[en] At decommissioning, some accelerators leave a legacy of low-level induced radioactivity in massive components. Although guidelines for acceptable surface contamination levels for release of materials and equipment to the general public do exist, there are presently no standards for release of materials and equipment with radioactivity distributed throughout their volumes. The decommissionings of five AEC-funded accelerators were examined. One common feature of these decommissionings was that major components usually were assigned and shipped for use or storage at other accelerator laboratories. In addition to reviewing selected past decommissionings, the authors also examined various aspects of decommissioning accelerators presently operating. The estimated cost ($ 1978) of decommissioning ranges from $8.8 x 10⁴ for an electron linac to $7.0 x 10⁶ for the ZGS

[en] Short communication

[en] In 1983, Pacific Northwest Laboratory published a series of reports that describe the Allowable Residual Contamination Level (ARCL) method for decommissioning US Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities and sites. The purpose of the method was to provide engineers with a useful tool for conducting safety and cost comparisons for decommissioning alternatives. The ARCL results are based on a scenario/exposure-pathway analysis and compliance with an annual radiation dose limit. Recently, revisions were made to the method that are designed to make it more useful for site- or facility-specific model applications. These revisions include analysis of additional exposure scenarios and pathways, the addition of area/volume correction factors to account for small areas or volumes of residual contamination, and an evaluation of barrier and waste-form credit factors to be applied in the analysis. This paper contains a description of the area/volume correction factors that are intended to permit the model to account for small areas or volumes of residual contamination

[en] A review of existing and proposed radioactive soil contamination standards and guidance was conducted for United Nuclear Corporation (UNC), Office of Surplus Facilities Management. The more applicable standards were reviewed, evaluated and summarized. Information pertaining to soil contamination for both facility operation and facility decommissioning was obtained from a variety of sources. Most of the information reviewed was consistent with the philosophy of maintaining exposures at levels as low as reasonably achievable

[en] This report contains the results of a study sponsored by UNC Nuclear Industries to determine Allowable Residual Contamination Levels (ARCL) for five generic categories of facilities in the 100 Areas of the Hanford Site. The purpose of this study is to provide ARCL data useful to UNC engineers in conducting safety and cost comparisons for decommissioning alternatives. The ARCL results are based on a scenario/exposure-pathway analysis and compliance with an annual dose limit for three specific modes of future use of the land and facilities. These modes of use are restricted, controlled, and unrestricted. The information on ARCL values for restricted and controlled use provided by this report is intended to permit a full consideration of decommissioning alternatives. ARCL results are presented both for surface contamination remaining in facilities (in dpm/100 cm₂), and for unconfined surface and confined subsurface soil conditions (in pCi/g). Two confined soil conditions are considered: contamination at depths between 1 and 4 m, and contamination at depths greater than or equal to 5 m. A set of worksheets are presented in an appendix for modifying the ARCL values to accommodate changes in the radionuclide mixture or concentrations, to consider the impacts of radioactive decay, and to predict instrument responses. Finally, a comparison is made between the unrestricted release ARCL values for the 100 Area facilities and existing decommissioning and land disposal regulations. For surface contamination, the comparison shows good agreement. For soil contamination, the comparison shows good agreement if reasonable modification factors are applied to account for the differences in modeling soil contamination and licensed low-level waste

[en] The article summarizes the progress achieved in the past 2 years concerning criteria for controlling the consumption, or movement in international trade, of potentially contaminated foodstuffs. The progress was presented at the April 1988 IAEA International Conference on Radiation Protection in Nuclear Energy in Sydney, Australia

No abstract available

[en] For the protection of the natural environment against detrimental effects of ionizing radiation, targets for protective actions have to be identified. Furthermore, it will be necessary to discuss criteria, possibly in quantitative terms, that can be monitored or predicted with reasonable accuracy. It is proposed that emphasis should be placed on biodiversity (biological diversity), encompassing intra- and inter-species variation as well as ecosystem structure. By protection of biodiversity, protection of biological resources and their use in local and international communities is inferred. While populations are generally the organizational level that should be protected, they may in certain cases be small, which would necessitate protection at the individual level also. Biodiversity can, however, only be monitored or predicted in detail in very rare cases. Actions taken for the protection of the environment will, therefore, have to ensure adequate protection of conditions governing biodiversity. This can be done by assessing doses to biotic components of the ecosystem. It remains to be discussed whether quantitative criteria should be established, but these would help in assessing both the impact on and the area of concern in the environment. On the basis of the lowest observed effect levels of ionizing radiation for individuals and a safety factor of 100-1000 to account for a range of risk factors, the quantitative criterion for protection of non-human species should probably be set at less than 50 mGy per year. (author). 7 refs

No abstract available

[en] The federal government's Socio-Economic Impact Analysis (SEIA) policy has been in effect since 1978. Under this policy, all new or amended regulations concerning health, safety, or fairness are subjected to a screening exercise which determines whether the regulations are 'major' or 'minor'. The costs and benefits of major regulations are analyzed in depth. This paper describes the SEIA policy and explains some of the basic concepts. Then the steps the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) follows in the analysis of new regulations are summarized. Finally, the AECB's past and forthcoming experience with the SEIA policy is discussed