INTERNATIONAL ACCELERATOR RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION E-MAIL (IARPE) NEWSLETTER "The Official Publication of the Accelerator Section of the Health Physics Society" (with Contributions from International Correspondents) ====================================================================== Jan./Feb. 1997 Circulation: 202 Vol.6, #1 ====================================================================== OFFICERS OF THE ACCELERATOR SECTION President: Lutz Moritz, TRIUMF President-Elect: Vashek Vylet, SLAC Past President: Bob May, TJNAF Secretary: Scott Walker, LANL Treasurer: Carter Ficklen, TJNAF Newsletter Editor: James C. Liu, SLAC Directors: Wes M. Dunn (1999) Steve Musolino (1999), BNL Jeff Leavey (1998), IBM Tracy Tipping (1998), KSU Don Cossairt (1997), FNAL Lorraine Day (1997), LSU ====================================================================== CONTENTS From the Editor From the President Feature Article (by W. Dunn): An Overview of the State Regulation for Accelerator Facilities News from Five Correspondents: CERN, FNAL, LNLS, SLAC, TRIUMF How to Subscribe or Update Subscription Closing Thoughts ====================================================================== From the Editor James C. Liu ====================================================================== 1997 kicked off with a great start when many radiation/health physicists from all over the world attended the well-organized HPS Midyear Topical Meeting in San Jose, CA. It was an excellent opportunity for many of us to discuss ideas, exchange experience, or even just to meet and chat with each other. In this issue, we first have some Section news from the president, followed by a feature article (by Wes Dunn) regarding the regulation for accelerator facilities from the state's perspective. This complements the 1996 August and October feature articles (by Mike Grissom). For those who are interested in previous IARPE issues, please visit the web site of the Newsletter: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~james/iarpe.html and check the Related Web Sites (IARPE ARCHIVES). Readers should not miss this month's five news contributions from CERN, FNAL, LNLS, SLAC and TRIUMF. One major (and often tough) duty for newsletter editor is to solicit news contributions from the pool of international correspondents. In addition to this source, I would like to encourage each of you to send me any news you think might be appropriate and be of interest to the readers. Please send your contributions to: < james@slac.stanford.edu > Since the internet is accessible to most readers, I would like to start placing more emphasis on the web version of the newsletter. To take advantage of the web, please incorporate figures, photos and/or tables with the text in your contributions if you can (or let me know if you need help). We will continue, of course, with the normal e-mail method of distributing the newsletter. However, as the web becomes more utilized in this information age, we should also move in that direction. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any comment. Thank you and best wishes to you all. ==================================================================== From the President Lutz Moritz ==================================================================== Congratulations must go out to the organizers of the 30th Midyear Topical Meeting of the Health Physics Society "The Health Physics of Radiation Generating Machines". Thanks to Vaclav Vylet and the high quality of the contributions, the scientific program was varied and stimulating and had wide international representation. An interesting panel discussion arranged by Wade Patterson concluded that operational aspects of radiation protection are governed more by ALARA and the avoidance of possible litigation than any limits set on annual or lifetime doses to individuals. The excellent choice of courses offered as part of the Professional Enrichment Program were topical and relevant. The local arrangements committee headed by Norman McElroy chose a very modern venue and organized a great social program. The night out at Teske's Germania Restaurant brought a bit of German "Gemuetlichkeit" to the conference in San Jose and ended with an (unsuccessful) attempt to have your president dance on the tables! The bylaw change to allow voting by mail for the annual election of the Accelerator Section's officers and directors, which was approved by the membership at the Seattle HPS meeting in July, 1996, has been sent to the Rules Committee of the Health Physics Society for review and approval. However, it is not clear whether the change will be approved in time to affect the next election. At the business meeting in San Jose a proposal was made by Scott Walker (LANL) to organize an accelerator radiation protection course for the HPS summer school. The proposal had some support among the membership, although it was not clear whether to aim such a course at Health Physics professionals or at technical staff in need of upgrading. If any of you have ideas or suggestions concerning this proposal please send them to me or Scott. I have just received an excerpt from the Federal Register announcing the joint publication by the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of a draft of the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM). The manual provides information on planning, conducting, evaluating, and documenting environmental radiological surveys for demonstrating compliance with dose-based regulations prior to releasing decommissioned facilities for public use. The agencies are inviting public comment on this draft manual by July 7, 1997. Single copies are available from Distribution and Mail Services Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, FAX (301) 415-2260, or you can view it and even download it from http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanup (more than 3M bytes). Let me know if you think this draft needs an organized response, although the manual is so detailed that one may not be able to read it, much less comment on it intelligently, by the deadline of July 7. ==================================================================== FEATURE ARTICLE Wesley M. Dunn ==================================================================== An Overview of the State Regulation for Accelerator Facilities Wesley M. Dunn, CHP Deputy Director, Licensing (Texas) Bureau of Radiation Control This article is intended to provide an overview of the regulatory process for oversight of accelerators and accelerator-produced radionuclides by the state radiation safety programs in the United States. As many of you know, the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) created the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC; and later, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]) with express authority over nuclear reactors and related activities. These related activities are primarily the possession, use, handling and disposal of any radioactive material (RAM) associated with the process: "source material" (uranium, thorium, and their ores, which are the "source" of nuclear fuel); and "by-product material", which includes "mill tailings" (the stuff left over when uranium and thorium is separated from the ground) and material made radioactive in or by nuclear reactors. Any other sources of radiation were excluded and left to the individual states to regulate as they desired. It is instructive to note that the only difference between "source" material, which is regulated by the NRC, and Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM), which is regulated (if at all) by the states, is that "source" material is used as fuel for nuclear reactors and NORM is not. The AEA provided a mechanism for states to take responsibility for regulating source and/or by-product RAM by coming into an agreement with the AEC/NRC. This was a sensible option for many states, since they already had parallel regulatory programs for x-ray machines and radium. Currently, there are 29 Agreement States. A few other states are also currently pursuing Agreement State status. The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) is an organization created to promote coordination between the various state radiation programs. Each state radiation control program has one voting CRCPD member. This means states which have divided radiation safety between multiple programs, like New York and Texas, may have more than one voting member. One of the CRCPD's primary functions is the creation and promulgation of the Suggested State Regulations (SSR). This document provides a model set of regulations that states can adopt for their own use. Most state radiation safety programs utilize the SSR in some fashion when promulgating new regulations. Some states are even required by law to adopt the pertinent CRCPD regulations. The CRCPD also designates Licensing States (LS). These are state programs that have been evaluated by the CRCPD and determined to have an adequate program for the safe control of Naturally Occurring and Accelerator produced Radioactive Material (NARM). There are currently 14 states with full LS status. One other state has LS status for product distribution only. One advantage of LS status is that other states can grant reciprocal recognition for licensees who want to work across state boundaries without having to go through an additional, complete license review. However, the main advantage is that accelerator produced RAM can be transferred between those states. When it is necessary to create or revise sections of the SSR, the CRCPD creates a committee. I am the current chair of the SR-3 Committee, which includes responsibility for revising SSR Part I (Radiation Safety Requirements for Particle Accelerators). Note that Part I does NOT include regulations for medical accelerators used for patient therapy. Each SR committee is formed with representatives from the state radiation control programs. Other individuals, often representing interested groups, organizations and agencies, can be appointed as advisors to the committee. Each revision goes through several steps, which include the creation of a draft document; technical peer review: evaluation of comments; and revision of the draft document based on peer review comments. If a major revision is required, the document is again sent out for peer review. Once the committee is satisfied, the revision is forwarded to the CRCPD Board for adoption. Upon adoption, the final document is distributed to the state programs. As mentioned earlier, there is no national or CRCPD requirement to adopt revisions to the SSR. However, the NRC often requires Agreement States to adopt certain NRC requirements within specified timeframes. The CRCPD attempts to work closely with the NRC so that the SSR is revised to incorporate such requirements in a timely fashion. In this way, Agreement States can utilize the SSR sections to meet NRC deadlines. So why is any of this of interest to the accelerator community? Well, the states regulate accelerator facilities and any radioactive material generated in those facilities. Many of the states utilize the CRCPD SSR to format their own regulations. And what is the SSR often based on? Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10CFR). Nearly all of the larger states where most accelerator facilities are located are Agreement States. Since Agreement States are required by the NRC to match many of the NRC's radiation safety regulations, it is easier for them to use those same basic regulations for accelerator and x-ray facilities. So, for all intents and purposes, 10CFR20 is the law of the land for ANY source of ionizing radiation. In addition, accelerator facilities that produce RAM also follow the pertinent manufacturing and distribution regulations that the NRC promulgates. But what about machine specific regulations? That brings us back to Part I of the SSR. Since the NRC does not regulate machine produced radiation, the SSR provides a model regulation that could be adopted by any state. And since it is often easier to adopt the model regulation than to create a new one, most state regulations for particle accelerators will strongly resemble Part I -- or one of its previous versions. So, you ask, what's new with Part I? Well, as many of you know, a draft version was recently sent out for comment. Comments have been received and are being reviewed by the committee. Eventually, the final version will be forwarded for adoption. And then? Well, the ANSI N43.4 writing group, co-chaired by Scott Walker (LANL) and James Liu (SLAC), is working on the update to the ANSI accelerator radiological safety standard. It is planned to incorporate appropriate sections of the revised ANSI standard into the next version of SSR Part I. If all goes well, that will create an up-to-date model regulation that should be stable for many years -- a very worthwhile goal for all effected parties. ====================================================================== NEWS FROM CORRESPONDENTS ====================================================================== News from CERN Manfred Hoefert The new working year started for two of us (Graham Stevenson and Manfred Hoefert) in the United States or more exactly at the San Jose HPS Conference. Both of us enjoyed the conference and our visits to SLAC, Berkeley and TRIUMF (Manfred only). We would like to again thank all our friends across the Atlantic and the American continent for their hospitality. For those who stayed at home the usual CERN shut-down period started early in the year and continues presently. The start up of the CERN accelerator complex will not occur before the month of March with LEP coming on the air even later due to important installation work on the superconducting cavities. In this context it should be mentioned that the doses from synchrotron radiation inside the LEP tunnel have now been measured at various energies by Marco Silari and his team and the agreement with results from EGS calculations made in the early eighties is excellent. Our special greetings and thanks go to Ralph Nelson who not only brought EGS to CERN but also gave it to the world. Measured doses are in fact a factor of two higher than those calculated. This is explainable because the machine is not as ideally cladded with lead as had been assumed in the calculations. The reduction in all salaries at CERN by a flat 2.5 % net had been announced previously, so when the first pay check arrived at the end of January we just took note that this reduction is termed "crisis contribution" Still in the old year Thomas Otto and myself assisted at a Seminar in Berlin at the German BfS (Federal Office for Radiation Protection). The following information was composed by Thomas: --------- "The BfS had organised an intercomparison of individual neutron dosimeters for accelerator stray radiation environments in 1996. In fact, the albedo dosimeter (the official German dosimeter) is not usable in such radiation fields due to its increasing response at lower neutron energies, necessitating the use of large calibration factors with high uncertainties around accelerators. German Accelerator Research centers, therefore, still employ nuclear emulsions for neutron monitoring. GSI, the Centre for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt, is using NTA-films from the dosimetry service of GSF in Neuherberg and workers at DESY in Hamburg are monitored with NTA-films supplied by CERN. The Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) and CERN also participated in the intercomparison with PSI on the point of introducing neutron dosimeters containing CR-39. Some further solutions for individual dosimetry in accelerator stray fields have been proposed in Germany but are not in regular use: the Makrofol-detector by the (formerly Nuclear) Research Centre Karlsruhe and the energy-selective CR-39 dosimeter developed by the Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Braunschweig. The participating dosimeters were exposed to classical neutron sources at PTB, to quasi-monoenergetic neutron beams at PSI and to a calibrated stray-field at the CERN-EU Reference Radiation Field Facility (CERFF). The dosimetry services and laboratories involved in the intercomparison study met on December 10 and 11 at the BfS in Berlin to discuss the results of the measurements. The conclusion was that, at this moment, no single dosimeter has enough advantages to supplant the others. In fact, each dosimeter type has at least one major disadvantage when compared to its competitors. The NTA-film, with its interpretation not always free of subjective influences, has well-known limitations with respect to the maximum measurable dose i.e. track density. On the other hand, Makrofol and PTB's CR-39 are certainly more expensive and must still prove their reliability and applicability on a large scale. CR-39 as used by PSI is expensive and every batch of detector material has to be calibrated carefully to compensate for variations in production quality. After this inconclusive meeting, the neutron dosimetrists in the German speaking part of Europe have gone back to business as usual and continue to use their preferred, although imperfect, systems until a cheap, reliable personal neutron dosimeter for accelerator environemnts may become available one of these days." ------- On 3 February Dr. Pavol Voytila started work at CERN with the Environmental Section. Pavol (Yes, he is the Pope's nephew) comes from Bratislava (Slovakia) and has worked previously in the UK, Germany and Switzerland. He was selected as the absolute best among seven other strong candidates from other CERN member states. The Slovakian Delegation was very proud to now have placed the second staff member at CERN whilst the Czechs are still trying. I would like to end with information concerning non-member States in announcing an associate vacancy in CERN-TIS-RP for one year. So if one of you of Chinese, Japanese, Russian or US nationality would like to spend your sabbatical at CERN working on radiation problems (Graham calls them opportunities) for the LHC, please send your application to recruit@afsmail.cern.ch All completed application forms should be sent to: Recruitment Service, Personnel Division CERN, CH-1211 GENEVA 23, Switzerland Telefax: +41 22 767 2750 Important: the next Selection Board meeting is on June 24, 1997 with a closing date for papers: April 07,1997 for candidates in Particle Physics and a closing date on April 24,1997 for candidates in other fields. Here is what I copied about the Associate programme from the WWW: ------------------------- The Scientific Associates programme for Nationals of CERN Members States is open to established scientists wishing to work at CERN subject to the availability of facilities and accommodation. Most Associates come to CERN for research in connection with the programmes of their home institute, from which they are expected to receive the necessary financial support. A limited amount of money is available on the CERN budget to assist Associates who can not obtain sufficient support from other sources, although they are expected to continue to receive their normal salary, or a sizeable fraction of it, from their home institute. The duration of CERN support is normally for up to one year. The possibility of extension exists in exceptional cases but will be limited in principle to physicists who are engaged in experiments at CERN, with the total duration of CERN support not exceeding two years. Normally no Associateship will be awarded to scientists who received financial support from CERN during the five years preceding the application. The only possibility for scientists who are not of Member State nationality to work at CERN is under this programme as Scientific Associate. Some of these Associates are detached from their home institute on the same basis as Scientific Associates from Member States; such Associates can normally receive CERN support only if they do not work in experiments in which their home institute is participating as a collaborating group. Moreover, as CERN wishes to establish and maintain contacts with young scientists throughout the world, the organization offers facilities for such scientists to visit CERN. While some of these young Associates from non Member States come to CERN with independent support, either from their home institute, or with Fellowships awarded by external organizations, or under exchange programmes with other laboratories, CERN has a limited amount of money available for the assistance of those who can not obtain adequate support from other sources. The duration of CERN support is normally for up to one year. The possibility of extension exists in exceptional cases but will be limited in general to physicist involved in the approved particle physics research programme of CERN, with the total duration of CERN support not exceeding two years. Grants for Corresponding Associates are awarded to scientists holding research or teaching positions to help them to keep abreast of developments in particle physics and related fields. They visit CERN for a period of not more than six months' duration. While Corresponding Associates are at CERN, their home institutes are expected to continue normal salary payments, while CERN adds a subsistence allowance to cover the additional costs of living in the Geneva area. These appointments are restricted to candidates from the smaller member states, and are intended for scientists who have already had experience at CERN. ------------------- We of CERN's Radiation Protection Group are sad to announce that Dr. Jan W.N. Tuyn will take early retirement within the next 12 months. Since Jan is one of the corner stones of our service, I was able to convince my superiors that a replacement (who can replace Jan?) is essential. Although the authorization for the job opening is not yet in place I would nevertheless like to use the IARPE channel to make interested people aware now of this job. We are looking for an engineer or physicist (Radiation Protection) Education requirements: University degree or equivalent diploma in engineering or physics, preferably with specialization in radiation protection or radiation physics. Experience and knowledge: Five to ten years experience in one or more of the following fields: radiation protection, applied physics, nuclear engineering or chemistry. To be familiar with measurement and control equipment, preferably in the operational radiation protection. To be knowledgeable about recommendations, rules and legislation in the field of radiation protection. Good knowledge of English or French and a working knowledge of the other language. Assignment: To work as a physicist or engineer within the Technical Inspection and Safety Commission. The initial assignment will be to take charge of a sector of the radiation control at CERN, including radioactive materials and radiation surveys around CERN's accelerators. To direct the work of technicians engaged in such control. To participate in the planning and execution of work required for radiation protection in collaboration with the accelerator divisions. To participate in defining areas where operational radiation protection research is required and take part in these research programmes. Applications are accepted only from nationals of the Member States of CERN: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom. In line with its policy of Equal Opportunities, the Organisation encourages both men and women with relevant qualifications to apply. At present all interested people should contact me directly via E-mail: manfred.hoefert@cern.ch ---------------------------------------------------------------------- News from FNAL Don Cossairt Fermilab continues to operate in its fixed target physics mode. These operations can now be said to be nearly "routine". This month, we would like to highlight a special project in the realm of the development of accelerator applications technology with which we are concerned at the present time. This entails the radiation safety aspects of Fermilab's role in the development of positron emission tomography. N. Grossman and K. Graden of the radiation protection staff are heavily involved in this project at the present time, and N. Grossman supplied the great majority of this narrative. The PET/RFQ linac for Positron Emission Tomography (PET) is being designed as an alternative method of producing the required isotopes for PET scans. The PET industry currently relies on cyclotrons which require enriched targets and extensive radiation shielding. The PET/RFQ accelerator is based on using Radio Frequency Quadrupoles (RFQ's) as the acceleration device. 3He++ particles will be accelerated to 10.5 MeV for production of carbon, fluorine, oxygen, and nitrogen isotopes. Accelerator design current is 150 microamp particle beam (300 microamp electrical current) with a 2.5% duty cycle. This is the maximum current that the accelerator will run. The neutron- deficient source particles do not rely as heavily on enriched targets and the linear nature of the accelerator reduces radiation shielding requirements. A 1 MeV test was designed to understand the thermodynamic characteristics of the RFQ's and simultaneously measure the stripping efficiency of the 3He charge doubler. This first stage has been completed. The second stage will be to implement the complete 10.5 MeV accelerator, determine the shielding needed, and do some preliminary isotope production studies. The targets used for the isotope production studies will be solid, liquid and gas. The isotopes that will be produced in these targets are all very short lived with half lives less that 110 minutes. A chemistry area will be used to analyze the isotopes produced. So far the main surprise has been the high x-ray dose rates from the RFQ's (greater than 5 R/hr on contact with no shielding!). Surveys indicated that the x-ray dose rate was proportional to the RFQ power to the fifth. Thick steel cans were designed to shield the x-rays and recent surveys show that they are effective. Due to the R&D nature of the project, it is hard to obtain consistent x-ray survey results due to the changing conditions and parameters of the RFQ. The radiation safety officer (RSO) must rely on the scientists running the accelerator in order to know when to perform surveys due to changing accelerator parameters. The scientists use the x-ray survey results as another piece of information in the RFQ puzzle to determine the RFQ power. Thus the collaboration between the RSO and the researchers works well. So far 1 MeV beam has been established and negligible neutron and gamma dose rates have been seen from the beam. This work will continue at Fermilab until "proof of principle" has been demonstrated. At that point, the accelerator will be delivered to its home at a research facility dedicated to biomedical research. --------------------------------------------------------------------- News from LNLS The Laboratrio Nacional de Luz Syncrotron - LNLS (National Synchrotron Light Laboratory) has been under construction in Campinas, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, since 1987. The synchrotron light source consists of a 120 MeV underground LINAC, a Transport Line, a 93 m circumference 1.37 GeV electron storage ring, and experimental stations. Most of the equipment has been designed and built at LNLS. The ring has been under commissioning since May 1996 and we now have 7 experimental stations (2 under construction and 5 under commissioning). One of them (the TGM station) was initially installed at CAMD of LSU. The maximum stored current has been about 20 mA and the goal is 100 mA. I am responsible for the radiation protection and my activities involve all matters related to this area, for example, dose calculations, design and installation of shields, preparation of internal safety operation procedures, training, control of monitoring equipment, radiometric monitoring, etc. The majority of the equipment and concrete shielding have been installed in the new Campus and I am now focusing my attention on the ring maintenance and the beam line activities. We also plan to install localized lead shielding along the storage ring to reduce the skyshine. During the design phase, the approach to radiation protection was to install a minimum amount of shielding, based on calculations, and then to adjust it empirically based on results of radiation measurements during commissioning. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- News from SLAC Vashek Vylet This information might be useful to those who did not have the chance to attend the 30th HPS Midyear meeting in San Jose. The meeting subject was "Health Physics of Radiation Generating Machines". Out of 84 papers presented during the three days of the meeting, 74 were included in the 542 page Proceedings. I believe this document will become a valuable reference to those concerned with accelerator and medical health physics, design of safety systems or shielding, operational and other aspect of radiation generating machines. A few copies or the Proceedings are still available and can be purchased for US$50 from the HPS Secretariat. If interested, make your checks payable to the HPS and send your order to: Health Physics Society 1313 Doley Madison Boulevard Suite 402 McLean, VA 22101 If you are tempted but not sure whether the contents of the above Proceedings is for you, please consult the '97 midyear program published in the September 1996 issue of the HPS Newsletter. You may also download the program by anonymous ftp from ftp.slac.stanford.edu. The directory /users/vylet contain the program in PostScript, simple ASCII text and MS Word format; the respective files are midprog.ps, midprog.txt and midprog.wrd. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- News from TRIUMF L. Moritz At TRIUMF great strides are being made in the construction of ISAC (Isotope Separator and ACcelerator). You can watch the progress on a 'netcam' which shows a photograph of the construction site updated every 5 minutes (http://www.triumf.ca/web1_advax/ISAC-current.html). This facility is an extension to the present TRIUMF meson facility and uses the existing 500 MeV cyclotron. An intense beam of 500 MeV protons will be extracted into a new building where it will bombard one of two thick solid or powder targets. Radioactive atoms produced by the interaction of the energetic protons with the target material and driven out by heating the targets will be ionized and electrostatically extracted into a high-resolution mass separator where a specific radioisotope can be selected. Beams of rare radioactive species, far from the line of stability, may in this way be created and made available for experiments. Ion beam intensities of the order of 10^11 to 10^12 per second are expected. It is also planned to further accelerate these ions to an energy of approximately 1 MeV per atomic mass unit using an accelerator system consisting of an RFQ followed by a drift-tube linac. Such beams are of great interest for nuclear and astrophysical studies. A more detailed description and drawings of the facility may be found on the web at http://www.triumf.ca/isac/lothar/isac.html. The problems of designing shielding for neutrons generated by the bombardment of targets with 500 MeV protons and of servicing of highly radioactive target assemblies have been solved previously for the meson facility at TRIUMF. To help us with some of the details such as how to control the streaming through vents and service chases, we have just had the most recent version of the Monte Carlo code FLUKA installed on our DEC Alpha workstation running DEC UNIX. This was accomplished remarkably smoothly thanks to Alberto Fasso working from SLAC. The most significant new requirement for ISAC will be the containment of the radioactivity released from the targets during operation and the handling during maintenance of components contaminated by the longer-lived species. Because it is intended to use targets with atomic number up to and including 92, special attention must be given to the control of alpha-emitting radioactivities both in the working environment and off-site. To this end the radiation protection group is gearing up to become familiar with alpha radioactivity monitoring and assaying instrumentation. We are also updating our environmental impact analysis to include the off-site consequences of releasing any of this radioactivity. Another requirement is for a system to monitor and control the large potential radioactivity sources (up to 100 GBq at saturation) that could accumulate at unshielded points in the radioactive ion beam transport and accelerator systems due to unexpected beam losses. Because of the wide range of possibilities in the life-lives of the selected radioisotope being transmitted, the monitoring system must be able to respond both to the sudden deposition of short-lived species and to a slow build-up of long-lived radioactivity. ====================================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE / UPDATE YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS ====================================================================== To add yourself to the mailing list for the IARPE Newsletter, send an e-mail message to: listserv@slac.stanford.edu The body of your message should contain the following command: subscribe iarpe-l Please don't forget to update your e-mail address if you move, change jobs or just change your computing environment. The update consists in canceling the old by 'unsubscribe' and submitting a new subscription, as illustrated below: unsubscribe iarpe-l your_old_email_address subscribe iarpe-l end If the body of your message, as in this example, contains more than a single line/command, it is good practice to finish with the 'end' command, especially if your mailer adds a signature. If you experience problems with subscribing/updating, please send me an e-mail to james@slac.stanford.edu and I will do it for you. ====================================================================== CLOSING THOUGHTS "Where there is an open mind, there will always be a frontier" - Charles F. Kettering