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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 397 records · Page 22

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2019

MARSAME Radiological Release Report for Metal Items from TA 53- Set 15

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2019

MARSAME Radiological Release Report for Metal Items from TA 53- Set 16

EPC-ES has evaluated the survey results for metal items from the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) and found that the metal items described in Table 1 of this report (identified by RP Tracking Numbers) meet the criteria for unrestricted release under DOE Order 458.1 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment and can be recycled. This conclusion is based on the known history of the metal items and on radiation survey data (see the completed RP-Form-036 LANSCE Metals Clearance Log for each item). None of the items in this report are located within radiological areas. Therefore, the items are considered unencumbered and are not subject to the moratorium suspension on metal recycling from Department of Energy facilities. Additionally, LANL has determined that there is no practical opportunity for internal DOE reuse or recycling of this metal. Process knowledge indicates that these metal items were unlikely to ever be in direct contact with the beam and thus are unlikely to have become activated. Surface contamination measurements (both total and removable) showed either no detectable radioactivity or activity levels within the range of background. All measurements for volumetric contamination were indistinguishable from background based on calculated decision limits. Additionally, all gamma isotopic surveys conducted for defense in depth showed no identifiable gamma radiation from beam activation.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

MARSAME Radiological Release Report for Metal Items from TA 53, Set 18

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

MARSAME Radiological Release Report for Metal Items from TA 53, Set 19

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Poster - 28: Shielding of X-ray Rooms in Ontario in the Absence of Best Practice

This poster will be strictly based on the Healing Arts Radiation Protection (HARP) Act, Regulation 543 under this Act (X-ray Safety Code), and personal communication the presenting author has had. In Ontario, the process of approval of an X-ray machine installation by the Director of the X-ray Inspection Service (XRIS) follows a certain protocol. Initially, the applicant submits a series of forms, including recommended shielding amounts, in order to satisfy the law. This documentation is then transferred to a third-party vendor (i.e. a professional engineer – P.Eng.) outsourced by the Ministry of Health and Long-term Care (MOHLTC). The P.Eng. then evaluates the submitted documentation for appropriate fulfillment of the HARP Act and Reg. 543 requirements. If the P.Eng.’s evaluation of the documentation is to their satisfaction, the XRIS is then notified. Finally, the Director will then issue a letter of approval to install the equipment at the facility. The methodology required to be used by the P.Eng. in order to determine the required amounts of protective barriers, and recommended to be used by the applicant, is contained within Safety Code 20A. However, Safety Code 35 has replaced the obsolete Safety Code 20A document and employs best practices in shielding design. This talk will focus further on specific intentions and limitations of Safety Code 20A. Furthermore, this talk will discuss the definition of the “practice of professional engineering” in Ontario. COMP members who are involved in shielding design are strongly encouraged to attend.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Report 2015

The purposes of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Report 2015 are to record Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL’s) compliance with environmental standards and requirements, describe LLNL’s environmental protection and remediation programs, and present the results of environmental monitoring at the two LLNL sites—the Livermore Site and Site 300. The report is prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area. Submittal of the report satisfies requirements under DOE Order 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” and DOE Order 458.1, “Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment.”

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

MARSAME Radiological Release Report for Metal Items from TA 53, Set 20

EPC-ES has evaluated the survey results for metal items from the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE) and found that the metal items described in Table 1 of this report (identified by RP Tracking Numbers) meet the criteria for unrestricted release under DOE Order 458.1 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment (DOE 2020) and can be recycled. This conclusion is based on the known history of the metal items and on radiation survey data (see the completed RP-Form-031 LANSCE Metals Clearance Log for each item). None of the items in this report are located within radiological areas. Therefore, the items are considered unencumbered and are not subject to the moratorium suspension on metal recycling from Department of Energy facilities. Additionally, LANL has determined that there is no practical opportunity for internal DOE reuse or recycling of this metal. Process knowledge indicates that these metal items were unlikely to ever be in direct contact with the beam and thus are unlikely to have become activated. Surface contamination measurements (both total and removable) showed either no detectable radioactivity or activity levels within the range of background. All measurements for volumetric contamination were indistinguishable from background based on calculated decision limits. Additionally, all gamma isotopic surveys conducted for defense-in-depth showed no identifiable gamma radiation from beam activation.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

High and low energy gamma beam dump designs for the gamma beam delivery system at ELI-NP

The Extreme Light Infrastructure - Nuclear Physics (ELI-NP) is under construction in Magurele, Bucharest, Romania. The facility will use two 10 PW lasers and a high intensity, narrow bandwidth gamma beam for stand-alone and combined laser-gamma experiments. The accurate estimation of particle doses and their restriction within the limits for both personel and general public is very important in the design phase of any nuclear facility. In the present work, Monte Carlo simulations are performed using FLUKA and MCNPX to design 19.4 and 4 MeV gamma beam dumps along with shielding of experimental areas. Dose rate contour plots from both FLUKA and MCNPX along with numerical values of doses in experimental area E8 of the facility are performed. The calculated doses are within the permissible limits. Furthermore, a reasonable agreement between both codes enhances our confidence in using one or both of them for future calculations in beam dump designs, radiation shielding, radioactive inventory, and other calculations releated to radiation protection. Residual dose rates and residual activity calculations are also performed for high-energy beam dump and their effect is negligible in comparison to contributions from prompt radiation.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗

DOE OSTI2025

2025 Review and Revision of Federal Guidance Report 15

Federal Guidance Report No. 15 (FGR 15), External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water and Soil, published in 2019 and referred to below as FGR 2019, provides age-specific effective dose rate coefficients for reference persons externally exposed to each of 1252 radionuclides homogenously distributed in environmental media. Soon after completion of FGR 2019, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) published a similar report (ICRP Publication 144, 2020) addressing the same radionuclides and many of the external exposure scenarios addressed in FGR 2019. In 2023 Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) published a review of dose coefficients in FGR 2019, concluding that “The external effective dose from beta radiation is not appropriately accounted for in FGR 15 for both low- and high-energy beta emitters in air, in soil, and on soil surfaces.” That conclusion was based largely on comparisons of dose coefficients in FGR 2019 with values in ICRP Publication 144 but also on consideration of some unexpected patterns of equivalent dose rate coefficients across tissues and of effective dose rate coefficients across different soil depths, for a selected set of low-energy beta emitters. In response to the ANL report, the Center for Radiation Protection Knowledge (CRPK) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) performed an extensive reexamination of the methods and published values of FGR 2019. CRPK found that coding errors had resulted in inaccurate estimates, primarily overestimates, in many of the dose coefficients tabulated in FGR 2019 but that many of the differences between results in FGR 2019 and ICRP Publication 144 could be traced to differences in methodology. CRPK has corrected all errors in FGR 2019 associated with the coding errors and has taken the opportunity to improve a major portion of the remaining dose coefficients in FGR 2019, primarily through additional Monte Carlo calculations resulting in improved statistics for tissue equivalent dose rate coefficients for exposure to monoenergetic sources. This has eliminated the need for extrapolation of results from high and medium energies to low energies, as was done in FGR 2019. In addition, inconsistencies in the methodology identified in the review, such as computational representation of the adult female, were eliminated. The revised effective dose rate coefficients are consistent with values in ICRP Publication 144 except for differences in values clearly arising from differences in methodology; and differences in values for a relatively small set of very low-energy radionuclides with highly uncertain dose coefficients regardless of methodology.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2002

Nuclear model calculations and their role in space radiation research

Proper assessments of spacecraft shielding requirements and concomitant estimates of risk to spacecraft crews from energetic space radiation requires accurate, quantitative methods of characterizing the compositional changes in these radiation fields as they pass through thick absorbers. These quantitative methods are also needed for characterizing accelerator beams used in space radiobiology studies. Because of the impracticality/impossibility of measuring these altered radiation fields inside critical internal body organs of biological test specimens and humans, computational methods rather than direct measurements must be used. Since composition changes in the fields arise from nuclear interaction processes (elastic, inelastic and breakup), knowledge of the appropriate cross sections and spectra must be available. Experiments alone cannot provide the necessary cross section and secondary particle (neutron and charged particle) spectral data because of the large number of nuclear species and wide range of energies involved in space radiation research. Hence, nuclear models are needed. In this paper current methods of predicting total and absorption cross sections and secondary particle (neutrons and ions) yields and spectra for space radiation protection analyses are reviewed. Model shortcomings are discussed and future needs presented. c2002 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All right reserved.

NASA Center JSC↗

DOE OSTI2017

RCT: Module 2.11, Radiological Work Coverage, Course 8777

Radiological work is usually approved and controlled by radiation protection personnel by using administrative and procedural controls, such as radiological work permits (RWPs). In addition, some jobs will require working in, or will have the potential for creating, very high radiation, contamination, or airborne radioactivity areas. Radiological control technicians (RCTs) providing job coverage have an integral role in controlling radiological hazards. This course will prepare the student with the skills necessary for RCT qualification by passing quizzes, tests, and the RCT Comprehensive Phase 1, Unit 2 Examination (TEST 27566) and will provide in-the-field skills.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2020

Problems of Nuclear Technology and Radiation Safety

This work discusses ethical issues arising in the course of the development of nuclear technologies and related issues of radiation safety. Attention is paid to ethical dilemmas and proposed solutions. The author suggests a critical analysis of the relevant discussions, conducted, first of all, in the English-language literature, and muses on the specifics associated with their transfer to the Russian context. This study considers ethical problems arising in context of the depletion of uranium resources and nuclear waste management and including the inevitable risks for the present and future generations, such as inter- and intragenerational justice (Gardiner's problem) and the problem of the identity of future generations (Parfit’s problem); problems of collectivity and individuality in the assessment of permissible radiation doses for workers at nuclear enterprises and the population associated with the need to combine deontological and utilitarian approaches in the practice of radiation protection. The author demonstrates cultural differences in attitudes towards the safety of the current and future generations of the population of countries and regions and the associated ambiguities in the choice of technology for nuclear reactors, long-term disposal or processing of nuclear waste; double standards in ensuring the radiation safety of personnel of nuclear facilities and the population; ethical problems of risk compensation to workers of radiation-hazardous production facilities; issues of gender differences in sensitivity to radiation exposure, gender equality and discrimination in relation to access to the labor market in the nuclear industry. The article elucidates the importance of socio-humanitarian discussion of the ethical problems of nuclear technologies and radiation safety Such debates currently are almost absent in the Russian-language philosophical literature, despite its exceptional importance due to both the level of development of nuclear energy in Russia and the potential risks that these technologies pose to current and future generations of both employees of nuclear facilities and the population of the country, neighboring countries, and the world. The purpose of this article, thus, is to initiate such a discussion.

ethics of science and technology↗

DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-P-08: Establishment of Local Diagnostic Reference Levels of Routine Abdomen Exam in Computed Tomography According to Body Weight

Purpose: The national diagnostic reference levels (NDRLs) is an efficient, concise and powerful standard for optimizing radiation protection of a patient. However, for each hospital the dose-reducing potential of focusing on establishment of local DRLs (LDRLs). A lot of study reported that Computed tomography exam contributed majority radiation dose in different medical modalities, therefore, routine abdomen CT exam was choose in initial pilot study in our study. Besides the mAs of routine abdomen CT exam was decided automatic exposure control by linear attenuation is relate to body shape of patient. In this study we would like to establish the local diagnostic reference levels of routine abdomen exam in computed tomography according to body weight of patient. Methods and Materials: There are two clinical CT scanners (a Toshiba Aquilion and a Siemens Sensation) were performed in this study. For CT examinations the basic recommended dosimetric quantity is the Computed Tomography Dose Index (CTDI). The patient sample involved 82 adult patients of both sexes and divided into three groups by their body weight (50–60 kg, 60–70 kg, 70–80 kg).Carried out the routine abdomen examinations, and all exposure parameters have been collected and the corresponding CTDIv and DLP values have been determined. The average values were compared with the European DRLs. Results: The majority of patients (75%) were between 50–70 Kg of body weight, the numbers of patient in each group of weight were 40–50:7; 50–60:29; 60–70:33; 70–80:13. The LDRLs in each group were 10.81mGy, 14.46mGy, 20.27mGy and 21.04mGy, respectively. The DLP were 477mGy, 630mGy, 887mGy and 959mGy, respectively. No matter which group the LDRLs were lower than European DRLs. Conclusions: We would like to state that this was a pioneer work in local hospital in Chiayi. We hope that this may lead the way to further developments in Taiwan.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

LLNL Results from CALIBAN-PROSPERO Nuclear Accident Dosimetry Experiments in September 2014

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) uses thin neutron activation foils, sulfur, and threshold energy shielding to determine neutron component doses and the total dose from neutrons in the event of a nuclear criticality accident. The dosimeter also uses a DOELAP accredited Panasonic UD-810 (Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America, 2 Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ 07102, U.S.A.) thermoluminescent dosimetery system (TLD) for determining the gamma component of the total dose. LLNL has participated in three international intercomparisons of nuclear accident dosimeters. In October 2009, LLNL participated in an exercise at the French Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission- CEA) Research Center at Valduc utilizing the SILENE reactor (Hickman, et.al. 2010). In September 2010, LLNL participated in a second intercomparison at CEA Valduc, this time with exposures at the CALIBAN reactor (Hickman et al. 2011). This paper discusses LLNL’s results of a third intercomparison hosted by the French Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety- IRSN) with exposures at two CEA Valduc reactors (CALIBAN and PROSPERO) in September 2014. Comparison results between the three participating facilities is presented elsewhere (Chevallier 2015; Duluc 2015).

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2023

Review of New or Modified Radioactive Air Emission Sources

This Environmental Protection and Compliance (EPC), Compliance Programs (CP) Quality Procedure (QP) describes the process for review and evaluation of new and modified sources of radioactive air emissions to determine the requirements for pre-construction approval, stack monitoring, stack sampling system upgrade, ambient air monitoring, and the implementation of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principles. These requirements are specified in 40 CFR 61 Subpart H and by DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

DOE OSTI2018

Marine Sciences Laboratory Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2017

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC) Pacific Northwest Site Office has oversight and stewardship duties associated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Marine Sciences Laboratory (MSL), located on Battelle Land-Sequim. The facility has two buildings with the potential to emit low levels of radioactive materials. This report is prepared to document compliance with the Code of Federal Regulation, 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. Compliance is indicated by comparing the estimated effective dose equivalent (EDE) to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) with the 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard. The MSL has only fugitive emissions sources. Despite the fact that the regulations are intended for application to point source emissions, fugitive emissions are included with regard to complying with the EPA standard. The EDE to the MSL MEI due to routine operations in 2017 was 1.6E-04 mrem (1.6E-06 mSv). No non-routine emissions occurred in 2017. The MSL is in compliance with the federal and state 10 mrem/yr standard.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗

DOE OSTI2019

Marine Sciences Laboratory Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2018

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC) Pacific Northwest Site Office has oversight and stewardship duties associated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Marine Sciences Laboratory (MSL), located on Battelle Land-Sequim. The facility has two buildings with the potential to emit low levels of radioactive materials. This report is prepared to document compliance with the Code of Federal Regulation, 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. Compliance is indicated by comparing the estimated effective dose equivalent (EDE) to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) with the 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard. The MSL has only fugitive emissions sources. Despite the fact that the regulations are intended for application to point source emissions, fugitive emissions are included with regard to complying with the EPA standard. The EDE to the MSL MEI due to routine operations in 2018 was 4.5E-04 mrem (4.5E-06 mSv). No non-routine emissions occurred in 2018. The MSL is in compliance with the federal and state 10 mrem/yr standard.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗

DOE OSTI2021

PNNL Sequim Campus Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2020

The U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC) Pacific Northwest Site Office has oversight and stewardship duties associated with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Sequim Campus. Some research projects have the potential to emit low levels of radioactive materials. This report is prepared to document compliance with the Code of Federal Regulation, 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." Compliance is indicated by comparing the estimated effective dose equivalent (EDE) to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) member of the public with the 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standard. The PNNL Sequim Campus has only fugitive emissions sources. Despite the fact that the regulations are intended for application to point source emissions, fugitive emissions are included with regard to complying with the EPA standard. The EDE to the Campus MEI due to routine operations in 2020 was 3.5E-05 mrem (3.5E-07 mSv). No non-routine emissions occurred in 2020. The Sequim Campus is in compliance with the federal and state 10 mrem/yr standard.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗