• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.14 no.5
• /
• pp.545-552
• /
• 2020

The purpose of this study is to derive a lead thickness calculation formula for direct-shielded doors based on NCRP Report No.151 and IAEA Safety Report Series N0.47. After deriving the dose rate calculation formula for the direct shielded door, this formula was substituted for the lead shielding thickness calculation formula to derive the shielding thickness calculation formula at the door. The lead shielding thickness calculated from the derived direct shielded door shielding thickness calculation formula was about 6% lower than that calculated by the NCRP and IAEA secondary barrier shielding thickness calculation methods. This result is interpreted as meaning that the thickness calculation is more conservative from the NCRP and IAEA secondary barrier shielding thickness calculation methods and fits well for secondary beam shielding. In conclusion, it is thought that the formula for calculating lead shielding thickness of the direct shielded door derived in this study can be usefully used in the shield design of the door.

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.42-46
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this study was to perform a survey of the radiation shielding design goals (P) and workload (W) based on the radiation safety reports concerned with structural shielding design for the IMRT treatment technique in Tomotherapy vaults. The values of the P and W factors as well as of a verified concrete thickness of the ceiling, bottom, sidewalls (sidewall-1 and sidewall-2), and door have been obtained from radiation safety reports for a total of 16 out of 20 vaults. The recommended and most widely used report for P values was the NCRP No. 151 report, which stated that the P factor in controlled and uncontrolled areas was 0.1 and 0.02 mSv/week, respectively. The range of the W factor was 600~14,720 Gy/week. The absorbed dose delivered per patient was 2~3 Gy. The maximum number of patients treated per day was 10~70. The quality assurance (QA) dose was 100~1,000 Gy/week. Fifteen values of the IMRT factor (F) were mostly used but a maximum of 20 values was also used. The concrete thickness for primary structures including the ceiling, bottom, sidewalls, and door was sufficient for radiation shielding. The P and W factors affect the calculation of the structural shielding design, and several parameters, such as the absorbed dose, patients, QA dose, days and F factor can be varied according to the type of shielding structure. To ensure the safety of the radiation shielding, it is necessary to use the NCRP No. 151 report for the standard recommendation values.

• Journal of Radiation Protection and Research
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.151-160
• /
• 2008

In Korean nuclear power plants (NPPs), two thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) were provided to workers who work in an inhomogeneous radiation field; one on the chest and the other on the head. In this way, the effective dose for radiation workers at NPPs was determined by the high deep dose between two radiation dose from these TLDs. This represented a conservative method of evaluating the degree of exposure to radiation. In this study, to prevent the overestimation of the effective dose, field application experiments were implemented using two-dosimeter algorithms developed by several international institutes for the selection of an optimal algorithm. The algorithms used by the Canadian Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and American ANSI HPS N13.41, NCRP (55/50), NCRP (70/30), EPRI (NRC), Lakslumanan, and Kim (Texas A&M University) were extensively analyzed as two-dosimeter algorithms. In particular, three additional TLDs were provided to radiation workers who wore them on the head, chest, and back during maintenance periods, and the measured value were analyzed. The results found no significant differences among the calculated effective doses, apart from Lakshmanan's algorithm. Thus, this paper recommends the NCRP(55/50) algorithm as an optimal two-dosimeter algorithm in consideration of the solid technical background of NCRP and the convenience of radiation works. In addition, it was determined that a two-dosimeter is provided to a single task which is expected to produce a dose rate of more than 1 mSv/hr, a difference of dose rates depending on specific parts of the body of more than 30%, and an exposure dose of more than 2 mSv.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.85-91
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this study is to derive an equation to verify the accuracy of the dose rate for each component calculated at the measurement point outside the maze door when designing the maze door of 6 MV X-ray beam. Based on the component-specific dose rate calculation formula for the measurement point outside the maze door described in NCRP Report 151 and IAEA Safety Report Series 47, the dose rate calculation formula for each component when applying the values of the drawing-based parameters and the dose rate calculation formula for each component when applying the values of conservative parameters are derived. From the two dose rate calculation formulas for each component, the dose rate verification formula for each component at the measurement point outside the maze door was derived. The resulting dose rate verification formula for each component at the measurement point outside the maze door can be compared and analyzed whether the dose rate for each component at the measurement point outside the maze door calculated by the designer falls within the range of the dose rate obtained from the derived dose rate verification formula for each component. This verification formula is considered to be practically useful in verifying the accuracy of the dose rate for each component calculated by the designer.

• Nuclear Engineering and Technology
• /
• v.54 no.2
• /
• pp.449-455
• /
• 2022

The rapid rise in the application of novel treatment techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), motivated us to survey the status of Korea's radiation safety management and the shielding designs of facilities employing medical linear accelerators (LINACs). To this end, a questionnaire was used to collect information on LINAC facilities and treatments, workload, shielding design, shielding management, and path of obtaining shielding information. Out of 100 domestic institutions, 52 responded to the survey. Approximately 70% of the institutions utilized IMRT for more than 60% of their cases, and an IMRT factor of 5 was adopted by 75% of these institutions. Over 80% of the institutions accounted for the applied time-averaged dose rate per week and instantaneous dose equivalent rates in their shielding designs. Approximately 45% of the institutions obtained important shielding information via a radiation shielding design company and the NCRP-151 report. Overall, most facilities were shown to follow the standards recommended by the relevant international agencies. However, the requirement to establish standardized shielding design information and clarify ambiguous paths for information acquisition was also highlighted. Therefore, the study's results can be used as a foundation for establishing a safety control system and for creating adequate shielding designs.