skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: PNNL Measurement Results for the 2016 Criticality Accident Dosimetry Exercise at the Nevada National Security Stite (IER-148)

Abstract

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) participated in a criticality accident dosimetry intercomparison exercise held at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) May 24-27, 2016. The exercise was administered by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and consisted of three exposures performed using the Godiva-IV critical assembly housed in the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) located on the NNSS site. The exercise allowed participants to test the ability of their nuclear accident dosimeters to meet the performance criteria in ANSI/HPS N13.3-2013, Dosimetry for Criticality Accidents and to obtain new measurement data for use in revising dose calculation methods and quick sort screening methods where appropriate. PNNL participated with new prototype Personal Nuclear Accident Dosimeter (PNAD) and Fixed Nuclear Accident Dosimeter (FNAD) designs as well as the existing historical PNAD design. The new prototype designs incorporate optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters in place of thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs), among other design changes, while retaining the same set of activation foils historically used. The default dose calculation methodology established decades ago for use with activation foils in PNNL PNADs and FNADs was used to calculate neutron dose results for both the existing and prototype dosimeters tested in the exercise. The results indicate that the effectivemore » cross sections and/or dose conversion factors used historically need to be updated to accurately measure the operational quantities recommended for nuclear accident dosimetry in ANSI/HPS N13.3-2013 and to ensure PNAD and FNAD performance meets the ANSI/HPS N13.3-2013 performance criteria. The operational quantities recommended for nuclear accident dosimetry are personal absorbed dose, Dp(10), and ambient absorbed dose, D*(10).« less

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [1]
  1. Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1361993
Report Number(s):
PNNL-26497
DOE Contract Number:
AC05-76RL01830
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; criticality accident; criticality dosimetry; nuclear accident dosimetry; Neutron Dosimetry; OSL; optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)

Citation Formats

Rathbone, Bruce A., Morley, Shannon M., and Stephens, John A.. PNNL Measurement Results for the 2016 Criticality Accident Dosimetry Exercise at the Nevada National Security Stite (IER-148). United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.2172/1361993.
Rathbone, Bruce A., Morley, Shannon M., & Stephens, John A.. PNNL Measurement Results for the 2016 Criticality Accident Dosimetry Exercise at the Nevada National Security Stite (IER-148). United States. doi:10.2172/1361993.
Rathbone, Bruce A., Morley, Shannon M., and Stephens, John A.. 2017. "PNNL Measurement Results for the 2016 Criticality Accident Dosimetry Exercise at the Nevada National Security Stite (IER-148)". United States. doi:10.2172/1361993. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1361993.
@article{osti_1361993,
title = {PNNL Measurement Results for the 2016 Criticality Accident Dosimetry Exercise at the Nevada National Security Stite (IER-148)},
author = {Rathbone, Bruce A. and Morley, Shannon M. and Stephens, John A.},
abstractNote = {The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) participated in a criticality accident dosimetry intercomparison exercise held at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) May 24-27, 2016. The exercise was administered by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and consisted of three exposures performed using the Godiva-IV critical assembly housed in the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) located on the NNSS site. The exercise allowed participants to test the ability of their nuclear accident dosimeters to meet the performance criteria in ANSI/HPS N13.3-2013, Dosimetry for Criticality Accidents and to obtain new measurement data for use in revising dose calculation methods and quick sort screening methods where appropriate. PNNL participated with new prototype Personal Nuclear Accident Dosimeter (PNAD) and Fixed Nuclear Accident Dosimeter (FNAD) designs as well as the existing historical PNAD design. The new prototype designs incorporate optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dosimeters in place of thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs), among other design changes, while retaining the same set of activation foils historically used. The default dose calculation methodology established decades ago for use with activation foils in PNNL PNADs and FNADs was used to calculate neutron dose results for both the existing and prototype dosimeters tested in the exercise. The results indicate that the effective cross sections and/or dose conversion factors used historically need to be updated to accurately measure the operational quantities recommended for nuclear accident dosimetry in ANSI/HPS N13.3-2013 and to ensure PNAD and FNAD performance meets the ANSI/HPS N13.3-2013 performance criteria. The operational quantities recommended for nuclear accident dosimetry are personal absorbed dose, Dp(10), and ambient absorbed dose, D*(10).},
doi = {10.2172/1361993},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2017,
month = 5
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • This document describes the personal nuclear accident dosimeter (PNAD) used by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and presents PNAD dosimetry results obtained during the Nuclear Accident Dosimeter Intercomparison Study held 20-23 September, 2010, at CEA Valduc, France. SNL PNADs were exposed in two separate irradiations from the CALIBAN reactor. Biases for reported neutron doses ranged from -15% to +0.4% with an average bias of -7.7%. PNADs were also exposed on the back side of phantoms to assess orientation effects.
  • This document reports the results of testing of the Hanford Personnel Nuclear Accident Dosimeter (PNAD) during a criticality accident dosimeter intercomparison exercise at the CEA Valduc Center on October 13, 14, and 15, 2009.
  • This document reports the results of the Hanford personnel nuclear accident dosimeter (PNAD) and fixed nuclear accident dosimeter (FNAD) during a criticality accident dosimeter intercomparison exercise at the CEA Valduc Center on September 20-23, 2010. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) participated in a criticality accident dosimeter intercomparison exercise at the Commissariat a Energie Atomique (CEA) Valduc Center near Dijon, France on September 20-23, 2010. The intercomparison exercise was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, Nuclear Criticality Safety Program, with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as the lead Laboratory. PNNL was one of six invited DOE Laboratory participants. The other participatingmore » Laboratories were: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Savannah River Site (SRS), the Y-12 National Security Complex at Oak Ridge, and Sandia National Laboratory (SNL). The goals of PNNL's participation in the intercomparison exercise were to test and validate the procedures and algorithm currently used for the Hanford personnel nuclear accident dosimeters (PNADs) on the metallic reactor, CALIBAN, to test exposures to PNADs from the side and from behind a phantom, and to test PNADs that were taken from a historical batch of Hanford PNADs that had varying degrees of degradation of the bare indium foil. Similar testing of the PNADs was done on the Valduc SILENE test reactor in 2009 (Hill and Conrady, 2010). The CALIBAN results are reported here.« less
  • Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 98: Frenchman Flat on the Nevada National Security Site was the location of 10 underground nuclear tests. CAU 98 underwent a series of investigations and actions in accordance with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order to assess contamination of groundwater by radionuclides from the tests. A Closure Report completed that process in 2016 and called for long-term monitoring, use restrictions (URs), and institutional controls to protect the public and environment from potential exposure to contaminated groundwater. Three types of monitoring are performed for CAU 98: water quality, water level, and institutional control. These are evaluatedmore » to determine whether the UR boundaries remain protective of human health and the environment, and to ensure that the regulatory boundary objectives are being met. Additionally, monitoring data are used to evaluate consistency with the groundwater flow and contaminant transport models because the contaminant boundaries (CBs) calculated with the models are the primary basis of the UR boundaries. In summary, the monitoring results from 2016 indicate the regulatory controls on the closure of CAU 98 remain effective in protection of human health and the environment. Recommendations resulting from this first year of monitoring activities include formally incorporating wells UE-5 PW-1, UE-5 PW-2, and UE-5 PW-3 into the groundwater-level monitoring network given their strategic location in the basin; and early development of a basis for trigger levels for the groundwater-level monitoring given the observed trends. Additionally, it is recommended to improve the Real Estate/Operations Permit process for capturing information important for evaluating the impact of activities on groundwater resources, and to shift the reporting requirement for this annual report from the second quarter of the federal fiscal year (end of March) to the second quarter of the calendar year (end of June).« less
  • This report covers the reporting period calendar year 2016 and the fourth quarter of 2015 (October 2015 through December 2016). This change to the reporting periods (i.e., fiscal to calendar) is to gain efficiencies during report development and to better align with other environmental report schedules.