U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Uranium in the U.S.A. is controlled by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. New uses are being found for depleted uranium, ie., uranium with the percentage of 23su lowered to about 0.2%. 

All processes in a nuclear plant, in a treatment facility, or at a disposal site are governed by rules of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)... 

J. E. Till and H. R. Meyer, eds.. Radiological Assessment, A Textbook on Environmental Dose Analysis, NUREG/CR-3332, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washiagton, D.C., 1983 Disposal of Radioactive Waste Review of S afety Assessment Methods, Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris, 1991. 

Clarification ofTMIMction Plan Requirements Report No. NUREG-0737, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Division of licensing, Washington, D.C.,Nov. 1980. 

R. W. Gotchy, Health Effects Attributed to Coal andNuclearFuel Cycle Alternatives, Report NUREG-0332, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,... 

On August 8, 1985, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRCf requested the operators of nuclear power plants in the U.S. to perform Individual Plant Examinations (IPE) on their plants. IPEs are probabilistic analyses that estimate the core damage frequency (CDF) and containment performance for accidents initiated by internal events (including internal flooding, but excluding internal fire). Generic Letter (GL) 88-20 was issued to implement the IPE request to identify any plant-specific vulnerabilities to severe accidents and report the results to the Commission. ... 

The SLIM technique is described in detail in Embrey et al. (1984) and Kirwan (1990). The technique was originally developed with the support of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission but, as with TFIERP, it has subsequently been used in the chemical, transport, and other industries. The technique is intended to be applied to tasks at any level of detail. Thus, in terms of the HTA in Figure 5.6, errors could be quantified at the level of whole tasks, subtasks, task steps of even individual errors associated with task steps. This flexibility makes it particularly useful in the context of task analysis methods such as FITA. 

Common Cause Fault Rates for Pumps, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-2098, February 1983. 

NRC. 1979. Environmental assessment of ionization chamber smoke detectors containing Am-241. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, DC. NRC-02-78-045. NUREG/CR-1156. http //www.nrc.gov/. December 13, 2000. 

NRC. 1992. Residual radioactive contamination form decommissioning Technical basis for translating contamination levels to annual total effective dose equivalent. Washington, DC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NUREG/CR-5512. 

Kent, D.B., Tripathi, V.S., Ball, N.B., Leckie, J.O., and Siegel, M.D., Surface-Complexation Modeling of Radionuclide Adsorption in Subsurface Environments, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report NUREG/CR-4807, 1988, p. 113. 

EPA proposed standard in 40CFR197 (EPA, 1999). The standard here is based on the dose to the reasonably maximally exposed individual. The proposed limit is set at 0.15 mSv per year for the next 10,000 years. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has made numerous specific criticisms of the EPA proposal, including suggestions that the dose limit be raised to 0.25 mSv per year (Travers, 1999). Such criticisms, and inputs from other sources, may significantly delay the promulgation of the final standard. 

Figure 4.26 Representative instrument tube routing in a PWR. (From Fletcher and Bolander, 1986. Reprinted with permission of U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, subject to the disclaimer of liability for inaccuracy and lack of usefulness printed in the cited reference.)...

Perkins, R.W., J.A. Young, P.O. Jackson, V.W. Thomas, and L.C. Schwendiman, Workshop on Radiological Surveys in Support of the Edgemont Clean-up Action Program, NUREG/CP-0021, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. (1981). 

Eugene S. Simpson, Glenn M. Thompson, Anthony Muller, Richard Zito, Juan Carlos Lerman and other associates at the University of Arizona have been most generous with their time and ideas. Many of the researchers cited in our review have also contributed to our study in ways too numerous to mention, to these and especially to Professor Hans Oeschger and Dr. David Elmore we owe our gratitude. The present study was funded by U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Contract NRC-04-78-272. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The Regulation and Use of Isotopes in Today s World, available at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0217/rl/br0217rl.pdf. 

The authors wish to thank Steve Flexser of Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory who prepared samples and William Stickle of the Perkin Elmer Surface Analytical Laboratory who performed the XPS analysis. This work was supported by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

---