Vol. 4, 2019

Original research papers

Radiation Protection

COMPARISON OF COMPUTATIONAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DOSE RATES IN A NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS FACILITY

Jose Rafael Parga, Sheldon Landsberger

Pages: 72–77

DOI: 10.37392/RapProc.2019.15

The vast majority of radiation protection guidelines in nuclear facilities usually relate from one to a few sources of radiation in very controlled environments. Currently, there are 111 research reactors where neutron activation analysis (NAA) is a major research and teaching component. In particular, NAA can yield a wide variety of exposures due to different types of samples and neutron fluxes. Unlike any other type of radiation laboratories, an NAA facility can contain a large variety of radioactive isotopes as a result of activation products with varying degrees of half-lives and with different intensities of gamma-rays and beta particles. Using MCNP 6.2, a Monte Carlo code developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) for radiation transport, dose rates were computed. The computational results were validated by irradiating several National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard reference materials. The samples were allowed to decay during their transfer from the reactor to the NAA laboratory. These computational doses were validated to the experimental doses. Using this information, a database will be developed for accurately predicting the expected doses to researchers working at research reactors and develop better radiation protection standards at NAA facilities.
  1. Research Reactor Database, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 2019.
    Retrieved from: https://nucleus.iaea.org/RRDB/Content/Util/NAA.aspx
    Retrieved on: Jun. 17, 2019
  2. H. Cember, T. E. Johnson, “Interaction of Radiation with Matter,” in Introduction to Health Physics, 4th ed., New York (NY), USA: McGraw-Hill, 2009, ch. 5, pp. 192 – 193.
    Retrieved from: http://93.174.95.29/_ads/0EF2AF24D5751F8535C0FDEE9BE39D48
    Retrieved on: Aug. 12, 2019
  3. Sampling and Analytical Methodologies for Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Airborne Particulate Matter, Training Course Series No. 4, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 1992.
    Retrieved from: https://www.iaea.org/publications/346/sampling-and-analytical-methodologies-for-instrumental-neutron-activation-analysis-of-airborne-particulate-matter
    Retrieved on: Aug. 12, 2019
  4. Occupational Radiation Protection, Safety Standards Series No. GSG-7, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 2018.
    Retrieved from: https://www.iaea.org/publications/11113/occupational-radiation-protection
    Retrieved on: Aug. 12, 2019
  5. Safety of Research Reactors, Safety Standards Series No. SSR-3, IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 2016.
    Retrieved from: https://www.iaea.org/publications/11031/safety-of-research-reactors
    Retrieved on: Aug. 12, 2019
  6. C. J. Werner et al., MCNP6.2 Release Notes, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos (NM), USA, 2018.
    Retrieved from: https://laws.lanl.gov/vhosts/mcnp.lanl.gov/pdf_files/la-ur-18-20808.pdf
    Retrieved on: Jul. 15, 2019
  7. W. Charlton, “NETL TRIGA Input Deck,” Unpublished.
  8. M. L. Fensin, J. S. Hendricks, G. W. McKinney, “Monte Carlo Burnup Interactive Tutorial,” presented at the ANS 2009 Student Meeting, Gainesville (FL), USA, Apr. 2009.
    Retrieved from: https://mcnp.lanl.gov/pdf_files/la-ur-09-2051.pdf
    Retrieved on: Apr. 12, 2019
  9. Peach Leaves, SRM 1547, Apr. 2, 2019.
    Retrieved from: https://www-s.nist.gov/srmors/certificates/1547.pdf
    Retrieved on: Apr. 12, 2019
  10. Trace Elements in Coal, SRM 1632D, Oct. 14, 2014.
    Retrieved from: https://www-s.nist.gov/srmors/certificates/1632d.pdf
    Retrieved on: Apr. 12, 2019
  11. Trace Elements in Coal Fly Ash, SRM 1633C, Jun. 23, 2011.
    Retrieved from: https://www-s.nist.gov/srmors/certificates/1633C.pdf
    Retrieved on: Apr. 12, 2019
  12. Montana I Soil, SRM 2710A, Nov. 2, 2018.
    Retrieved from: https://www-s.nist.gov/srmors/certificates/2710a.pdf
    Retrieved on: Apr. 12, 2019
  13. J. L. Conlin, Listing of Available ACE Data Tables: Formerly Appendix G of the MCNP Manual, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos (NM), USA, 2017.
    Retrieved from: https://laws.lanl.gov/vhosts/mcnp.lanl.gov/pdf_files/la-ur-17-20709.pdf
    Retrieved on: Jul. 15, 2019
  14. S. Landsberger, A. Sharp, S. Wang, Y. Pontikes, A. H. Tkaczyk, “Characterization of bauxite residue (red mud) for 235U, 238U, 232Th and 40K using neutron activation analysis and the radiation dose levels as modeled by MCNP,” J. Environ. Radioact., vol. 173, pp. 97 – 101, Jul. 2017.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2016.12.008
    PMid: 28049554
  15. S. Wang, S. Landsberger, “MCNP modeling of NORM dosimetry in the oil and gas Industry,” J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem., vol. 309, no. 1, pp. 367 – 371, Jul. 2016.
    DOI: 10.1007/s10967-016-4781-x
  16. PIMAL: Phantom with Moving Arms and Legs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Oak Ridge (TN), USA, 2017.
    Retrieved from: https://ramp.nrc-gateway.gov/PIMAL
    Retrieved on: Apr. 12, 2019
  17. G. F. Knoll, Radiation Detection and Measurement, 3rd ed., Hoboken (NJ), USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000.
    Retrieved from: https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=51A49204DB42FB158A457EADB9FB7239
    Retrieved on: Jun. 19, 2019