and honorary degrees, and in 1975 was elected to the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame. At the time he was the only inventor to receive this honor in his lifetime. Dr. Coolidge was also the first recipient of the AAPM’s highest science award - named in his honor. From notes of a day-long interview with Coolidge’s son Lawrence in the mid-1990s, previous biographies, publications, books, GE literature, historic photographs, e.g., a wonderful 1874 photo stereoview card with 1 year old baby “Willie Coolidge”, and other artifacts in the author’s collection, this presentation will review Dr. Coolidge’s amazing life, work, accomplishments and awards. “History and Archives Resources at AIP for AAPM and its Members” Gregory A. Good, Ph.D. - Director, AIP Center for History of Physics Melanie J. Mueller, MLIS - Acting Director, AIP Niels Bohr Library & Archives The American Institute of Physics established the Center for History of Physics and the Niels Bohr Library & Archives in the 1960s. Our shared mission is: To preserve and make known the history of the physical sciences. This talk will explore the many ways that AIP’s two history programs support the historical and archival activities of AAPM. Topics will include our ongoing oral history program, web outreach through exhibits and teaching guides, and archiving for AAPM and other Member Societies. We will focus in particular on materials in our collections related to the history of medical physics and to the history of AAPM. We will unveil and demonstrate a new “Archives Portal” that we are designing specifically to be useful to AAPM and its members. Learning Objectives: Study the background of the medical physicist - William David Coolidge Examine the time-line for his success Review the publications conceptualizing his works and progressions Realize what he invented Evaluate the importance of the invention Relate the success to national prominence Uncover how he influenced medical physicists today Find out how he was celebrated by the AAPM View the AIP established Center for History of Physics Consider the significant efforts and vision to preserve the history of medical physics Learn about the Niels Bohr Library & Archives Look back in time at medical physics in the 1960s Unveil and demonstrate a new “Archives Portal” that will be useful to AAPM.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

Define and Quantify the Physics of Air Flow, Pressure Drop and Aerosol Collection in Nuclear Grade HEPA Filters

Objective: Develop a set of peer-review and verified analytical methods to adjust HEPA filter performance to different flow rates, temperatures and altitudes. Experimental testing will measure HEPA filter flow rate, pressure drop and efficiency to verify the analytical approach. Nuclear facilities utilize HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) filters to purify air flow for workspace ventilation. However, the ASME AG-1 technical standard (Code on Nuclear Air and Gas Treatment) does not adequately describe air flow measurement units for HEPA filter systems. Specifically, the AG-1 standard does not differentiate between volumetric air flow in ACFM (actual cubic feet per minute)compared to mass flow measured in SCFM (standard cubic feet per minute). More importantly, the AG-1 standard has an overall deficiency for using HEPA filter devices at different air flow rates, temperatures, and altitudes. Technical Approach: The collection efficiency and pressure drops of 18 different HEPA filters will be measured over a range of flow rates, temperatures and altitudes. The experimental results will be compared to analytical scoping calculations. Three manufacturers have allocated six HEPA filters each for this effort. The 18 filters will be tested at two different flow rates, two different temperatures and two different altitudes. The 36 total tests will be conducted at two different facilities: the ATI Test facilities (Baltimore MD) and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos NM). The Radiation Protection RP-SVS group at Los Alamos has an aerosol wind tunnel that was originally designed to evaluate small air samplers. In 2010, modifications were started to convert the wind tunnel for HEPA filter testing. (Extensive changes were necessary for the required aerosol generators, HEPA test fixtures, temperature control devices and measurement capabilities.) To this date, none of these modification activities have been funded through a specific DOE or NNSA program. This is expected to require six months of time, after receipt of funding. Benefits: US DOE facilities that use HEPA filters will benefit from access to the new operational measurement methods. Uncertainty and guesswork will be removed from HEPA filter operations.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Potential improvements in brain dose estimates for internal emitters

Background: Element-specific biokinetic models are used to reconstruct doses to systemic tissues from internal emitters. Typically, a systemic model for a radionuclide explicitly depicts only its dominant repositories. Remaining tissues and fluids are aggregated into a pool called Other tissue in which the radionuclide is assumed to be uniformly distributed. In the systemic biokinetic models used in radiation protection, the brain usually is addressed as an implicit mass fraction of Other tissue rather than an explicitly depicted repository. Additionally, due to increasing interest in radiation effects on the brain, efforts are underway to improve brain dosimetry for internal radiation sources. Methods: We assessed potential improvements in brain dosimetry for internal emitters by explicitly modelling brain kinetics rather than treating the brain as a mass fraction of Other tissue. We selected ten elements for which brain kinetics can be modeled using published biokinetic data. Injection dose coefficients were calculated for a relatively long-lived radioisotope of each element using each of two versions of the ICRP’s latest systemic biokinetic model for each element, the original version and a modified version differing only in the treatment of brain. If the ICRP model contained an explicit brain pool, the modified version depicted brain instead as a mass fraction of Other tissue. If the ICRP model included brain in Other tissue, the modified version included an explicit brain pool with kinetics based on best available brain-specific data.Results: The result for a given radionuclide is expressed as a ratio A:B, where A and B are the dose coefficients based on the versions of the model with and without an explicit brain pool, respectively. The following ratios A:B were obtained for the 10 radionuclides addressed here: 241 Am, 0.13; 207 Bi, 0.57; 234 U, 0.81; 239 Pu, 0.96; 203 Hg (vapor), 1.4; 134 Cs, 1.5; 54 Mn, 1.7; 210 Po, 1.7; 226 Ra, 1.9; 210 Pb, 3.3. These ratios indicate that a dose estimate for brain based on a biokinetic model with brain implicitly contained in Other tissue may substantially underestimate or substantially overestimate a dose estimate that reflects best available brain-specific biokinetic data. Of course, the reliability of the latter estimate depends on the quality of the underlying biokinetic data.Conclusions: Finally, where feasible, the brain should be depicted explicitly in biokinetic models used in epidemiological studies addressing adverse effects of ionizing radiation.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗