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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2017

Critical issues in radiation protection knowledge management for preserving radiation protection research and development capabilities

As a hub of domestic radiation protection capabilities, Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Center for Radiation Protection Knowledge has a mandate to develop and actuate a formal knowledge management (KM) effort. This KM approach exceeds recruitment and training efforts but focuses on formalized strategies for knowledge transfer from outgoing subject matter experts in radiation protection to incoming generations. It is envisioned that such an effort will provide one avenue for preserving domestic capabilities to support stakeholder needs in the federal government and the nuclear industry while continuing to lead and innovate in research and development on a global scale. Furthermore, in the absence of broader coordination within the United States, preservation of radiation protection knowledge continues to be in jeopardy in the absence of a dedicated KM effort.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Experimental and theoretical study of organometallic radiation-protective materials adapted to radiation sources with a complex isotopic composition

The significance of optimizing the content of components of a radiation-protective material, which is determined by the isotopic composition of radioactive contamination, depending on the reactor type, operating time, and other factors is demonstrated. The results of computational and experimental investigation of the gamma-radiation attenuation capacity of homogenous radiation-protective materials with different fillers are reported.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Synopsis of the Oak Ridge Radiation Protection Research Needs Workshop

Radiation protection is foundational to harnessing the societal benefits of radiation in nuclear energy, security, and medicine applications. Significant challenges in radiation protection remain unaddressed for the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear medicine, emergency response, national defense, and space exploration, as the United States is lacking a coherent research strategy prioritizing radiation protection mission needs and gaps in scientific knowledge to meet these needs. Research and development in the field of radiation protection calls for cooperation among governmental agencies, emergency responders, research organizations, and the academic community. Amidst atrophying national expertise in radiation protection, the Radiation Protection Research Needs Workshop was spearheaded by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Health Physics Society. This workshop facilitated critical dialogue among radiation stakeholders in the governmental and scientific communities, including national laboratories, academic institutions, and industry partners. The workshop featured presentations representing 12 federal agencies and breakout sessions involving the identification of scientific drivers by subject matter experts in each of the following areas: new fuel cycles/reactors, dosimetry, medical physics, instrumentation and operations, decontamination and decommissioning, space radiation, national defense, emergency response, environmental modeling, and low-dose effects. The goal of this workshop was to seek stakeholder input toward the development of a national strategic research agenda in the field of radiation protection. Consequently, the Health Physics Society has established a Special Task Force on Health Physics Research Needs, tasked with the prioritization of scientific drivers in radiation protection for the development of a national strategic research agenda.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Low doses and non-targeted effects in environmental radiation protection; where are we now and where should we go?

The field of low dose radiobiology has advanced considerably in the last 30 years from small indications in the 1980's that all was not simple, to a paradigm shift which occurred during the 1990's, which severely dented the dose-driven models and DNA centric theories which had dominated until then. However while the science has evolved, the application of that science in environmental health protection has not. A reason for this appears to be the uncertainties regarding the shape of the low dose response curve, which lead regulators to adopt a precautionary approach to radiation protection. Radiation protection models assume a linear relationship between dose (i.e. energy deposition) and effect (in this case probability of an adverse DNA interaction leading to a mutation). This model does not consider non-targeted effects (NTE) such as bystander effects or delayed effects, which occur in progeny cells or offspring not directly receiving energy deposition from the dose. There is huge controversy concerning the role of NTE with some saying they reflect “biology” and that repair and homeostatic mechanisms sort out the apparent damage while others consider them to be a class of damage which increases the size of the target. One thing which has recently become apparent is that NTE may be very critical for modelling long-term effects at the level of the population rather than the individual. The issue is that NTE resulting from an acute high dose such as occurred after the A-bomb or Chernobyl occur in parallel with chronic effects induced by the continuing residual effects due to radiation dose decay. This means that if ambient radiation doses are measured for example 25 years after the Chernobyl accident, they only represent a portion of the dose effect because the contribution of NTE is not included. - Highlights: • This paper presents a new concept in Environmental Radiobiology, which could explain why effects are detected in Chernobyl and Fukushima wildlife at ambient doses which are very low. • We suggest that non-targeted effects such as genomic instability, lethal mutations and bystander signalling, contribute a persistent legacy dimension to the total measured effect. • This “historic dose” component needs to be incorporated into dose effect models in order to predict true levels of risk.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

MO-E-213-01: Increasing Role of Medical Physicist in Radiation Protection

The focus of work of medical physicists in 1980’s was on quality control and quality assurance. Radiation safety was important but was dominated by occupational radiation protection. A series of over exposures of patients in radiotherapy, nuclear medicine and observation of skin injuries among patients undergoing interventional procedures in 1990’s started creating the need for focus on patient protection. It gave medical physicists new directions to develop expertise in patient dosimetry and dose management. Publications creating awareness on cancer risks from CT in early part of the current century and over exposures in CT in 2008 brought radiation risks in public domain and created challenging situations for medical physicists. Increasing multiple exposures of individual patient and patient doses of few tens of mSv or exceeding 100 mSv are increasing the role of medical physicists. Expansion of usage of fluoroscopy in the hands of clinical professionals with hardly any training in radiation protection shall require further role for medical physicists. The increasing publications in journals, recent changes in Safety Standards, California law, all increase responsibilities of medical physicists in patient protection. Newer technological developments in dose efficiency and protective devices increase percentage of time devoted by medical physicists on radiation protection activities. Without radiation protection, the roles, responsibilities and day-to-day involvement of medical physicists in diagnostic radiology becomes questionable. In coming years either medical radiation protection may emerge as a specialty or medical physicists will have to keep major part of day-to-day work on radiation protection. Learning Objectives: To understand how radiation protection has been increasing its role in day-to-day activities of medical physicist To be aware about international safety Standards, national and State regulations that require higher attention to radiation protection than in past To be aware about possible emergence of medical radiation protection as a specialty and challenges for medical physicists.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2015

MO-E-213-03: Newer Radiation Protection Requirements in Last Decade

The focus of work of medical physicists in 1980’s was on quality control and quality assurance. Radiation safety was important but was dominated by occupational radiation protection. A series of over exposures of patients in radiotherapy, nuclear medicine and observation of skin injuries among patients undergoing interventional procedures in 1990’s started creating the need for focus on patient protection. It gave medical physicists new directions to develop expertise in patient dosimetry and dose management. Publications creating awareness on cancer risks from CT in early part of the current century and over exposures in CT in 2008 brought radiation risks in public domain and created challenging situations for medical physicists. Increasing multiple exposures of individual patient and patient doses of few tens of mSv or exceeding 100 mSv are increasing the role of medical physicists. Expansion of usage of fluoroscopy in the hands of clinical professionals with hardly any training in radiation protection shall require further role for medical physicists. The increasing publications in journals, recent changes in Safety Standards, California law, all increase responsibilities of medical physicists in patient protection. Newer technological developments in dose efficiency and protective devices increase percentage of time devoted by medical physicists on radiation protection activities. Without radiation protection, the roles, responsibilities and day-to-day involvement of medical physicists in diagnostic radiology becomes questionable. In coming years either medical radiation protection may emerge as a specialty or medical physicists will have to keep major part of day-to-day work on radiation protection. Learning Objectives: To understand how radiation protection has been increasing its role in day-to-day activities of medical physicist To be aware about international safety Standards, national and State regulations that require higher attention to radiation protection than in past To be aware about possible emergence of medical radiation protection as a specialty and challenges for medical physicists.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

What is involved in radiation protection at accelerator facilities?

Radiation protection for accelerator facilities involves a range of actions to operate the facility within safe boundaries (often called an accelerator safety envelope) and it starts from the very early stage of facility development. Each facility will establish fundamental safety principles, requirements, and measures to control the radiation exposure to people and the release of radioactive material to the environment.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Reevaluation of Radiation-Protection Standards for Workers and the Public Based on Current Scientific Evidence

President Trump’s recent executive orders to “Usher in a Nuclear Renaissance,” coupled with the global pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050, underscore nuclear energy’s importance to national security and economic prosperity. This renewed interest has prompted efforts to spur nuclear-energy deployment, including assessing factors impeding it. One issue that has previously been identified as adding to the cost of nuclear energy is excessively conservative requirements, including those related to radiation protection. This technical review, therefore, examines current radiation-protection standards that were established decades ago when more limited data were available and nuclear-energy expansion was not a national priority. The review focuses on scientific evidence regarding the health effects of ionizing radiation at annual doses of 10,000 mrem or less. The review evaluates epidemiological studies, radiobiological research, and positions of relevant professional organizations to assess whether such doses result in discernable or observable increases in negative health outcomes. The review also surveys the literature related to economic and practical implications of current radiation-protection standards and practices. Based on this assessment, we propose maintaining an annual occupational whole-body dose limit of 5,000 mrem/yr and eliminating all “as low as reasonably achievable” requirements and limits below this threshold. This change could potentially reduce radiation-protection costs by millions of dollars annually for each reactor, as well as decrease the overall costs and correct misconceptions about the risks associated with all nuclear technologies. The evidence further supports future consideration of a 10,000 mrem/yr limit that would maintain appropriate safety margins while further reducing protection costs. Similarly, given the data and that the average annual radiation dose per person in the U.S. is 620 mrem, we believe the public dose limits of 100 mrem/yr are unnecessarily restrictive; increasing to 500 mrem/yr would maintain substantial safety margins—a factor of 10 below the occupational limit—while reducing regulatory burdens and associated bureaucracy. While we acknowledge ongoing scientific debate and encourage continued research on the health effects of ionizing radiation, our review indicates current frameworks are overly conservative. These overly stringent limits not only impose unnecessary economic burdens without corresponding health benefits but also divert safety focus and resources from more important considerations. Although this study was motivated by nuclear-power considerations, reforms to radiation-protection requirements have significant positive implications for other areas, such as nuclear medical applications, environmental remediation, nuclear-waste management and disposal, and industrial applications of nuclear technologies.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Developing a Radiation Protection Hub

The WARP report issued by the NCRP study committee estimates that in ten years there will be a human capital crisis across the radiation safety community. The ability to respond to this shortage will be amplified by the fact that many radiation protection (health physics) academic programs will find it difficult to justify their continued existence since they are low volume programs, both in terms of enrollment and research funding, compared to the research funding return and visibility of more highly subscribed and highly funded academic disciplines. In addition, across the national laboratory complex, radiation protection research groups have been disbanded or dramatically reduced in size. The loss of both of these national resources is being accelerated by low and uncertain government funding priorities. The most effective solution to this problem would be to form a consortium that would bring together the radiation protection research, academic and training communities. The goal of such a consortium would be to engage in research, education and training of the next generation of radiation protection professionals. Furthermore the consortium could bring together the strengths of different universities, national laboratory programs and other entities in a strategic manner to accomplish a multifaceted research, educational and training agenda. This vision would forge a working and funded relationship between major research universities, national labs, four-year degree institutes, technical colleges and other partners.

consortium on radiation protection↗
DOE OSTI2017

Radiation Protection Research Needs Workshop: Summary Report

In order to protect humans and the environment when using ionizing radiation for the advancement and benefit of society, accurately quantifying radiation and its potential effects remains the driver for ensuring the safety and secure use of nuclear and radiological applications of technology. In the realm of radiation protection and its various applications with the nuclear fuel cycle, (nuclear) medicine, emergency response, national defense, and space exploration, the scientific and research needs to support state and federal radiation protection needs in the United States in each of these areas are still deficient.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2017

A Retrospective Assessment of Correlation between Occupational and Public Radiation Protection Programs Performance Metrics at a FUSRAP Site - 17546

A retrospective assessment of the occupational and environmental radiation protection programs includes the consideration of performance metrics at the qualitative and quantitative level. When key radiation protection (RP) program metrics are tracked over the course of several years, correlations may present themselves. Strong correlations between variables may be considered when establishing or validating baseline RP Program elements (i.e., controls, monitoring regimes, and additional ALARA measures) for the safe excavation and handling of naturally occurring radioactive materials comingled in soil-like wastes at FUSRAP sites. (authors)

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2014

Radiation protection program for early detection of breast cancer in a mammography facility

Mammography is the best tool for early detection of Breast Cancer. In this diagnostic radiology modality it is necessary to establish the criteria to ensure the proper use and operation of the equipment used to obtain mammographic images in order to contribute to the safe use of ionizing radiation. The aim of the work was to implement at FUCAM-AC the radiation protection program which must be established for patients and radiation workers according to Mexican standards [1–4]. To achieve this goal, radiation protection and quality control manuals were elaborated [5]. Furthermore, a quality control program (QCP) in the mammography systems (analog/digital), darkroom included, has been implemented. Daily sensitometry, non-variability of the image quality, visualizing artifacts, revision of the equipment mechanical stability, compression force and analysis of repetition studies are some of the QCP routine tests that must be performed by radiological technicians of this institution as a set of actions to ensure the protection of patients. Image quality and patients dose assessment were performed on 4 analog equipment installed in 2 mobile units. In relation to dose assessment, all equipment passed the acceptance criteria (<3 mGy per projection). The image quality test showed that most images (70%)– presented artifacts. A brief summary of the results of quality control tests applied to the equipment and film processor are presented. To maintain an adequate level of quality and safety at FUCAM-AC is necessary that the proposed radiation protection program in this work is applied.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2018

Port Hope Area Initiative - Port Granby Project: Effectiveness of the Radiation Protection Program - 18595

The Port Granby Project is large remediation project currently underway. It is approximately 50% complete. A comprehensive and effective radiation protection program has been developed and implemented for the Port Granby Project. The potential radiation hazards associated with this project include: external (gamma) radiation, radon, inhalation, contamination and ingestion. The radiation protection program is highly effective and has succeeded in managing the significant radiation hazards associated with this remediation project. (authors)

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2019

EM Program Expectations on Implementation of DOE O 458: Radiation Protection of Public/Environment - 19553

DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment, was issued in 2011. DOE sites were given 18 months to implement. The revised Order promulgates requirements for property clearance actions and independent verification. DOE Order 458.1 allows for preapproved authorized limits for the clearance of property. However, when property with the potential to contain residual radioactive material does not meet preapproved authorized limits, an authorized limits package must be developed. The Order contains a range of requirements for demonstrating with reasonable assurance that dose constraints are met for any actual or likely future use of the property to be released. EM has developed a draft guidance document that provides the elements of an authorized limits package. These elements are used to review all authorized limits packages that are submitted to EM. Expected elements include property description and process knowledge documentation, current and likely future use, the conceptual site model, dose modeling methodologies, specific authorized limits, dose- or concentration-based constraints, collective dose estimate to the potentially exposed population, stakeholder communications, description of the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) analysis, implementation plan, evaluation of difficult to assess surfaces, and independent verification plan. The draft guidance document also provides further explanation of the desired elements of an independent verification (IV) plan. An IV plan should describe the planning phase, implementation phase, assessment phase, and decision phase of an activity. The planning phase includes scope and cost, concurrent with cleanup contractor procurement, and review and approval of site radiological survey clearance program and IV program plans. The implementation phase assures sufficient collection of data and adjustment can be made as necessary. During the assessment phase, data and reports are reviewed, and coordination between the clean-up contractor and IV personnel occurs. A decision of whether or not the clearance actions need to be altered occurs during the decision phase. IV certification that the clearance action is complete also occurs during the decision phase. Issuance of the final guidance document is meant to improve the consultation process and minimize iterative interactions with EM. Standardizing and formalizing property clearance and IV actions also helps assure that cleanup actions are transparent and sustainable for future scrutiny. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗