Contesting European Regions

The research on which this paper is based was conducted under an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Professorial Fellowship [grant number RES-051-27-0302].Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Radiological risk comparison guidelines

An important aspect of DOE safety analyses is estimating potential accident risk. The estimates are used to: determine if additional controls are needed, identify Safety Class Items, and demonstrate adequate risk reduction. Thus, guidelines are needed to measure comparative risks. The Westinghouse M O Nuclear Facility Safety Committee and the Safety Envelope Working Group have developed radiological risk guidelines for comparing the risks from individual accident analyses. These guidelines were prepared under contract with the US Department of Energy. These guidelines are based on historical DOE guidelines and current requirements, and satisfy DOE and technical community proposals. for goals that demonstrate acceptable risk. The guidelines consist of a frequency versus consequence curve for credible accidents. Offsite and onsite guidelines are presented. The offsite risk acceptance guidelines are presented in Figure 1. The guidelines are nearly isorisk for anticipated events where impacts are chronic, and provide additional reduction for unlikely events where impacts may be acute and risk uncertainties may be significant. The guidelines are applied to individual release accident scenarios where a discrete frequency and consequence has been estimated. The guideline curves are not to be used for total risk assessments. Common cause events are taken into consideration only for an individual facility. Frequencies outside the guideline range are considered to be local site option (analyst judgement) as far as assessments of risk acceptance are concerned. If the curve is exceeded, then options include either a more detailed analysis or imposing additional preventive or mitigative features. Another presentation discusses implementation in detail. Additional work is needed to provide risk comparison guidelines for releases from multiple facilities and for toxic releases

A comparison of the neutron response of CR-39 made by different manufacturers

CR-39 was obtained from American Acrylics and Plastics, Inc. (A.A), N. E. Technology, Ltd. (N.E), and Tech/Ops Landauer, Inc. (LT). The dosemeters were exposed to radioisotopic neutron sources at SLAC, and moderated {sup 252}Cf at ORNL. The A.A. and N.E. dosemeters were electrochemically etched (pre-etch in 6.5 N KOH at 60{degrees}C for 1 hour and 45 minutes, a 5 hour etch at 3000 V and 60 Hz, a 23 minute blow-up step at 2 kHz and a post-etch for 15 minutes). Track densities were determined with the Homann Track Size Image Analyzer. The LT dosemeters were chemically etched in 5.5 N NaOH at 70{degrees}C for 15.5 hours. Some A.A., N.E., and LT dosemeters were etched in 6.25 N NaOH at 70{degrees}C for 6 hours. A pre-etch step in 60% methanol and 40% NaOH at 70{degrees}C for 1 hour was added for some N.E. dosemeters. The results of these studies are reported in this paper. 3 refs., 2 figs., 2 tabs