[en] A separate abstract was prepared for each item in scope for the Energy Data Base

[en] A separate abstract was prepared for each item in scope for the Energy Data Base

[en] A separate abstract was prepared for each item in scope for the Energy Data Base

[en] Separate abstracts are presented for each of the articles concerning general safety considerations; accident analysis; plant safety features; environmental effects; and operating experiences

[en] A separate abstract was prepared for each item in scope for the Energy Data Base

[en] Licensed fuel facilities (uranium mills, fuel fabrication plants, UF₆ conversion, and certain fuel research and development laboratories) are identified. The following information is tabulated: company; license number; type facility; location; plant capacity; and status

[en] The methods contained in Meteorology and Atomic Energy - 1968, which are commonly used for estimating the effects of dry deposition in radiological assessments, have been compared to the methods contained in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Regulatory Guide 1.111. Although designed for use when determining compliance with Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, Appendix I for light-water-cooled reactors, the NRC guide has the potential of being used for other types of nuclear reactors and for nuclear facilities as well. This comparison has raised a number of concerns about the NRC approach: (1) deposition rate estimates are independent of the user's calculated air concentration; (2) deposition estimates for elevated releases seem too high close to the source; and (3) the plume depletion curves in the guide do not behave as expected relative to the commonly used plume depletion method. In view of these concerns, it is recommended that other, simpler approaches to these processes be considered for radiological assessment purposes

[en] The Ad Hoc Population Dose Assessment Group is composed of members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Environmental Protection Agency. This group has examined the available data for the period following the accident and has concluded that the off-site collective dose associated with the radioactive material represents minimal risks of additional health effects to the off-site population, e.g., an increase of 1 cancer death over the 325,000 which would otherwise be expected. Furthermore, the collective dose will not be significantly increased by extending the period past April 7

[en] The system reliability engineering methodology that is in general use for nuclear systems applications is discussed. No effort is made to address the present state of theoretical development; the approaches covered are those which have been tested by extensive application. Since nuclear systems reliability engineering frequently involves too much information for manual processing techniques, this article lists some of the available computer programs that can be used to provide input to the engineering effort. Also, several theoretical problems are presented that can result in erroneous conclusions and recommendations when certain analysis procedures are used

[en] This article compares the costs and benefits of health and safety measures and regulations in the nuclear and nonnuclear fields. A cost-benefit methodology for nuclear safety concerns is presented and applied to existing nuclear plant engineered safety features. Comparisons in terms of investment costs to achieve reductions in mortality rates are then made between nuclear plant safety features and the protective measures and regulations associated with nonnuclear risks, particularly with coal-fired power plants. These comparisons reveal a marked inconsistency in the cost effectiveness of health and safety policy, in which nuclear regulatory policy requires much greater investments to reduce the risk of public mortality than is required in nonnuclear areas where reductions in mortality rates could be achieved at much lower cost. A specific example of regulatory disparity regarding gaseous effluent limits for nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants is presented. It is concluded that a consistent health and safety regulatory policy based on uniform risk and cost-benefit criteria should be adopted and that future proposed Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulatory requirements should be critically evaluated from a cost-benefit viewpoint