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) ====================================================================== Sept./Oct. 1996 Circulation: 212 Vol.5, #5 ====================================================================== 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: "Environmental Radiation Protection Programs at US Department of Energy Regulated Accelerator Facilities and Regulatory Program Impact" News from Correspondents: APS, BNL, FNAL, KEK, LSU (CAMD), SLAC, TJNAF How to Subscribe or Update Subscription Closing Thoughts ====================================================================== From the Editor James C. Liu ====================================================================== This newsletter issue may be a long one. First, Lutz Moritz, as the Section President, gives us his short remarks (which I concur) about our regulatory environment, as well as a TRIUMF news. Following the previous feature article on "Occupational Radiation Protection at US DOE accelerator facilities", M. P. Grissom at SLAC again gives us another excellent report; this time on "Environmental Radiation Protection Programs at US Department of Energy Regulated Accelerator Facilities and Regulatory Program Impact". It is expected that the 10CFR835 (occupational) and 10CFR834 (environmental) will form the basic framework for US radiation protection regulations. What follow are seven news contributions which describe: 1) the gas bremsstrahlung measurements at APS, 2) the status of BNL RHIC, 3) the radiation protection activity for FNAL's fixed target experiment, 4) KEK's "Call for Participants" to join the "Benchmark Analyses" and two important meetings to be held in Japan in 1997, 5) introduction to CAMD synchrotron radiation beamlines and its RP efforts in operation and R&D, and 6) the update on the 1997 HPS Mid-year meeting in San Jose, CA 7) the TJNAF latest machine achievement. You can also read the current WEB-version issue at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~james/iarpe.html. I would like to thank those who made the contributions to the newsletter and the review by the associate editors, Ted de Castro of LBL and Scott Schwahn of TJNAF. As a Chinese idiom says: A housewife can not cook without rice. The editor needs your contributions! Let me know your ideas and comments. Hope you all had a good Halloween (my two kids did) and looking forward to a great Thanksgiving holiday. ====================================================================== From the President Lutz Moritz ====================================================================== The article by Mike Grissom in the last IARPE Newsletter was an eye-opener to those of us not entangled in the US regulatory maze. It is in sharp contrast to my recent experience in Switzerland where both the federal act defining the regulatory scheme and the regulations applicable to all users of ionizing radiation fit into 110 pages of a paperback-size booklet. It is for North Americans a great lesson in 'small but beautiful'. In Canada a new act is presently before parliament which will replace the Atomic Energy Control Board with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The new act, in 55 pages of bilingual bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, makes scarce mention of radiation protection but focuses almost entirely on defining the powers of the new commission and the liabilities of the government. I am afraid that in Canada we are following the US rather than the Swiss model. Those interested in educational issues might like to take a look at the TRIUMF Safety Group web site at http://www.triumf.ca/safety/welcome.html. We are trying to make all our safety-related information as well as safety course material publicly available. As yet it does not wholly take advantage of the 'webby' connectivity possible but it allows potential visitors to become familiar with some of the constraints imposed by the safety program. Comments are welcome and should be sent to noel@triumf.ca. The 1997 HPS midyear topical symposium is shaping up as a great meeting. Hopefully the program will be of interest not only to those in the accelerator community but to the radiation protection community at large. As well as the many interesting scientific sessions spread over three days we have scheduled an Accelerator Section meeting for the lunch-hour on January 6th (Monday). We hope to see many of you there. Lutz Moritz of TRIUMF ==================================================================== FEATURE ARTICLE Mike Grissom ==================================================================== Environmental Radiation Protection Programs at US Department of Energy Regulated Accelerator Facilities and Regulatory Program Impact Michael P. Grissom, Special Assistant, ES&H, SLAC In the last issue of the IARPE (1), I addressed in general terms the recent history regarding the US Department of Energy's (DOE) requirements for occupational radiation protection (RP) programs. In this article, I will focus on the environmental radiation protection (ERP) program requirements for all of DOE's laboratories (that is, complex wide) and the DOE RP and ERP regulatory program's impact on accelerator facilities, as illustrated by recent SLAC experience. Environmental Radiation Protection Programs ------------------------------------------- With the issuance of DOE Order 5820.2A (2) on September 26, 1988, the DOE began to specify in greater detail the requirements for "Radioactive Waste Management" and the requirements for the release of radioactive material (radmat). This revision of the previous order, 5820.2 finalized in 1984, immediately preceded the production of DOE Order 5480.11 (3) on December 21, 1988 which in turn commenced the change in general management direction of the complex's RP programs. DOE 5820.2A also specified requirements for processing radioactive waste (radwaste) and determining the release eligibility of material that may have become activated during accelerator operations. The DOE Office of Environmental Management (EM) became the lead DOE organizational element for radwaste processing and radmat release criteria. As was seen with the occupational RP program, the focus of the EM program was on Defense Programs (DP) and EM managed former DP laboratories (such as, Hanford, Rocky Flats, and Savannah River) rather than the accelerator laboratories, which were largely managed by the DOE Office of Energy Research (ER) and did not have large quantities of high-hazard waste material. In order to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations (which included the US Department of Transportation [DOT], US Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], and individual States, counties, municipalities) DOE established a common waste disposal site at Hanford, Washington that was operated by the Westinghouse Hanford Corporation (WHC). SLAC and other radwaste generator facilities were required to submit radwaste certification plans (4) and radmat procedures (5) in order to maintain authorization to ship for disposal radwaste and to ensure proper segregation of radmat to prevent unplanned releases to members of the general public. Another DOE goal was to improve housekeeping at accelerator sites and to eliminate the open air "bone yards" of old equipment (most destined to never be recycled) that had accumulated over a period of years, much of which had very low-levels of radioactivity detectable only by using very sensitive and precise survey techniques. The DOE complex was subjected to a radioactive waste shipping moratorium in the summer of 1991 due to a shipment of waste identified as "no rad added" to a disposal site by a DP program facility that in fact contained radmat. Each laboratory, including all operational accelerator facilities were required to go through a rigorous review including the development of detailed plans to address procedures/policies to avoid release of "rad added" material to the general public, including non-rad disposal contractors (6). The moratorium led to the development of Radioactive Material Management Areas (RMMAs) which were defined as (7): "An area in which the potential exists for contamination due to the presence of unencapsulated or unconfined radioactive material, or an area that is exposed to beams of particles capable of causing activation." The multiplication of regulatory requirements led SLAC to shift its radwaste operations from the Operational Health Physics (OHP) department to a newly created Waste Management Department in 1994. Unlike the RP program, which was largely developed by the DOE Office of Environment, Safety, and Health (EH), more than one DOE organizational program was involved with environmental RP. EH, not EM, produced DOE Order 5400.1 which defined the environmental protection requirements for the complex upon its issue in November 1988 (8) and which expanded upon the general policies provided in DOE Order 5480.1A (9) into a somewhat more prescriptive regulatory environment. The order established: (a) Environmental Protection Standards, (b) Notification and Reports (including the requirements for the annual site environmental reports [ASERs]), (c) Environmental Protection Program Plans (EPPPs), and (d) Environmental Monitoring Requirements (including Environmental Monitoring Plans [EMPs]). EH further determined that the requirements in 5400.1 were not sufficient to define the requirements for a radiological environmental protection program (REPP) and subsequently issued DOE Order 5400.5 in February of 1990 (10) to cover in depth the requirements for REPPs. That order included: (a) Public Dose Limits, (b) Environmental ALARA Process, (c) Management and Control of Radioactive Material in Effluents (solid, liquid, and airborne), (d) Derived Concentra- tion Guides for Air and Water, and (e) Residual Radioactive Material. The DOE then, in a process analogous to that seen in the development of Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 835 (10CFR835) (11) from the original DOE management directive 5480.11, began to codify the essential elements of 5400.5 as Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 834 (10CFR834). The final rule was published in the Federal Register for comment in August 1995 (12). Various draft versions of 10CFR834 were published earlier in the Federal Register in 1993 and 1994. Due to procedural problems in the rule making process, the final rule 10CFR834 has still not been published (as revised following at least 3 rounds of public comment). The best current estimate of publication date (as of press time) is sometime during October 1996. DOE laboratories are expected to have from 1.5-2 years from 10CFR834's effective date in order to attain full compliance with the final rule. 10CFR834's principal sections are: Subpart A--General Provisions (ERPP), Subpart B--Radiation Dose Limits for Members of the Public (environmental ALARA), Subpart C--Requirements Applicable to Airborne Sources of Radiation, Subpart D--Requirements Applicable to Liquid Sources of Radiation, Subpart E--Requirements Applicable to Radioactive Waste, Subpart F--Requirements for the Protection of Biota (expected to be withdrawn and left as a "Reserved" section until further development is completed), Subpart G--Radiological Protection Requirements in the Management of Property Having Residual Radioactive Material, and Subpart H--Records and Reports (ASER) (13). It is anticipated that the accelerator facilities in the DOE complex will be preparing their ERPPs and taking steps to ensure compliance (where additional work is needed) during 1997-1998. A series of draft implementation guides has been planned, but only one document regarding radiological EMPs has already been released and is generally available (14). Regulatory Program Impact ------------------------- The requirements established by the DOE RP programs mentioned in these two articles have changed with sufficient frequency to nearly overwhelm the ability of the smaller laboratories to adequately develop implementation plans for them. The following summarizes the site visits conducted at SLAC related to one or another of the various rules/requirements by DOE and/or DOE contracted assessor/appraiser/surveillance personnel (15-17). SLAC RP (or RP elements included) Program Assessments--Partial Listing 1991-1995 1991 SLAC Radioactive Waste Audit, 6/3/91 SLAC Laboratory Oversight Audit-Vendor-Ground Water, PCBs, 7/15/91* SLAC Hazardous Waste Accumulation Areas Audit, 10/4/91* SLAC Laboratory Oversight Audit-Vendor-Ground Water, PCBs, 10/14/91* DOE Tiger Team Assessment, 11/5/91* 1992 SLAC ES&H/QA Surveillance Program FY92, 2/28/92* SLAC Radioactive Water Sampling Audit, 6/8/92 SLAC Dosimetry Blind Performance Audit, 6/22/92 Radioactive Waste Management Audit (WHC), 7/24/92 SLAC RMMA Audit (related to radwaste moratorium), 8/4/92 SLAC Hazardous Waste Shipments-Packaging/Transportation Audit, 8/4/92* DOE OAK Environmental Appraisal, 8/21/92* DOELAP Site Visit, 9/11/92 1993 SLAC Radiation Protection-Source Material Control, 1/4/93 SLAC Waste Minimization Audit, 4/30/93* SLAC Waste Accumulation Areas Audit, 5/10/93* Radioactive Waste Management Audit (WHC), 5/12/93 DOE OAK Hazardous Materials Packaging & Transportation, 6/17/93 DOE OAK Radiation Protection Functional Appraisal, 8/30/93 SLAC Verification of Corrective Action Audit, 9/1/93* SLAC Radioactive Waste Ongoing Audit, 9/1/93 DOE OAK Quality Assurance Functional Appraisal, 9/27/93* SLAC Waste Accumulation Area Sweeps 1st & 2nd Half Audits, 11/1/93* SLAC ES&H/QA Surveillance Program FY94 Audit, 11/12/93* 1994 SLAC Laboratory Performance Audits FY94, 1/5/94* DOE EH Environmental Management Assessment, 1/31/94 DOE Oakland ES&H Surveillance of PEP II, 3/22/94* Accelerator Safety Order Implementation Plan, 4/1/94 SLAC Lead Surveillance FY94 Audit, 7/29/94* SLAC Radiological Controls Audit, 10/1/94 DOE/OAK Personnel & Environmental RP Program Review, 10/21/94 SLAC Waste Accumulation Area Sweep FY95, 11/9/94* SLAC Lead Surveillance FY95 Audit, 12/1/94* 1995 SLAC Training Audit, 1/1/95* SLAC Environmental Laboratory Performance FY95, 1/25/95* Compliance with California General Storm water Permit, 3/24/95* Implementation Plan for Implementing 10 CFR 835, 4/30/95 WHC Low-Level Radioactive Waste Generator FY95, 5/17/95 DOELAP FY95, 8/7/95 SLAC Radioactive Waste Transportation FY95 Audit, 9/29/95 SLAC Training Audit FY96, 11/6/95* SLAC Radiation Protection Program Audit, 12/11/95 1996 SLAC Dosimetry Performance Audit FY96, 1/11/96 SLAC Environmental Laboratory Performance FY96 Audit, 2/15/96* SLAC Waste Accumulation Area Sweep FY96 Audit, 5/16/96* SLAC Radioactive Waste Transportation FY96 Audit, 7/15/96 *=At least one RP or ERP related program element included. Findings and tasks required development of corrective action plans including resource commitments. Many hundreds of RP personnel hours were consumed dealing with audits and their results. During the process of moving from the prescriptive management directives to the Necessary and Sufficient (N&S) approach where DOE personnel serve as "team members" rather than "auditors", DOE has changed its contractor review philosophy from "Functional Appraisals" to "Performance Based Reviews". The application of specific performance indicators/measures for each laboratory with a set of performance objectives unique to that site is now used in DOE's assessment of the laboratory's RP program. In addition, each contractor laboratory is expected to conduct an internal audit program as part of the institutional quality assurance plan. Internal assessment has been emphasized by the use of institutional self-assessments whereby knowledgeable contractor personnel conduct periodic reviews of laboratory functions for different subject areas, such as RP, on an annual basis. In the "Performance Based Review" environment, the self-assessment process is expected to receive enhanced emphasis by DOE and laboratory management over the next few years. The overall safety management philosophy now being considered by DOE is called "Integrated Safety Management" (18), which attempts to cover all ES&H functions at the sites throughout the complex through a management system of good practices. The trend is to attempt to thoroughly characterize the work prospectively rather than to just evaluate the hazards as has traditionally been done in determining safety envelopes for new facilities. This has been called the "Work Smart Standards" approach by Assistant Secretary Tara O'Toole (EH-1). Issues related to Price Anderson Amendment Act (PAAA) enforcement following the final rule status of 10CFR835 have led to fines being levied by DOE against two contractor facilities: WHC in Hanford, Washington and Sandia Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico (19). Both of these fines involved RP issues "in the aggregate", that is, many small deficiencies that individually would not have been considered of sufficient magnitude for enforcement, in addition to two major precipitating issues: (a) Extremity dose planning, and (b) Access control. It should be noted that single purpose science facilities like SLAC have not received the number of assessments that Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board (DNFSB) eligible sites do. Those facilities (primarily DP and EM managed sites) are not likely to see a significant reduction in assessments using the new Integrated Safety Management schemes, although they do hope to receive more consolidated reviews thereby reducing the percentage of time one or another contractor organizational element is being reviewed during the year. References (1) "Occupational Radiation Protection Programs at US Department of Energy Regulated Accelerator Facilities", M. P. Grissom, IARPE Newsletter, July/August 1996, Vol.5, #4, pp. 4-8. (2) DOE Order 5820.2A, "Radioactive Waste Management", 9-26-88. (3) DOE Order 5480.11, "Radiation Protection for Occupational Workers", 12-21-88 (Chg 1: 7-20-89). (4) "Low-level Radioactive Waste Certification Program", ES&H Division, SLAC-I-760-0A30M-001 [Latest Approved Revision] (5) "Radioactive Material Management Manual", ES&H Division, SLAC-I-760-0A30Z-001 [Latest Approved Revision] (6) "Procedure for the Certification of Hazardous Waste from RMMA Areas", ES&H Division, SLAC-I-720-0A86Z-001 [Latest Approved Revision] (7) "Radiological Control Manual", SLAC-I-720-0A05Z-001, March 1993 (Revision 1, May 1995). (8) DOE Order 5400.1, "General Environmental Protection Program", 11-9-88. (9) DOE Order 5480.1A, "Environmental Protection, Safety, and Health Protection Program for DOE Operations", 8-13-81, Chapter XII ("Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Environmental Pollution"). (10) DOE Order 5400.5, "Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment", 2-8-90. (11) Title 10 CFR Part 835, "Occupational Radiation Protection", Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 238, pp. 65458- 65512, 12-14-93. (12) Title 10 CFR Part 834, "Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment", Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 60, pp. 45381-45385, 8-31-95. (13) "10 CFR Part 834 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment", Rex J. Borders, Environmental Protection Division, DOE/AL, Health Physics Society's 41st Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, July 20-26, 1996. (14) "Environmental Regulatory Guide for Radiological Effluent Monitoring and Environmental Surveillance", DOE/EH-0173T, January 1991. (15) SLAC External Requirements Tracking System (ERTS) Task Summary by Audit, Status as of: 1/31/95. (16) Environment, Safety and Health Audits and Reviews, SLAC Corrective Action Management System (CAMS), 5/2/94. (17) Quality Assurance Tracking System (QATS) Monthly Summary Report, SLAC Totals, status as of 9/10/96. (18) "Department of Energy Guide for Integrated Safety Management", G450.4, Draft dated September 11, 1996. (19) "DOE Press Releases" Web site located at URL: http://www.doe.gov/html/doe/whatsnew/pressrel/releases.html. "For Immediate Release July 18, 1996" and "For Immediate Release August 16, 1996" respectively. ====================================================================== NEWS FROM CORRESPONDENTS ====================================================================== News from APS (P. K. Job, pkj@sgi7.aps1.anl.gov) Gas Bremsstrahlung Measurements at Advanced Photon Source (APS) An experimental program is underway to measure the gas bremsstrahlung from the straight sections of the Advanced Photon Source (APS). This is a collaborative effort between the APS and the High Energy Physics Division at Argonne National Lab. The APS has long straight sections (15 m), and the gas bremsstrahlung in the beamlines can be significant. The bremsstrahlung spectrum and the total energy radiated were measured using a hermetic lead glass calorimeter. This consists of 25 lead glass blocks, each 6 cm x 6 cm x 40 cm in size. Twenty-five phototubes fitted to the lead glass blocks collected the signal. Six GBytes of data were collected as a function of stored beam current (5 to 100 mA at 7 GeV), with both electrons and positrons in the storage ring. These data are being analyzed, and the results will be reported as soon as the analysis is complete. P. K. Job ---------------------------------------------------------------------- News from BNL (Steve Musolino, musolino@bnl.gov) The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at the Brookhaven National Laboratory is nearing an important construction milestone with the upcoming First Sextant Test scheduled for the months of November and December. The test will involve cooldown of one sextant of the Yellow Ring (the two rings of the Collider are labeled Blue and Yellow) and transport of a 10*8/pulse beam of gold ions at 10.8 GeV/amu through the AGS to RHIC Transfer Line and the Collider Sextant, ending in a temporary beamstop at the 4 o'clock intersection region. (The Collider nomenclature is that of a clock face). This is a major achievement in the construction of RHIC because it is the opportunity to demonstrate the performance and test almost all the major accelerator systems. As part of the systems demonstration, with regard to safety, a programmable logic controller based Personnel Accelerator Safety System (PASS) will be used for access control, oxygen deficiency monitoring and electrical safety. The two large detectors, STAR and PHENIX have progressed to the assembly phase. Both detector groups are currently installing their large steel components involving complex rigging procedures and preplanning. As soon as the rigging work is complete the detector chambers, electronics and gas systems will start to be installed in preparation for the initial physics run with Colliding beams in 1999. Steve Musolino ---------------------------------------------------------------------- News from FNAL (Don Cossairt, cossairt@fnal.gov) Fermilab continues to vigorously pursue the startup of its Fixed Target physics program using the Tevatron accelerator. Several of the physics experiments are now taking "publishable" data and have been supported in various ways by the radiation protection community. This support has included the provision of quality check sources, special efforts to understand experimental backgrounds and levels of residual radioactivity, and special projects involving work with radioactive materials. One important example of the latter was work done to arrange the rewrapping of some spectrometer magnet coils that were very slightly radioactive by a commercial vendor in another state with the approval of the appropriate regulatory agency. The radiation protection personnel here are continuing to make a variety of measurements of the various radiation fields. A number of these measurements are needed to support the Laboratory's environmental protection program as well as its occupational radiation protection program. In general, because of the fact that Fermilab's fixed target experimental areas are generally near the surface of the ground while the colliding beam experimental areas are deeply buried, the radiation fields become more accessible and significant during fixed target operations. Included in this work are airborne radioactivity measurements, neutron and muon measurements, and studies of induced radioactivity. Some of the measurements are conducted near and beyond the site boundary using our four-wheel drive vehicle, the Mobile Environmental Radiation Laboratory (MERL). After some difficulties in the startup, generally expected due to the hiatus of four years duration in this part of the program, the Tevatron accelerator has established new records of intensity, now in excess of 1.8E13 per spill. The spills last for about 20 seconds and are repeated approximately once per minute. It is anticipated that all, and more, of these protons will be put to good use in the research program. Work done at Fermilab is presented in six papers submitted to the San Jose Meeting of the Health Physics Society. Several members of our staff look forward to seeing everyone there. Don Cossairt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- News from KEK (Hideo Hirayama, hideo.hirayama@kek.jp) I. Open House KEK Open House was held on September 15. Over 3,500 peoples visited KEK. At Radiation Safety Control Center, we demonstrated a spark chamber and a cloud chamber to show tracks of radiations together with our monitoring system. We also provided an opportunity to make a GM-tube with a plastic film case. II. MARS Code at KEK Dr. Nikolai Mokhov visited KEK for 2 weeks from August 20. He installed his MARS code system in our computer and gave lectures about his code. MARS was now extensively used to evaluate activities around the neutrino beam line and to design a beam dump for a high intensity proton beam of JHP (Japan Hadron Project). III. Call for Participants to "Accelerator Shielding Benchmark Analyses" from the Research Committee on Reactor Physics in Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute as the parts of the works related to SATIF3. 1. Background Accelerators are now increasing in numbers, energies and currents for wide-spread applications not only to basic sciences, but also to industry, medicine and so on. In accelerator shielding design, several computer codes and cross section data can nowadays be used for source-term calculation on neutron and photon emission from the target and transport calculation in bulk shield. However, the accuracies of results obtained by these codes and data are not clearly evaluated in contrast to the nuclear reactor shielding design. Under this circumstance, international accelerator shielding benchmark analyses to be performed by many organizations was proposed at the SATIF-2* meeting. Benchmark problems for the analyses were prepared and compiled as JAERI-Data/Code****. Now, many organizations are expected to participate in this benchmark analyses. All results obtained will be compiled and reported at the next SATIF-3 meeting**. The comparison between calculations and experiments will give us good information for estimating systematic errors and safety margins in the design. Furthermore, from these comparisons, we can find what kinds of study should be done in the future in this field. You are also encouraged to present your benchmark analysis results individually at the SARE-3*** meeting. This "Call for Participants" contains the description of benchmark problems, required results and the time schedule. * SATIF-2 : OECD/NEA Second specialists meeting on "Shielding Aspects of accelerators, Targets and Irradiation Facilities" held at CERN, Geneva, October 12-13, 1995 ** SATIF-3 : OECD/NEA Third specialists meeting on "Shielding Aspects of accelerators, Targets and Irradiation Facilities" to be held at CYRIC, Tohoku University, Sendai, May 12-13, 1997, (information on SATIF-3 meeting is available on requests to Prof. Nakamura, E-mail : nakamura@risun1.cyric.tohoku.ac.jp) *** SARE-3 : Third Workshop on "Simulating Accelerator Radiation Environment" to be held at KEK, Tsukuba, May 7-9, 1997, (information on SARE-3 meeting is available on requests to Prof. Hirayama, E-mail : hideo.hirayama@kek.jp) **** To be Published by end of September 2. Purpose The objective is to clarify the accuracies and limitations of computer codes, cross section data and experimental data by analyzing the same benchmark problems at different organizations. 3. Problem Outline and Data Benchmark problems were prepared for evaluating the calculation codes and the nuclear data for accelerator shielding design by the Accelerator Shielding Working Group of the Research Committee on Reactor Physics in JAERI. Four benchmark problems: (1) transmissions through iron and concrete shields of quasi-monoenergetic neutrons generated by 43 MeV and 68 MeV protons at TIARA of JAERI, (2) neutron fluxes in and around an iron beam stop irradiated by 500 MeV protons at KEK, (3) neutron flux distributions inside a thick concrete shield irradiated by 2.2 - 6.2 GeV protons at LBL, and (4) neutron and hadron fluxes inside an iron beam stop irradiated by 24 GeV protons at CERN are compiled in JAERI-Data/Code****. Calculational configurations and neutron reaction cross section data are also provided in the above report. Those who want to participate in this benchmark analyses will get one copy of this report after registration. You can also get full information on these problems through WWW. The URL is : http://ccwww.kek.jp/kek/rad/accbench/problem_e.html . We are now preparing to add figures to this home page. Q and A page will also be added in this home page. 4. General Information (1) If you decide to participate in this benchmark analysis, please send the REGISTRATION FORM (see the Attachment #1) to the secretariat. (2) You can choose any of four problems according to your interest. It is desirable for this benchmark analysis purpose to collect many results performed with various codes/data. Therefore, we expect you to supply your results as much as possible. (3) Please send your summarized results by E-mail (or diskette) and paper. As the secretariat will compile figures to compare your result with other results, digital data sent by E-mail(or diskette) is preferable. If you can provide a copy of a full paper to be presented at the SARE-3 meeting, it will be more preferable, but not necessary. Only summarized results are required for the secretariat to prepare benchmark analyses summary for the SATIF-3 discussion. 5. Results Required The following items should be included : (1) Problem number and title (2) Problem geometry as used in the calculation, in tabular form and/or as a dimensional sketch ; (if changed from problem description) (3) Material composition of each region ; (if changed from problem description) (4) Complete source description ; (5) Problem normalization, if appropriate ; (6) Description of computational procedure for each step ; step1 : Neutron generation (except problem 1) step2 : Neutron transmission step3 : Dosimeter response , including : a) computer code used, with reference to any user modifications, b) any approximations and/or simplifications, c) computational parameters (with possible reason for their selection), e.g., energy group structure, cross section data set with Legendre scattering expansion and angular quadrature, spatial mesh, boundary conditions, convergence criteria, source sampling, variance reduction method, tally method, histories, etc. (7) Calculated results, including : a) Energy spectrum and C/E value (digital data) b) Dosimeter response and their C/E value (digital data) (8) Overall summary of comparisons with measured data. If available, comparisons with other data, the reason of difference between C and E, the problem still remained to be solved, and proposal for future method, etc. ; (9) Information on computer, storage requirements and computer running time for each step is useful ; (10) Reference from which more complete information and/or problem results may be obtained ; (title of SARE-3 paper etc.) (11) Name, address and E-mail address of person(s) responsible for benchmark problem solution. 6. Key Dates (1) Distribution of "Benchmark Problems" and "Call for Participants" September 1, 1996 (2) Benchmark Registration September 20, 1996 (we will accept even after this date. please notice us as soon as you decided to participate in this analysis. ) (3) Submission of your brief results to the secretariat. February 28, 1997 (please send your results to the secretariat by E-mail and paper) (4) SARE-3 / SATIF-3 registration February 28, 1997 (you are encouraged to present full benchmark paper at the SARE-3 meeting. At the SATIF-3 meeting, only summarized results based on part (3) will be prepared by the benchmark secretariat for discussion.) (5) SARE-3 (KEK, Tsukuba, Japan) May 7-9, 1997 (6) SATIF-3 (CYRIC, Tohoku University, Japan) May, 12-13, 1997 7. Secretariat Please send your registration form, brief result, and questions to : Yoshihiro Nakane, Department of Reactor Engineering, Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute Tokai-mura, Naka-gun, Ibaraki-ken, 319-11, Japan E-mail : nakane@shield2.tokai.jaeri.go.jp, FAX : +81-29-282-5663 Katsumi Hayashi, Hitachi Engineering Company Saiwai-cho, 3-2-1, Hitachi-shi, Ibaraki-ken, 317, Japan E-mail : hayashik@po.infosphere.or.jp, FAX : +81-294-23-6700 Please check WWW from time to time: URL : http://ccwww.kek.jp/kek/rad/accbench/problem_e.html (English) Attachment #1 _____________________________________________________________________ ACCELERATOR SHIELDING BENCHMARK ANALYSIS REGISTRATION FORM NAME : TITLE : ORGANIZATION : ADDRESS : E-MAIL ADDRESS : TELEPHONE : FACSIMILE : PROBLEM NUMBER AND TITLE : CODE/DATA PLANNED TO USE : DO YOU NEED JAERI-DATA/CODE****? (YES/NO) Please send this form to the secretariat by September 20, 1996, if possible. Hideo Hirayam ------------------------------------------------------------------------- News from LSU (CAMD) (Lorraine Day, day@camd.lsu.edu) Here is a question for general consideration by the membership. Should active radiation monitoring devices be an integral part of an interlock system or should they be a separate, parallel protection system? CAMD : The J. Bennett Johnston Sr. Center for Advanced Microstructures and Devices, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA There are currently eight beamlines in operation at the CAMD facility. Four are designated for X-ray lithography (micromachining or circuit) and four for basic sciences / analytical work. We recently experienced the first decommissioning of a beamline when our Brazilian colleagues removed their 1.8 meter TGM (toroidal grating monochromator). This beamline was the first ever installed at CAMD and continued to be a workhorse until February of this year. It will now be installed in the LNLS (Laboratorio Nationale de Luz Sincrotron) in Campinas, Brazil. In its place we are commissioning a 3-meter TGM from the University of Nebraska under the direction of Dr. Charles Hutchings. Two other beamlines are currently being installed. These are the six-meter TGM and a SGM (spherical grating monochromator), which represent collaborations between the Universities of Texas and Tennessee and CAMD (responsible for the front ends, shielding and hutches). Dr. Ward Plummer, Tennessee is the lead scientist for this NSF-funded project. Finally, we have under design, a three-meter normal incidence monochromator (NIM) beamline. It is the result of the collaboration of Southern University (a traditionally black university in Baton Rouge, Louisiana), CAMD, and the Universities of Michigan, Nebraska, Tennessee and Texas. The NIM is scheduled to be one of four beamlines to take advantage of a new 7.5 Tesla wiggler. This is a liquid helium cooled magnet being built by the Brudker Laboratory in Novosibirsk, Siberia, Russia. Delivery is anticipated in December of this year with installation by the summer of 1997. While many of the beamlines in use at CAMD have energy maximums of about 3-5 keV, the wiggler will have significant flux up to 60 keV. If anyone has any radiation protection stories to share regarding such devices, I'd be grateful. Some current upgrades to our radiation interlock system have included a locked panel in the control room which can prevent beamline operation, via a simple flick of the switch, without having to pull the radiation interlock key on the beamline front panel, and the installation of a light curtain as an interlock device for clean room environments (more on this in the 1997 HPS Mid-year Meeting in San Jose). The first device is also used to force bremsstrahlung shutters closed prior to injection. On July 1, we terminated the personnel neutron dosimetry service at the facility following 4.5 years without a single positive result. Neutron monitoring continues however, 24 hours a day. In May, we concluded experiments for the removal of an administrative control (3 meter line during the injection cycle). This exclusion line was also removed July 1. The users are happy to have full access to the experimental hall right up to the shield wall. Verbal and visual warnings (monitor) are still in effect during injection. Our accelerator staff continues their remarkable success with injection times typically less than one minute. These ring fills are low energy (200 MeV) which are ramped to the 1.5 GeV operating energy by a 500 MHz RF cavity. A doubling of the RF power is anticipated for summer of 1997. As usual, we continue to monitor the entire facility with TLD's, monthly. Research efforts continue into effective soft-X-ray detectors. Electret ion chambers (originally developed for radon monitoring) [Rad-Elec] seem to offer the best possibility. We are interested in defining the calibration factors for energies ranging from 1 keV to 22 keV. This work will be in cooperation with NIST. Anyone out there interested in this project should contact me: day@camd.lsu.edu. Lorraine Day ---------------------------------------------------------------------- News from SLAC (Vashek Vylet, vylet@slac.stanford.edu) 1997 Mid-year HPS Meeting Update Kay Thiemann, Director of HPS Special Publications, is toiling away on the Proceedings so that they are ready for the fast approaching '97 midyear meeting. The final count is not in yet, but it seems that at least 80% of presented papers will be included in the Proceedings. This is less than we aimed at (i.e. 100%), but considering difficulties in getting the Proceedings ready BEFORE the meeting and the track record from the last two midyears (~50%), it can be viewed as a mild success. Thanks to all of you who submitted your papers in time. I realize that the time between author notification and deadline for papers was fairly short, the Symposia Committee took note of this for future midyear meetings. If you have any other suggestions how to improve the process and get a high percentage of papers into the Proceedings, please send me an e-mail, or feel free to start a discussion on the accsec forum . If you read the Preliminary Program, you know about the "Work in Progress" mini-poster area. In short, you can bring a 4 ft by 4 ft poster with results of your recent work and have it exhibited for the whole length of the midyear meeting. The only requirement is to send me a notification, to keep track of needed space for this area. I have received only two requests until now, so plenty of space is still available. For those who are not members of HPS and did not receive a copy of the Preliminary program, you can see it on the web at: http://www.hps.org/hps/midyear.html Those who don't have access to WWW can get it from SLAC's anonymous ftp site, ftp.slac.stanford.edu, in the /users/vylet directory. You can choose between three versions: midprog.wrd - Word 6.0 format midprog.ps - Postscript file midprog.txt - plain ASCII format Vashek Vylet -------------------------------------------------------------------------- News from TJNAF (Bob May, may@cebaf.gov) Jefferson Lab Operations Update "First Two-Beam Operation at Jefferson Lab" On 17 August 1996, Jefferson Lab's Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator delivered continuous wave electron beams simultaneously to two experimental halls, marking an important technical milestone. At 0552 that morning, while a nuclear physics experiment continued in Hall C with 60 microampere, five-pass beam, an additional 5 microampere, single-pass beam was sent to Hall A. Two-beam operation continued in the days thereafter, with tune-ups and other preparations being conducted in Hall A in advance of first physics. When the accelerator was shut down on August 30 for scheduled downtime, it had exceeded its availability goals for beam hours scheduled since the first Hall C experiment began in November 1995. Useful beam was available for 67% of 3558 scheduled hours, with 15% for tuning and 18% downtime. The availability goal for the period was 55%. "Jefferson Lab to Hold Cross-Disciplinary Accelerator Workshop" A workshop on "Contamination: Its Measurement and Control in Vacuum Systems" will be held March 26-27, 1997, at Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The workshop will promote technology cross fertilization between accelerator scientists and their colleagues in semiconductor manufacturing, another field vitally concerned with vacuum system integrity. Objectives are to understand the sources of contamination and its effect on vacuum-based processes, to review scientific advances in contamination measurement, and to explore contamination control strategies. Short courses for technical staff will be held March 25-28 in conjunction with the workshop. For more information, please contact Linda Williams: williams@JLab.org, telephone 757 269-7181, fax 757 269-6357. Bob May Radiation Control Group Head Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility ====================================================================== 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 "Science may never come up with a better office communication system than the coffee break" - Earl Wilson