LLNL Portion of the Booklet for the CHRES Technical Forum at NETL
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Nuclear science and engineering, Engineering - Ins↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “environmental dosimetry”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Nuclear Safety [Vol. 37, No. 1, January-March 1996]
Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 A Decision Support System for Maintenance Management of a Boiling-Water Reactor Power Plant, J. H. Shen, A. Ray, and S. Levine; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 12 On Prediction of the Ignition Potential of Uranium Metal and Hydride, M. Epstein, W. Luangdilok, M. G. Plys, and H. K. Fauske; 26 An Overview of the Primary Parameters and Methods for Determining Condensation Heat Transfer to Containment Structures, J. Green and K. Almenas; DESIGN FEATURES: 49 Modem Tornado Design of Nuclear and Other Potentially Hazardous Facilities, J. D. Stevenson and Y. Zaho; U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION INFORMATION AND ANALYSES: 73 1994 Accident Sequence Precursor Program Results, R. J. Belles, J. W. Cletcher, D. A. Coplnger, B. W. Dolan, J. W. Minarick, and P. D. O'Reilly; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 93 American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AlChE) Spring 1997 National Meeting; 94 European Safety and Reliability Association International Conference on Safety and Reliability ESREL ’97; 95 Criticality Safety Challenges in the Next Decade; 96 21st International Symposium on the Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management; 84 The Authors; 88 Letter to the Editor; 90 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 36.
05 NUCLEAR FUELS↗
Conversion of Site-Specific Meteorological Data for use in CAP-88 PC
CAP-88 PC is a commonly used radiological atmospheric dispersion model. This US EPA-approved model is used to demonstrate compliance with atmospheric emission regulations for radionuclides. While the model includes a large library of meteorological data for use across the United States, there are applications when users may wish to use onsite meteorological data as an input to the CAP-88 PC model. Here, in this work, we present a work-around process for preparing and converting onsite data for use in CAP-88 PC. However, the use of local data should provide a more realistic estimate of doses to members of the public in the immediate vicinity of a facility, although the regulatory agency having jurisdiction may not accept the use of local data for compliance. Additionally, the historical meteorological records from 20+ years ago (at a site many kilometers away) might not be representative of current local weather patterns, highlighting another benefit of using local meteorological data.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Verification of RESRAD-BUILD Code Version 4
This report documents the verification of the RESRAD-BUILD code, Version 4.0, which was released on December 22, 2022. Two earlier reports verifying Versions 3.0 and 3.1, respectively, were published in 2001 (Kamboj, et al. 2001) and 2003 (Tetra Tech NUS 2003). Version 4.0 of the RESRAD-BUILD code has many new features and modeling enhancements over the earlier versions, including the previously released Version 3.5. Chapter 2 of this report focuses on verifying the external dose and risk modeling for point, line, area, and volume sources, as well as for floor deposition. Besides verification, the external radiation doses calculated by RESRAD-BUILD were also benchmarked with those calculated by the MCNP code (Briemeister 1993). Section J.3 of the RESRAD-BUILD User’s Manual Vol. 1 (Yu et al. 2022) documents the results of that benchmarking effort. Chapter 3 of this report focuses on verifying the ventilation modeling, from checking the remaining source inventory, releases of radionuclides to the air, air concentrations and deposited floor concentrations over time, to the radiation dose and risk associated with inhalation, ingestion, and air submersion, with and without vacuuming. The verification efforts involve designing spreadsheets to perform calculations the same as or like those performed by the RESRAD-BUILD code and then comparing the spreadsheet results with those produced by the code. When the results agree or the differences are within acceptable range, the accuracy of model implementation in the code is verified. In addition to model implementation, the implementation of key functions and features that facilitate the modeling or the use of the code were also verified during the release testing of the code. Appendix A presents the test cases developed for these verification testing, and Appendix B presents the testing results that verify proper implementation of key functions and features.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
LLNL NESHAPs 2023 Annual Report
Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC operates facilities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in which radionuclides are handled and stored. These facilities are subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Part 61, Subpart H, which regulates radionuclide emissions to air from Department of Energy (DOE) facilities. Specifically, NESHAPs limits the emission of radionuclides to the ambient air to levels resulting in an annual effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem (100 µSv) to any member of the public. Using measured and calculated emissions, and building-specific and common parameters, LLNL personnel applied the EPA-approved computer code, CAP88-PC, Version 4.1.1.0, to calculate the dose to the maximally exposed individual member of the public for the Livermore Site and Site 300.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Comparison of Projections for a Short-Term Release, CAP88 vs NARAC
The purpose of this study was to compare the projected dose using different plume models, evaluating a short duration release of tritium to the 16 compliance sectors and 4 additional points of interest using local meteorology. This report is written as guidance to the decision makers when reviewing this specific Gaussian plume model intended for radiological dose assessment and regulatory compliance, called CAP88 1 , as compared to a more-complex model designed for emergency response. The emergency response model, NARAC 2 , can be used to supplement the CAP88 compliance model evaluations, since NARAC is intended for use in situations where releases are shorter in duration and have increased complexity in terrain and meteorology.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
2025 Review and Revision of Federal Guidance Report 15
Federal Guidance Report No. 15 (FGR 15), External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water and Soil, published in 2019 and referred to below as FGR 2019, provides age-specific effective dose rate coefficients for reference persons externally exposed to each of 1252 radionuclides homogenously distributed in environmental media. Soon after completion of FGR 2019, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) published a similar report (ICRP Publication 144, 2020) addressing the same radionuclides and many of the external exposure scenarios addressed in FGR 2019. In 2023 Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) published a review of dose coefficients in FGR 2019, concluding that “The external effective dose from beta radiation is not appropriately accounted for in FGR 15 for both low- and high-energy beta emitters in air, in soil, and on soil surfaces.” That conclusion was based largely on comparisons of dose coefficients in FGR 2019 with values in ICRP Publication 144 but also on consideration of some unexpected patterns of equivalent dose rate coefficients across tissues and of effective dose rate coefficients across different soil depths, for a selected set of low-energy beta emitters. In response to the ANL report, the Center for Radiation Protection Knowledge (CRPK) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) performed an extensive reexamination of the methods and published values of FGR 2019. CRPK found that coding errors had resulted in inaccurate estimates, primarily overestimates, in many of the dose coefficients tabulated in FGR 2019 but that many of the differences between results in FGR 2019 and ICRP Publication 144 could be traced to differences in methodology. CRPK has corrected all errors in FGR 2019 associated with the coding errors and has taken the opportunity to improve a major portion of the remaining dose coefficients in FGR 2019, primarily through additional Monte Carlo calculations resulting in improved statistics for tissue equivalent dose rate coefficients for exposure to monoenergetic sources. This has eliminated the need for extrapolation of results from high and medium energies to low energies, as was done in FGR 2019. In addition, inconsistencies in the methodology identified in the review, such as computational representation of the adult female, were eliminated. The revised effective dose rate coefficients are consistent with values in ICRP Publication 144 except for differences in values clearly arising from differences in methodology; and differences in values for a relatively small set of very low-energy radionuclides with highly uncertain dose coefficients regardless of methodology.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
MARSAME Release Report for Replacement Water Lines From TA-48 to TA-55, Revision 2
Environmental Protection and Compliance, Environmental Stewardship (EPC-ES) has determined that only a portion of the soil associated with Replacement Water Lines from Technical Area (TA)-48 to TA 55 (Figure 1) meets the criteria for unrestricted release to the public under Department of Energy (DOE) Order 458.1, Radiation Protection for the Public and the Environment (DOE, 2020). The remaining soil did not meet the criteria for unrestricted release and must be managed appropriately. These conclusions are based on the known history of the area combined with soil sample data collected in 2022; the findings are consistent with DOE Order 458.1 and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Functional Series Document EPC-ES-FSD-004, Environmental Radiation Protection (LANL, 2021). Sampling and data analysis, as described in this report, were sufficient to meet measurement quality objectives (MQOs) under the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Assessment of Materials and Equipment (MARSAME) manual (NUREG, 2009) and LANL procedures (LANL, 2020). Final approvals for waste disposition will come from LANL’s Waste Management Program.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
FRMAC Laboratory Analysis Manual Volume 1, Revision 0
The Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center (FRMAC) is an operational center, available on request by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to respond to nuclear and radiological incidents as described in the National Response Framework (NRF). Under the Federal Interagency Operational Plan for Response and Recovery’s Nuclear/Radiological Annex, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has the responsibility to maintain the operational readiness of the FRMAC during the emergency phase of an event. FRMAC is initially established and managed by the Nuclear Emergency Support Team (NEST) and serves as an interagency operations center with representatives from various federal, state, and local radiological response organizations. The purpose of the FRMAC is to assist state, local, tribal, and territorial governments (SLTT) in their mission to protect the health and well-being of their citizens with: • Verified radiation measurements. • Interpretations of radiation distributions based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or local Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs). • Characterization of overall radiological conditions. Once a declaration to respond to a radiological emergency has been made, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Headquarters will coordinate the response in consultation with the cognizant NNSA Regional Coordinating Office (RCO). Each of the eight RCOs maintain a 24-hour response capability for radiological emergencies that may occur in states served by its region. When a FRMAC is established, it operates under the parameters of the Incident Command System (ICS), as defined in the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) construct. The Consequence Management Home Team (CMHT) will be activated immediately during normal business hours (Pacific Time Zone), and within two hours otherwise. The Consequence Management Response Team (CMRT) is prepared for deployment within six hours after activation. Along with the assets, FRMAC provides an operational framework for coordinating of all federal off-site radiological monitoring and assessment activities during a response to a radiological emergency to support the coordinating agency and SLTT governments. Potential radiological emergencies that fall within FRMAC vary widely in terms of the area affected, the nature of the contamination, and the scope of the government’s response. Detonation of a nuclear device, accidental release of radiation from a nuclear power plant, and a terrorist threat are just a few of the many possible scenarios FRMAC must be prepared to address. Through all this, supporting the state, local, and tribal organizations in the protection of the public remains the primary goal of the federal response.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Bioaccumulation Factor for Radium in Rio Grande Biota
The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL or Laboratory) Environmental Protection and Compliance Division’s Environmental Stewardship Group (EPC-ES) performs the radiological analysis portion of biota dose assessments using the computer program RESRAD-Biota (DOE 2004, DOE 2020). RESRAD-Biota uses a default bioaccumulation factor, B iv , for radium in aquatic animals. This bioaccumulation factor, also listed in Department of Energy (DOE) Standard, DOE-STD-1153-2019, is the ratio of a radionuclide concentration in fresh weight biota to the environment in which it resides, which for aquatic animals is water. DOE-STD-1153-2019 offers conservative values for these ratios that are specific to the radiological contaminant, the biota, and the environment. The B iv in RESRAD-Biota can be used for general screening (Level 1 screening). If the factor proves to be too conservative, then a site-specific B iv may be used. The biota dose assessment of fish from the northern New Mexico region of the Rio Grande fail the general screen, which indicates that further analysis is necessary. Level 2 analysis is site-specific but still has conservative limitations. Level 3 analysis is a more realistic and representative, sitespecific analysis. The purpose of this paper is to use data specific to the Rio Grande to calculate a new aquatic animal radium B iv . This B iv can then be used for Level 3 analysis of aquatic animals specifically in the northern New Mexico region of the Rio Grande. The calculated radium B iv is a useful value for performing detailed, accurate biota dose assessments and calculating dose to fish using RESRAD-Biota when only sediment data are available.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
User’s Manual for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code Version 2: Vol. 1—Methodology and Models Used in RESRAD-RDD&IND Code
RESRAD-RDD&IND is part of the RESRAD family of codes that Argonne National Laboratory developed for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). An earlier version, RESRAD-RDD published in 2009, dealt only with radiological dispersal device (RDD) incidents (DOE 2009). This new version, RESRAD-RDD&IND, is designed to evaluate both RDD incidents and improvised nuclear device (IND) incidents. This report is Volume 1 of the RESRAD-RDD&IND User’s Manual that documents the methodology, models, and radionuclide-specific data used in RESRAD-RDD&IND code Version 2.0. Volume 2 of the RESRAD-RDD&IND User’s Manual is called the User’s Guide for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code . It describes how to use RESRAD-RDD&IND code Version 2.0 and includes screen shots and parameter information.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
User’s Manual for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code Version 2: Vol. 2—User’s Guide for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code
Version 2.0 of the RESRAD-RDD&IND computer code is designed to support the implementation of protective action guides (PAGs) after a nuclear emergency incident including a radiological dispersal device (RDD) and/or an improvised nuclear device (IND) incident (EPA 2017). Eight different group types, addressing various decisions, are available for selection. The RESRAD-RDD&IND code calculates radiological doses, stay times, etc., for the selected group that the user wishes to focus on. (That is, the results for all the groups are not calculated simultaneously, and the input for those other groups do not matter, although some parameter values are shared between groups.) Version 2.0 has a user-friendly interface so that the RESRAD-RDD&IND code can be used with minimal training. For example, the user can select the major characteristics of the problem-event type, source term, and decision type from the left side of the interface and then calculate the results with the default assumptions for the exposure scenarios. More in-depth analysis would include specifying site-specific exposure scenario characteristics in the right side of the interface. The procedures for data entry and results viewing are self-explanatory. This is because common window maneuvering features and text instructions were incorporated in the interface design. General and context-specific help are available to aid users entering parameter values, as well. The RESRAD-RDD&IND computer code gives the user the option to select either an RDD or IND incident for analysis. For an RDD event analysis, 11 radionuclides (Am-241, Cf-252, Cm-244, Co-60, Cs-137, Ir-192, Po-210, Pu-238, Pu-239, Ra-226, and Sr-90) are included. These 11 radionuclides are the radionuclides most likely used for an RDD. More than 90 radionuclides can be selected for an IND event analysis. Initial default concentrations are provided for 44 radionuclides for a uranium-fueled IND event. These 44 radionuclides are those that would contribute significantly to the radiation dose associated with a uranium-fueled bomb detonation. The radionuclides generated from ingrowth of these 44 initial radionuclides are also automatically included in the analysis. Pu-239, Cs-134m, Ru-105, and Rb-89 and their progeny can be selected for analysis if they are detected and their concentrations are determined. This user’s guide, which is Volume 2 of the User’s Manual for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code Version 2, provides instructions to users on how to install the RESRAD-RDD&IND code, navigate the interface, and use the various features, including those discussed above, to set up an analysis and view/print the results in text outputs. Volume 1 of the User’s Manual for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code Version 2 (Yu et al. 2026), which contains descriptions of the methodology and theoretical basis for dose modeling and the mathematical equations implemented in the code, can be accessed and viewed through the Help menu in the code or can be downloaded from the RESRAD website (https://resrad.evs.anl.gov).
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Fitting the RESRAD External Dose Rate Coefficients Model to the FGR 15 Data
FGR15 (Bellamy et al. 2025) lists external dose rate coefficients for radionuclides in soil, water and air. It has five tables of coefficients for contaminated soil; one for radionuclides on the surface of the soil and one each for radionuclides in soil layers of 1 cm, 5 cm, 15 cm and infinite thickness. Each table contains 7512 coefficients, quantifying the external dose rate from each of the 1252 ICRP107 radionuclides, to each of the six reference persons of different ages.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Worst Case Sabotage Consequence Modeling for Advanced Reactors
Under proposed rulemaking by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, advanced reactor licensees may qualify for a reduction in onsite responders if the consequences from a sabotage attack do not exceed 25 rem at the reactor site boundary 2 hours after a release occurs. This work presents a preliminary assessment of the feasibility of meeting the 25 rem at the site boundary criteria. Using advanced reactor radionuclide inventories radiological release estimates created by collaborators at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the MACCS consequence analysis code was used to investigate the distance at the dose from hypothetical sabotage events reaches 25 rem for different advanced reactor technologies. It was found that the distance to 25 rem depended heavily on sampled weather conditions and sabotage release fractions, and further refinement of release fractions and MACCS modeling parameters is recommended.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Assessment of Materials and Equipment (MARSAME) Radiological Release Report for Technical Area 33 Decontamination and Demolition Project
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Nuclear Safety [Vol. 37, No. 2, April-June 1996]
Nuclear Safety is a journal that covers significant issues in the field of nuclear safety. Its primary scope is safety in the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power reactors worldwide and the research and analysis activities that promote this goal, but it also encompasses the safety aspects of the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing and handling, and nuclear waste disposal, the handling of fissionable materials and radioisotopes, and the environmental effects of all these activities. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 97 The Nuclear Community and the Public: Cognitive and Cultural Influences on Thinking About Nuclear Risk, M. A. Meyer; 109 Twenty-Third Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting, D. A. Copinger; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 126 Analysis of a PWR LBLOCA Without SCRAM, Trevor N. Tyler, Rafael Macian-Juan and John H. Mahaffy; DESIGN FEATURES: 139 Vulnerability of Multiple-Barrier Systems, N. C. Lind; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 149 A Study of Wet Catalytic Oxidation of Radioactive Spent Ion Exchange Resin by Hydrogen Peroxide, Xingchao Jian, Tianbao Wu, and Guichun Yun; 157 A Comparison Study and Resolution of Differences Between Emergency Response and Safety Analysis Codes Used at the Savannah River Site, A. A. Simpkins; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 164 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 167 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 172 Proposed Rule Changes as of Dec. 31,1995; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 178 American Nuclear Society 1997 Annual Meeting; 178 American Nuclear Society Nuclear Criticality and Safety Division Topical Meeting; 176 The Authors.
05 NUCLEAR FUELS↗
A mixture parameterized biologically based dosimetry model to predict body burdens of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in developmental zebrafish toxicity assays
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of environmental toxicants found ubiquitously as complex mixtures in human-impacted environments. Developmental zebrafish exposures have been used widely to study PAH toxicity, but most studies report nominal exposure concentrations. Nominal exposure concentrations can be unreliable dose metrics due to differences in toxicant bioavailability resulting from disparate exposure methodologies and chemical properties. Toxicokinetic modeling can predict toxicant tissue doses to facilitate comparison between exposures of different chemicals, methodologies, and biological models. We parameterize a biologically based dosimetry model for developmental zebrafish toxicity assays for 9 PAHs. The model was optimized with measurements from media, tissue, and plastic plate walls throughout a static developmental exposure to a mixture of 10 PAHs of high abundance within the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. Plate binding, volatilization, zebrafish permeability, and tissue—media partitioning coefficients vary widely between PAHs. Model predictions accounted for 83% and 54% of 48 hpf body burdens within a factor of 2 resulting from exposures to mixtures and individual PAHs, respectively. Accounting for solubility significantly improves model performance. Competition for active sites in metabolizing enzymes may change biotransformation kinetics between individual PAH and mixture exposures. Area under the curve estimations of concentrations in zebrafish resulted in altered hazard rankings from nominal exposure concentrations. Future work will be oriented to generalizing the model to other PAHs. This PAH dosimetry model improves the interpretability of developmental zebrafish toxicity assays by providing time-resolved body burdens from nominal exposure concentrations.
63 RADIATION, THERMAL, AND OTHER ENVIRON. POLLUTAN↗
Nuclear Safety [Vol. 33, No. 1, January-March 1992]
Nuclear Safety is a review journal that covers significant developments in the field of nuclear safety. Its scope includes the analysis and control of hazards associated with nuclear energy, operations involving fissionable materials, and the products of nuclear fission and their effects on the environment. Primary emphasis is on safety in reactor design, construction, and operation; however, the safety aspects of the entire fuel cycle, including fuel fabrication, spent-fuel processing, nuclear waste disposal, handling of radioisotopes, and environmental effects of these operations, are also treated. Table of Contents for this issue follows. GENERAL SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: 1 Technical Note: A New Approach to Fission Reactor Safety, Yu. V. Petrov; 5 Erratum; ACCIDENT ANALYSIS: 6 Analysis and Modeling of Fission Product Release from Various Uranium-Aluminum Plate-Type Reactor Fuels, R. P. Taleyarkhan; CONTROL AND INSTRUMENTATION: 23 Applications of a Surveillance and Diagnostics Methodology Using Neutron Noise From a Pressurized-Water Reactor, R. T. Wood, L. F. Miller, and R. B. Perez; DESIGN FEATURES: 36 Westinghouse Advanced Passive 600 Plant, B. A. McIntyre and R. K. Beck; 47 System 80+™ PWR Safety Design, C. W. Bagnal, R. A. Matzie, and R. S. Turk; ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: 58 The MATS Experiments—Mesoscale Atmospheric Transport Studies at the Savannah River Site, A. H. Weber, S. Berman, R. J. Kurzeja, and R. P. Addis; 75 Book Review: Environmental Radioactivity in the European Community 1984-1985-1986, C. A. Little; WASTE AND SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT: 76 Activities Related to Waste and Spent Fuel Management, M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; OPERATING EXPERIENCES: 87 Aging Assessment of BWR Control Rod Drive Systems, R. H. Greene; 100 Reactor Shutdown Experience, Compiled by J. W. Cletcher; 103 Selected Safety-Related Events, Compiled by G. A. Murphy; 110 Operating U.S. Power Reactors, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: 129 General Administrative Activities, Compiled by M. D. Muhlheim and E. G. Silver; 139 Reports, Standards, and Safety Guides, D. S. Queener; 143 Proposed Rule Changes as of Sept. 30 1991; ANNOUNCEMENTS: 128 Harvard School of Public Health Announces Short Courses; 128 16th Biennial ANS Topical Meeting on Reactor Operating Experience: Present and Future Technologies—Applying Lessons Learned (Call for Papers); 147 The Authors; 150 Indexes to Nuclear Safety, Volume 32; 154 Errata.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗