Jason T. Harris, Ph.D. Idaho State University/NATC Radiological Impact of Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Releases: a 12-year Study 1 18 th Annual RETS-REMP.

Jason T. Harris, Ph.D.Idaho State University/NATC

Radiological Impact of Radiological Impact of Commercial Nuclear Power Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Releases: a 12-year Plant Releases: a 12-year

StudyStudy

1

18th Annual RETS-REMP WorkshopJune 23-25, 2008

IntroductionIntroduction General Theory and MethodologyGeneral Theory and Methodology Radiological Impact of Effluent Radiological Impact of Effluent

ReleasesReleases Correlation between Effluent Correlation between Effluent

Releases and Electrical Releases and Electrical GenerationGeneration

REMP EvaluationREMP Evaluation Summary and Future WorkSummary and Future Work

Presentation Outline

2


NPP Radiological ReleasesNPP Radiological Releases Small amounts of radiation released during normal

operating conditions Liquid effluents Gaseous effluents

Three categories of radioactive by-products produced Fission products

Over 300, many insignificant 85Kr, 131I, 133I, 133Xe, etc.

Neutron activation products 13N, 14C, 41Ar, 58Co, 59Fe, 60Co

Tritium (3H) Typically, radiological emissions insignificant to

population Effluent activities decreasing

Introduction (1/5)

3


Introduction (2/5) Regulatory Criteria for ReleasesRegulatory Criteria for Releases

Radiation protection regulations based upon recommendations by ICRP and NCRP

U.S. regulations concerning nuclear power plant releasesUS

Regulatory Body

Regulation Explanation

USEPA 40 CFR 190(public doses)

1 mSv/y (0.1 rem/y) effective dose equivalent0.025 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) whole body dose0.075 mSv/y (75 mrem/y) thyroid dose0.025 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) all other organ dose

USNRC 10 CFR 20 1 mSv/y (0.1 rem/y) effective dose equivalent

10 CFR 50 NPP operations, technical specs. on effluents (Appendix I – numerical guides)

NUREG-0133 Radiological effluent technical specs.

Reg. Guide 1.109, 1.111, 1.112

Effluent and Solid Waste Release calcs.

NUREG-0016, 0017 BWR and PWR effluent calcs. (computer codes)

4


REMPREMP NPPs required to monitor the radiological impact

of reactor operations on the environment and public (NEPA 1969 and FWPCA 1976)

Program Preoperational and operational components Trend and assess radiation exposure rates and conc. in

the environment Annual report submitted (and for releases)

Problem – decreased programs, decreased LLDs (positive results), public opinion, recent unexpected releases, and staff turnover

Introduction (3/5)

5


Although effluent releases are well below regulatory limits (1%) it is important to continually monitor and scrutinize effluent release programs Effluent releases have a direct financial impact on nuclear liability

insurance premiums via the ERF (Engineering rating Factor) program. There is also an indirect financial impact. Performance information also plays an important part in the development of insurance risk profiles that support loss control strategies at each nuclear power plant facility.

As technology improves, MDAs will decrease and what may not have been there in the past, may now appear

Increased environmental findings at several operating and decommissioned plants

Public perception and confidence (Reputation!)

Introduction (4/5)

6


Purpose of ResearchPurpose of Research Protection of public health and safety Study for entire U.S. commercial NPP industry Litigation protection, environmental pathway validity,

trending, projected impact (license renewals, new NPP construction, power-uprates), public perception

Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended and National Cancer Institute (1990 cancer study, NIH)

11 year study of all data for U.S. NRC, NSF, NPP utilities and UNSCEAR

ICRP 2007 Recommendations (protection of non-human species)

Comprehensive database development Recent NPP groundwater contamination and environmental

release events HypothesisHypothesis

Commercial nuclear power operations continues to pose little risk to the general public (radiological releases)

Introduction (5/5)

7


U.S. NRC Dose ModelsU.S. NRC Dose Models

General Theory and Methodology (1/4)

Cip = concentration of radionuclide i in the media of pathway p, (Bq L-1, Bq kg-1, or Bq m-3 );Daipj = dose factor, specific to age group a, radionuclide i, pathway, and organ j (mSv pCi-1 );Raipj = annual dose to organ j or an individual of age group a, from nuclide i via pathway p mSv y-1 ); andUap = exposure time or intake rate (usage) associated with pathway p for age group a (hr y-1, L y-1 or kg y-1 ).

Generalized equation for calculating annual radiation dose via liquid effluent pathways (U.S. NRC Regulatory Guides 1.109 and 1.111)

aipjapipaipg DUCR

Obtained by summing potable water, aquatic food, shoreline deposit, andIrrigated food pathway doses

8


U.S. NRC Dose ModelsU.S. NRC Dose Models


D(r,θ) = total annual dose to an individual from airborne releases at location (r,θ) (mSv yr-1 );DT = annual total body dose from noble gas releases from free-standing stacks more than 80 meters high (mSv y-1 );D∞T = annual total body dose from all other noble gas releases (mSv y-

1 );DG = annual organ dose from external irradiation from radionuclides deposited onto the ground surface (mSv y-1 );DA = annual organ dose from inhalation of radionuclides in air (mSv y-

1 ); andDD = annual organ dose from ingestion of atmospherically released radionuclides in food (mSv y-1 );

Combined equation for calculating annual radiation dose via airborne effluent pathways (USNRC Regulatory Guides 1.109 and 1.111)

DAGTT DDDDDrD ),(

9


UNSCEAR Dose ModelUNSCEAR Dose Model


Generalized equation for calculating collective effective dose pathways (UNSCEAR 2000)

ii

iCE D

E

AD

Ai =activity of release category i (GBq);DCE = total collective effective dose (person-Sv GW-1 y-1);Di = collective dose for release category I (person Sv-1 PBq-1 ); andE = energy produced by the nuclear reactor (GW y-1 ).

Collective dose is divided according to release type (liquid or gaseous), radionuclide category (noble gases, tritium, C-14, iodine, particulate matter), and pathway (immersion, inhalation, ingestion, and external irradiation)

Model site and conditions

10


Censored DataCensored Data


Nuclear power plant releases are very small and may be below analytical detection limits (left censored data)

RETS and REMP reporting often include LLD and/or MDA values

Interpretation of results requires different statistical methods than for non-zero or non-LLD values

Because LLDs varied from one plant to another, substitution was used for less than values Mean and median calculated for industry REMP

study

11


MethodsMethods Data from annual effluent release reports (1995-

2005) Gaseous effluents

Fission and activation products, total iodine, particulates, tritium

Liquid effluents Fission products, dissolved and entrained gases,

tritium, “other” radionuclides Trend analyses (Mann-Kendall) Dose calculations

Collective effective dose - UNSCEAR Theoretically maximally exposed individuals – U.S.

NRC

Radiological Impact of Effluent Releases (1/11)

12



1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Act

ivit

y (G

Bq

)

Year

F/A Gases Iodines

Tritium Particulates

1.0 × 101

1.0

1.0 × 104

1.0 × 105

1.0 × 106

1.0 × 103

1.0 × 102

1.0 × 10-1

Variation of radionuclide activity released in gaseous effluents from PWR plants.

ResultsResults F/A gases and

tritium released in highest quantities

Iodines and particulates several orders of magnitude lower

Singular events can skew entire industry data

PWRs (total) released in higher amounts due to greater number of plants

13



Variation of radionuclide activity released in gaseous effluents from BWR plants.

1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Act

ivit

y (G

Bq

)

Year

F/A Gases IodinesTritium Particulates

1.0 × 101

1.0

1.0 × 104

1.0 × 105

1.0 × 106

1.0 × 103

1.0 × 102

1.0 × 10-1

14



Variation of radionuclide activity released in liquid effluents from PWR and BWR plants

1.E-01

1.E+00

1.E+01

1.E+02

1.E+03

1.E+04

1.E+05

1.E+06

1.E+07

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Act

ivit

y (G

Bq

)

Year

PWR TritiumPWR Other RadionuclidesBWR TritiumBWR Other Radionuclides

1.0 × 101

1.0

1.0 × 104

1.0 × 105

1.0 × 106

1.0 × 103

1.0 × 102

1.0 × 10-1

1.0 × 107

ResultsResults Tritium

released in highest quantities

Fairly level

Marked decline in BWR fission products and dissolved and entrained gases (fuel performance)

15


Trend DetectionTrend Detection Mann-Kendall Non-Parametric Test Statistic

Results Gaseous PWR F/A Gases – decreasing trend Liquid PWR Tritium– increasing trend Gaseous BWR Tritium – increasing trend Liquid BWR Other Radionuclides – decreasing trend Gaseous Total F/A Gases – decreasing trend Liquid Total Other Radionuclides – increasing trend All other categories – no trend


1

1 1

sgnn

k

n

kjkj xxS

16



Gaseous effluent release collective effective doses for PWR plants

1.0E-01

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Col

lect

ive

effe

ctiv

e d

ose

(man

mS

v G

W-1y-1

)

Year

F/A Gases Iodines

Tritium Particulates

1.0

1.0 × 101

1.0 × 102

1.0 × 103

1.0 × 10-1

ResultsResults CEDs show

same pattern as activity releases

Variation in doses not as significant due to difference in collective doses

Even with small collective dose, tritium delivers highest CED due to volume released

17



Variation of radionuclide activity released in gaseous effluents from BWR plants.

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Col

lect

ive

effe

ctiv

e d

ose

(man

mS

v G

W-1 y

-1)

Year

F/A Gases IodinesTritium Particulates

1.0 × 101

1.0 × 102

1.0 × 103

1.0 × 104

1.0

ResultsResults CEDs show

same pattern as activity releases

Variation in doses not as significant due to difference in collective doses

F/A gases highest CED (less tritium released)

18



1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Col

lect

ive

effe

ctiv

e d

ose

(per

son

mS

v G

W-1y-1

)

Year

PWR TritiumPWR Other RadionuclidesBWR TritiumBWR Other Radionuclides

1.0

1.0 × 102

1.0 × 104

1.0 × 101

1.0 × 103

Liquid effluent release collective effective doses for PWR and BWR plants

ResultsResults PWR liquids

give highest CEDs

Many BWRs do not release liquids

19



Year

Electrical EnergyProduced (GW)a

U.S.Population (× 104)b

Effective Dose (mSv)

Gaseous Releases Liquid Releases

TotalF/A Gases Total Iodine Tritium Particulates TritiumOther Radionuclides

199577.1 266,557 8.36 × 10-8 1.95 × 10-10 1.68 × 10-8 1.28 × 10-9 2.93 × 10-8 2.90 × 10-8 1.60 × 10-7

199677.3 269,667 7.79 × 10-8 2.75 × 10-10 1.31 × 10-8 1.10 × 10-9 3.18 × 10-8 2.89 × 10-8 1.53 × 10-7

199771.9 272,912 1.08 × 10-7 1.29 × 10-10 1.90 × 10-8 1.47 × 10-9 2.71 × 10-8 1.22 × 10-8 1.68 × 10-7

199874.9 276,115 1.38 × 10-8 2.80 × 10-10 1.46 × 10-8 2.66 × 10-9 2.68 × 10-8 1.37 × 10-8 7.19 × 10-8

199982.3 279,295 7.00 × 10-9 1.75 × 10-10 1.57 × 10-8 3.06 × 10-10 2.83 × 10-8 1.10 × 10-8 6.24 × 10-8

200085.2 282,402 7.98 × 10-9 1.80 × 10-10 1.48 × 10-8 1.08 × 10-9 3.05 × 10-8 1.07 × 10-8 6.53 × 10-8

200187.8 285,329 5.58 × 10-9 9.21 × 10-11 1.50 × 10-8 8.57 × 10-10 2.54 × 10-8 7.97 × 10-9 5.49 × 10-8

200288.6 288,173 8.42 × 10-9 1.95 × 10-10 1.73 × 10-8 6.62 × 10-10 2.70 × 10-8 1.96 × 10-8 7.32 × 10-8

200387.0 291,028 1.44 × 10-8 3.79 × 10-10 1.51 × 10-8 3.04 × 10-9 2.87 × 10-8 1.15 × 10-8 7.30 × 10-8

200488.1 293,907 6.94 × 10-9 2.67 × 10-10 1.39 × 10-8 2.07 × 10-10 2.64 × 10-8 6.38 × 10-9 5.42 × 10-8

2005

88.6 298,025 7.43 × 10-9 9.70 × 10-11 1.58 × 10-8 5.07 × 10-9 2.75 × 10-8 7.55 × 10-8 1.31 × 10-7

aU.S. NRC 2006a

bU.S. Census Bureau 2006

Average effective doses received by members of the public in the U.S. from commercial nuclear power plant radiological effluent releases.

20



1.0E-05

1.0E-04

1.0E-03

1.0E-02

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Dos

e (m

Sv)

Year

PWR Gaseous Total Body Dose PWR Liquid Total Body Dose

PWR TOTAL Cumulative Dose BWR Gaseous Total Body Dose

BWR Liquid Total Body Dose BWR TOTAL Cumulative Dose

1.0 × 10-3

1.0 × 10-5

1.0 × 10-2

1.0 × 10-4

Mean annual total-body dose and cumulative dose commitments received by maximally exposed individual members of the public in the U.S. from PWR and BWR nuclear power plant radiological effluent releases

ResultsResults Cumulative

doses obtained by summing total body air dose, skin air dose, critical organ air dose, total body liquid dose, critical organ liquid dose, and site direct radiation

Total cumulative dose for PWRs and BWRs similar

21



Yearly total-body dose and cumulative dose commitments received by maximally exposed individual members of the public in the U.S. from commercial nuclear power plant radiological effluent releases

Year

Total body dose (mSv) Cumulative dose (mSv)

Liquid Gaseous

Mean ± S.D. (× 10-4) Total

Mean ± S.D. (× 10-4) Total Total Effluent

Mean ± S.D. (× 10-4) Total

Individual populationa

19986.24 ± 13.3 2.81 × 10-2 11.0 ± 22.4 3.96 × 10-2 6.77 × 10-2 40.8 ± 60.3 2.65 × 10-1

9.60 × 10-10

19997.37 ± 16.2 4.05 × 10-2 7.61 ± 18.1 3.50 × 10-2 7.55 × 10-2 43.6 ± 78.0 2.83 × 10-1

1.01 × 10-9

20007.42 ± 20.5 3.56 × 10-2 10.4 ± 23.4 4.57 × 10-2 8.13 × 10-2 38.1 ± 61.6 2.48 × 10-1

8.78 × 10-10

20016.68 ± 17.6 3.41 × 10-2 5.71 ± 16.3 2.46 × 10-2 5.87 × 10-2 46.5 ± 93.6 3.02 × 10-1

1.06 × 10-9

20024.42 ± 7.87 2.26 × 10-2 18.9 ± 44.4 8.72 × 10-2 1.10 × 10-1 52.9 ± 94.3 3.44 × 10-1

1.19 × 10-9

20033.97 ± 6.55 2.10 × 10-2 6.93 ± 20.9 2.84 × 10-2 4.94 × 10-2 41.9 ± 68.2 2.72 × 10-1

9.35 × 10-10

200410.1 ± 40.8 4.74 × 10-2 4.82 ± 14.3 1.78 × 10-2 6.52 × 10-2 47.0 ± 129 3.05 × 10-1

1.04 × 10-9

20054.37 ± 7.95 2.27 × 10-2 18.5 ± 58.6 7.97 × 10-2 1.02 × 10-1 32.7 ± 55.8 2.12 × 10-1

7.11 × 10-10

2006b

5.55 ± 7.80 2.33 × 10-2 13.1± 26.9 4.72 × 10-2 7.05 × 10-2 46.8 ± 91.8 3.04 × 10-1

1.01 × 10-9

a Obtained by dividing the total cumulative dose by the annual U.S. population (see Fig. 2 for population numbers)b 2006 U.S. population = 300,889 (× 104) (U.S. Census Bureau 2007)

Doses to the general public are insignificant compared to other radiation sources

22


CorrelationCorrelation Determined to measure association between activity

released and electrical energy generated Specifically done to look at the affect of power-

uprates Release activities looked at for period of 3 years

before and after uprate took affect Normalized with capacity factor Importance – effluent dose models (UNSCEAR) and

trends normalized by plant type and electrical energy generated

Correlation between Release Activity and Electrical Generation (1/2)

23


Pearson product-moment correlationPearson product-moment correlation

Statistic is defined as the sum of the products of the standard scores of the two measures divided by the degrees of freedom

Numerical range of +1 - -1 Results

No correlation (or pattern) between any release type and electrical generation (when compared alone)

Regardless of shared data Industry mean – no correlation

Correlation between Release Activity and Electrical Generation (2/2)

1N

zzr yx

24


MethodsMethods Summary Data from annual REMP reports

Sample medium, type and number of analyses performed, LLD, mean and range of indicators, mean and range of control locations, and number of non-routine reports

Pathways and Analyses Direct radiation (TLD) Water - surface, ground, drinking (tritium, gamma) Sediments (gamma) Fish/Invertebrates (gamma) Food products, vegetation (gamma) Air particulates (gross beta) and Iodine Soil and grass (gamma) Non-routine samples (precipitation, storm water)

Number of analyses for study Sites average ~2000 y-1

Total – 1.4 x 106

REMP Evaluation (1/7)

25



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Wat

er (

inge

stio

n a

nd

su

bm

ersi

on

)

Fo

od

Pro

du

cts

Mil

k

Bo

tto

m/S

ho

reli

ne

Sed

imen

t

Fis

h/I

nv

erte

bra

tes

Dir

ect

Rad

iati

on

Air

Par

ticu

late

/Io

din

e (i

nh

alat

ion

)

Per

cen

t Con

trib

uti

on o

f D

ose

Pathway Percent total cumulative dose contribution of various pathways resulting from U.S. nuclear power plant effluent releases.

ResultsResults Taken from

effluent doses given by each pathway

Direct radiation largest contributor (especially for BWR plants

26



Ranking of environmental media based on potential radiation dose from BWR (above) and PWR (below) effluent releases..

Effluent Pathway/RadionuclideRelative Order of Importance

Gaseous Noble Gases

Gaseous Iodine

Gaseous Particulates

Gaseous Tritium

Liquid Tritium

Liquid Other Radionuclides

1 Direct radiation

Milk

2 Fish/invertebrates3 Drinking

water45 Particulate

submersionSubmersion

Effluent Pathway/RadionuclideRelative Order of Importance

Gaseous Noble Gases

Gaseous Iodine

Gaseous Particulates

Gaseous Tritium

Liquid Tritium

Liquid Other Radionuclides

1 Milk2 Direct

radiationDrinking water

Fish/invertebrates

34 Submersion5 Particulate

submersion

27


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Dir

ect R

adia

tio

n -G

amm

a …

Air

Iod

ine

-I-

13

1

Air

Par

ticu

late

-Gro

ss B

eta

Air

Par

ticu

late

-Gam

ma

Su

rfac

e W

ater

-Gro

ss B

eta

Su

rfac

e W

ater

-H-3

Su

rfac

e W

ater

-Gam

ma

Dri

nk

ing

Wat

er -G

ross

Bet

a

Dri

nk

ing

Wat

er -H

-3

Dri

nk

ing

Wat

er -G

amm

a

Gro

un

d W

ater

-Gro

ss B

eta

Gro

un

d W

ater

-H-3

Gro

un

d W

ater

-Gam

ma

Mil

k -

Str

on

tiu

m

Mil

k -

Gam

ma

Fis

h -

Gam

ma

Inv

erte

bra

tes

-Gam

ma

Sed

imen

ts …

Veg

etat

ion

-G

amm

a

Fo

od

Pro

duct

s -G

amm

a

So

il -

Gam

ma

Gra

ss -

Gam

ma

Per

cen

t of

U.S

. P

lan

ts S

amp

lin

g

Pathway and Analysis

Percent of U.S. nuclear power plants sampling different REMP pathways and performing specific analyses (as of calendar year 2005)


28



Number and type of non-routine results reported in REMP samples for U.S. commercial nuclear power plants. Only 0.0116% of all analyses were non-routine.

Year

Total Number ofnon-routine results

Number of Sites

Number of pathway and analysis for detected indicators

Surface water 3HCooling water gross beta/3H

Sediments gamma

Vegetation gamma

Air Iodine 131I

1995 15 7 8 2/1 4 0 01996 20 8 10 1 1 0 01997 14 6 6 1 1 0 01998 9 5 4 0 0 0 01999 17 8 8 0 0 0 12000 21 10 11 0 0 0 02001 20 9 11 0 0 0 02002 13 7 6 0 1 0 02003 8 4 4 0 0 0 02004 10 5 4 0 0 1 02005 16 8 8 0 0 0 0Total 163 77 80 5 7 1 1

29



Direct radiation gamma exposure rates from plant ISFSIs

1.0E+00

1.0E+01

1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Gam

ma

exp

osu

re r

ate

(mR

qu

arte

r-1

)

Year

Calvert Cliffs Control Calvert Cliffs ISFSI Columbia ControlColumbia ISFSI North Anna Control North Anna ISFSIOconee Control Oconee ISFSI Peach Bottom ControlPeach Bottom ISFSI Prairie Island Control Prairie Island ISFSIPoint Beach Control Point Beach ISFSI San Onofre ControlSan Onofre ISFSI Surry Control Surry ISFSI

1.0 × 102

1.0 × 101

1.0 × 103

10

ResultsResults Direct

radiation from ISFSIs not statistically different from control locations

One plant gave exposure rates one order of magnitude higher

Emplacement of spent fuel is leading to higher exposure rates

30


ConclusionsConclusions Summary Data

Detected radionuclides from background, weapons testing and plant produced

Use of controls and NRR isolate plant produced radionuclides

>99.9% of indicator results insignificant (compared to the controls)

Routine operation had no significant or measurable radiological impact to the environment

Releases well below regulatory limits (10 CFR 20 and 40 CFR 190)


31


SummarySummary Comprehensive evaluation and analysis of U.S. commercial nuclear

power radiological effluent releases and REMP was conducted (1995-2005)

Effluent activities compiled and analyzed, showing trends Average CED and doses to maximally exposed individuals calculated

(continue to be very low compared to other sources of radiation and regulatory limits

No correlation found between effluent activity and electrical generation (when compared alone)

REMP evaluation showed no adverse radiological or environmental impact for the study period

Importance alone of database development can not be understated

Summary and Future Work (1/2)

32


Future WorkFuture Work Total inventory still needed for radiological releases Standardization of reporting needed Standardization of LLDs More research in precipitation washout and other

pathways (particularly radionuclide concentration in ice/frost)

Continued industry analysis needed for providing accurate, scientifically bases information for the public

Summary and Future Work (2/2)

33


Acknowledgements

Ph.D. Committee – (Drs. Cember, Miller, Sandison, Schweitzer, Stewart)

US NRC PDR Staff US NPP RETS-REMP staff RETS-REMP Workshop Steering Committee

Ken Sejkora, Ph.D. – Pilgrim Station, Richard Conatser – Calvert Cliffs

Greg Barley – Progress Energy, Steve Sandike –Indian Point

John Doroski – Millstone, Doug Wahl – Peach Bottom Richard Gilbert, Ph.D.

Funding provided by Purdue University, NATC, NPP utilities, EPRI and DoE OCRWM Fellowship Program

34


Thank you!

QUESTIONS?

35


Jason T. Harris, Ph.D. Idaho State University/NATC Radiological Impact of Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Releases: a 12-year Study 1 18 th Annual RETS-REMP.

Documents

remp workshopjune

computer codes18th annual

pwr effluent calcs

public doses1 msvy

nuclear power plant

recent unexpected releases

indirect financial impact

public opinion