Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “RADIATION HAZARDS”

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 163 records · Page 9

Determination of aquatic hazard concentrations for the oil spill response product class of surface washing agents using species sensitivity distributions

Surface washing agents (SWAs) are a diverse class of oil spill response products intended to facilitate removal of stranded oil from shorelines. This class of agents has high application rates relative to other categories of spill response products, but global toxicity data is generally limited to two standard test species: inland silverside and mysid shrimp. Here, in this study, we provide a framework to maximize the utility of limited toxicity data across a product class. To characterize species sensitivity to SWAs, the toxicity of three agents spanning a range of chemical and physical properties were tested in eight species. The relative sensitivity of mysids shrimp and inland silversides as surrogate test organisms was determined. Toxicity normalized species sensitivity distributions (SSDn) were used to estimate fifth centile hazard concentration (HC5) values for SWAs with limited toxicity data. Chemical toxicity distributions (CTD) of SWA HC5 values were used to compute a fifth centile chemical hazard distribution (HD5) to provide a more comprehensive assessment of hazard across a spill response product class with limited toxicity data than traditional single species or single agent approaches can give.

63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗

Session 097A - Panel: Accomplishments and Update of the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge, TN (1/4) (R1.16a)

This panel was deferred until 2021. The session was designed to highlight and celebrate the accomplishment of Vision 2020 at US DoE's East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Vision 2020 is the overarching strategy and guidance that have formed the foundation of success in closing one of the largest cleanup site in the DOE Complex. The session was supposed to feature representatives from the DOE Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM) and its contractor, UCOR, in exploring the partnerships and performance excellence that have made the difference in achieving success. OREM's Vision 2020 is a collaboration with entities that have made a difference in its success: economic developers, workforce developers, the University of Tennessee, and community partners. The vigorous Oak Ridge small business contracting community has also been instrumental in helping achieve success. This session plans to celebrate the entire process, its numerous players, and the spirit of accomplishment as the Oak Ridge community comes to realize the promise of 30 years of continuous cleanup excellence. This session integrated with panel sessions 97B, 97C and 97D. Panelists with presentations: Beyond Cleanup: Achieving Risk Reduction through Partnerships and Performance Excellence (Kenneth Rueter); Strategic Approach to Achieve End States at the East Tennessee Technology Park (Jay Mullis)

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

INL Environmental Monitoring Plan (DOE/ID-11088 Rev. 5)

This plan provides a high-level summary of environmental monitoring performed by various organizations within and around the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site as required by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management, and DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, Guide DOE/EH-0173T, Environmental Regulatory Guide for Radiological Effluent Monitoring and Environmental Surveillance, and in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The purpose of these orders is to 1) implement sound stewardship practices that protect the air, water, land, and other natural and cultural resources that may be impacted by DOE operations, and 2) to establish standards and requirements for the operations of DOE and DOE contractors with respect to protection of the environment and members of the public against undue risk from radiation. This plan describes the organizations responsible for conducting environmental monitoring across the INL Site, the rationale for monitoring, the types of media being monitored, where the monitoring is conducted, and where monitoring results can be obtained. Detailed monitoring procedures, program plans, or other governing documents used by contractors or agencies to implement requirements are referenced in this plan. This plan covers all planned monitoring and environmental surveillance. Non-routine activities such as special research studies and characterization of individual sites for environmental restoration are outside the scope of this plan.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Million Worker Study

Radiation health issues have been an important aspect of DOE's Worker Safety and Health programs. The goal is to ensure that workers are adequately protected from the various radiological hazards associated with DOE sites and operations. Since the early 1940’s DOE has supported the conduct of epidemiologic studies of practically every DOE (AEC) facility and collected these data, now managed by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), in remarkable detail. In the early 2000s, the Office of Health, Safety and Security authorized access to specific DOE worker datasets. Shortly thereafter, the DOE Office of Science provided funds for a pilot study that confirmed the feasibility of the Million Worker Study (MWS), and then additional resources were provided (with other agencies) to extend the follow-up of many populations, not just DOE workers, but also atomic veterans, industrial radiographers, nuclear power plant workers and medical radiation workers (the Million Persons Study (MPS)). This proposal was a continuation of support provided by DOE, specifically to extend the follow-up of the worker populations at the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works (MCW) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The work addresses DOE’s interest in clarifying the health risks of their workers as well as contributing knowledge on radiation risks that is relevant today with regard to compensation schemes. The findings are also important for the US public in light of the increased population exposure to medical imaging, environmental circumstances such as hydraulic fracturing, increased exposures during high altitude flights, and with regard to nuclear accidents such as Fukushima and possible terrorist events. Furthermore, it is important to consider reducing the uncertainty in current risk estimates by developing risk coefficients based on healthy American workers who are more representative of U.S. workers and the general public than 1945 Japanese survivors of the atomic bombs living in a war-torn country which experienced deprivation, malnourishment, and increased rates of infections and other diseases. But more importantly, it is important to learn whether radiation exposures received gradually over time (e.g., years) are more or less effective in causing health effects, cancer in particular, than if the radiation dose is received all at once in a fraction of a second as experienced by the Japanese atomic bomb survivors. Finally, the ability to evaluate and combine large populations with intakes of radionuclides such as uranium, radium, plutonium, americium and polonium will provide new quantitative knowledge on human health effects that hitherto has not been possible. This cost-efficient study has built on the investments made and foundations laid by investigators and government agencies, including DOE, 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. Collaborating institutions included: International Epidemiology Institute, Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Landauer, Inc., and Vanderbilt University. Follow-up of these two populations and the integration of them with the many other cohorts (now a total of 31) in the MPS continues under a separate DOE grant (DE-AU0000046).

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

A geospatial risk analysis graphical user interface for identifying hazardous chemical emission sources

Background: Performing back trajectory and forward trajectory using the Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory Model (HYSPLIT) is a reliable approach for assessing particle transport after release among mid-field atmospheric models. HYSPLIT has an externally facing online interface that allows non-expert users to run the model trajectories without requiring extensive training or programming. However, the existing HYSPLIT interface is limited if simulations have a large amount of meteorological data and timesteps that are not coincident. The objective of this study is to design and develop a more robust tool to rapidly evaluate hazard transport conditions and to perform risk analysis, while still maintaining an intuitive and user-friendly interface. Methods: HYSPLIT calculates forward and backward trajectories of particles based on wind speed, wind direction, and the corresponding location, timestamp, and Pasquill stability classes of the regions of the atmosphere in terms of the wind speed, the amount of solar radiation, and the fractional cloud cover. The computed particle transport trajectories, combined with the online Proton Transfer Reaction-Mass Spectrometry (PTR-MS) data (https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/ARL_Data_from_PROS_station_at_Hanford_site/19993964), can be used to identify and quantify the sources and affected area of the hazardous chemicals’ emission using the potential source distribution function (PSDF). PSDF is an improved statistical function based on the well-known potential source contribution function (PSCF) in establishing the air pollutant source and receptor relationship. Performing this analysis requires a range of meteorological and pollutant concentration measurements to be statistically meaningful. The existing HYSPLIT graphical user interface (GUI) does not easily permit computations of trajectories of a dataset of meteorological data in high temporal frequency. To improve the performance of HYSPLIT computations from a large dataset and enhance risk analysis of the accidental release of material at risk, a geospatial risk analysis tool (GRAT-GUI) is created to allow large data sets to be processed instantaneously and to provide ease of visualization. Results: The GRAT-GUI is a native desktop-based application and can be run in any Windows 10 system without any internet access requirements, thus providing a secure way to process large meteorological datasets even on a standalone computer. GRAT-GUI has features to import, integrate, and convert meteorological data with various formats for hazardous chemical emission source identification and risk analysis as a self-explanatory user interface. The tool is available at https://figshare.com/articles/software/GRAT/19426742.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Effect of radiation exposure on survival after first solid cancer diagnosis in A-bomb survivors

Comparison of the estimated effect of atomic bomb radiation exposure on solid cancer incidence and solid cancer mortality in the RERF Life Span Study (LSS) reveals a difference in the magnitude and shape of the excess relative risk dose response. A possible contributing factor to this difference is pre-diagnosis radiation effect on post-diagnosis survival. Pre-diagnosis radiation exposure theoretically could influence post-diagnosis survival by affecting the genetic makeup and possibly aggressiveness of cancer, or by compromising tolerance for aggressive treatment for cancer. We analyze the radiation effect on post-diagnosis survival in 20,463 LSS subjects diagnosed with first-primary solid cancer between 1958 and 2009 with particular attention to whether death was caused by the first-primary cancer, other cancer, or non-cancer diseases. From multivariable Cox regression analysis of cause-specific survival, the excess hazard at 1 Gy (EH 1Gy ) for death from the first primary cancer was not significantly different from zero – p = 0.23, EH 1Gy = 0.038 (95 % CI: –0.023, 0.104). Death from other cancer and death from non-cancer diseases both were significantly associated with radiation dose: other cancer EH 1Gy = 0.38 (95 % CI: 0.24, 0.53); non-cancer EH 1Gy = 0.24 (95 % CI: 0.13, 0.36), both p < 0.001. There is no detectable large effect of pre-diagnosis radiation exposure on post-diagnosis death from the first primary cancer in A-bomb survivors. A direct effect of pre-diagnosis radiation exposure on cancer prognosis is ruled out as an explanation for the difference in incidence and mortality dose response in A-bomb survivors.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

Lifetime risk of suicide among survivors of the atomic bombings of Japan

Abstract Aims The long-term physical health effects of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are well characterised, but the psychological effects remain unclear. Therefore, we sought to determine whether measures of exposure severity, as indirect measures of psychological trauma arising from exposure to the atomic bombings, are associated with suicide mortality among atomic bomb survivors. Methods The Life Span Study is a prospective cohort study of 93 741 Japanese atomic bomb survivors who were located within 10 km of the hypocentre in Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time of the bombings in 1945, and 26 579 residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were not in either city at the time of the bombings, matched to survivors on city, sex and age. Measures of exposure severity included: proximity to the hypocentre, type of shielding between the survivor and the blast and self-reported occurrence of acute radiation and thermal injuries. Date of death was obtained from the Japanese National Family Registry system. Cause of death was obtained from death certificates. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated from Cox regression models overall and stratified by sex and age. Results During the 60-year follow-up period (1950–2009), 1150 suicide deaths were recorded among 120 231 participants (23.6 per 100 000 person-years): 510 among 70 092 women (17.2 per 100 000 person-years) and 640 among 50 139 men (33.6 per 100 000 person-years). Overall, there was no association of proximity, type of shielding or the occurrence of acute injuries with suicide mortality. Among those <25 years of age at the time of the bombings, increased suicide risk was observed for survivors outside v . shielded inside any structure (HR: 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03, 1.48; interaction p = 0.054) and for those who reported flash burns (HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.73; interaction p = 0.025). Sex-stratified analyses indicated that these associations were limited to men. Among women, closer proximity to the hypocentre was associated with a non-significant increase in suicide risk, with a positive association between proximity and suicide risk observed among women <15 years of age (HR: 1.09 per km; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.18; interaction p = 0.067). Conclusions Proximity to the hypocentre, shielding and acute injury presence do not generally appear to influence suicide mortality among atomic bomb survivors. However, heterogeneity may exist by age and sex, with younger survivors potentially more sensitive to psychological trauma. Coupled with other studies, our results suggest the importance of long-term monitoring of mental health among young populations exposed to catastrophic events or mass trauma.

Psychiatry↗

Summary of Analytical Services for the Hanford Site Radionuclide NESHAP Program

This document serves as a summary of the analytical requirements used to demonstrate compliance on the Department of Energy (DOE) Hanford Site to 40 CFR 61, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,” (NESHAP) Subpart H, “National Emission Standards for Emissions of Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities,” and WAC 246-247, “Radiation Protection – Air Emissions.” This document is a reference summarizing information from multiple existing requirement source documents and does not create, supersede, replace or over-ride any existing contractual, DOE, federal, state, permit or license requirement. The requirement source documents govern where any differences may exist.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Determining Unabated Airborne Radionuclide Emissions Monitoring Requirements Using Inventory-Based Methods

Compliance with the airborne radionuclide emission monitoring requirements in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 61, Subpart H) and State requirements in Washington Administrative Code 246–247: Radiation Protection – Air Emissions and 173-480: Ambient Air Quality Standards and Emission Limits for Radionuclides were evaluated for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) operations. Additional guidance may be found in the U.S. Department of Energy Handbook, Environmental Radiological Effluent Monitoring and Environmental Surveillance. To meet regulatory requirements, reviews of planned or proposed projects and activities provide the basis for implementing necessary monitoring adjustments or for implementing changes to projects and activities in a timely manner. Potential unabated off-site doses were evaluated for emission locations managed by PNNL and licensed to the Department of Energy. These locations were at facilities in Richland, Washington (i.e., the Hanford Site and PNNL–Richland campus) and in Sequim, Washington, (PNNL–Sequim campus). This report describes the inventory-based methods and provides the results for the NESHAP assessment performed in January 2024 for calendar year ending 2023.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

PNNL Sequim Campus Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Calendar Year 2021

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 2021 was 5.4E-05 mrem (5.4E-07 mSv). No non-routine emissions occurred in 2021. The Sequim Campus is in compliance with the federal and state 10 mrem/yr standard.

40 CFR 61 Subpart H↗