1 / 15

REMP Reports

REMP Reports. Improvements?. Why? Why now?. NRC/Public Interest (plant life extension, new plants, Fukushima) Differences at various sites (Millstone, IPEC, and others (e.g. my assist visits), NRC recommendations on model programs, vendor concerns about differences) Corporate “models”

katelyn
Télécharger la présentation

REMP Reports

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REMP Reports Improvements?

  2. Why? Why now? • NRC/Public Interest (plant life extension, new plants, Fukushima) • Differences at various sites (Millstone, IPEC, and others (e.g. my assist visits), NRC recommendations on model programs, vendor concerns about differences) • Corporate “models” • MARLAP, NUREG/CR-4007, NUREG-0475, HASL • RADNET • NAS Cancer Study • Revisions to Regulations, Reg. Guides and NUREGs

  3. Items for Improvement • User Friendly Information (generally for the Public) • Plots and Trends • Summary Tables • Raw Data presentation – my primary concern

  4. User Friendly Information • Pilgrim and Millstone have nice discussions on how nuclear power plants work and the potential environmental impacts, including background radiation information from NCRP 160 – planning to do the same for IPEC • Also want to tie in the RERRs with the AREORs - Millstone has a thorough discussion of effluents and effluent monitoring in its RERR – planning to do something similar at IPEC

  5. Plots and Trends • Beaver Valley, Southern Nuclear and others have great information (however, some plots which show pre-operational data may actually show “less than” values – some of these have plots showing fallout levels in air particulates from the early 70’s thru today (Chinese weapon tests, Chernobyl, etc.) – these reports are good examples for these plots/trends • Millstone has several good trends (see Figure 2.12 in NAS Phase I - Draft) • 5 year, 10 year, and lifetime trends (pros & cons, e.g., complete history vs. “resolution”)

  6. Millstone figure

  7. Millstone figure

  8. Millstone

  9. Summary Tables • NUREG 1301 & 1302 (BTP on REMP) – recommends format for Summary Table –average only positive results – bad practice, overly conservative especially when only a small percentage of the samples are positive – NAS Phase I Draft uses the summary table results in their report (Tables 2.14, 2.15) • NUREG/CR-4007 –pages 57-60 , 76– “Quality data, poorly reported, leads to needless information loss…” “…, the experimental result and its associated uncertainty should be recorded, even if it should be a negative number. (Proper averaging is otherwise impossible, except with certain techniques devised for “censored” (but not truncated) data.)” • HASL (now EML) - ("Reporting of Analytical Results from HASL," letter by Leo B. Higginbotham • NUREG – 0475 – page 9

  10. NUREG 0475 - page 9

  11. MARLAP • MARLAP recommends that the reported value of a measurement result: (1) be reported directly • as obtained, with appropriate units, even if it is are negative, (2) be expressed in an appropriate • number of significant figures, and (3) include an unambiguous statement of the uncertainty. The • appropriate number of significant figures is determined by the magnitude of uncertainty in the • reported value. Each reported measurement result should include the value and an estimate of the • combined standard uncertainty (ANSI N42.23) or the expanded uncertainty.

  12. Raw Data presentation • Since averaging should include “all results”, why not show all the results in the data tables? (some sites don’t even show these tables, why not?) • RADNETLocation: EPA Region 01Medium: SURFACE WATERNuclides/Radiation: TritiumUnits: TraditionalYear Date Range : 1978 - 2012Note: Before September 1995, tritium results were calculated manually and rounded to the nearest 100 pCi/L (or 0.1 nCi/L). Tritium results less than 100 pCi/L were recorded as 100 pCi/L. Since September 1995 computer software has been used for the calculation and all results have been recorded as obtained. The pre-1995 practice created a positive bias in the measured tritium concentrations, which is clearly visible in graphs.

  13. Raw Data presentation • A few sites have been reporting “all the data” for years – over 35 years for Millstone – it hasn’t presented any problems • Although this does not seem to be “the norm” (for utilities, but it is for the government), itwill provide more useful data (lessen misuses, better trends/plots, better history, …), I really feel it is an important improvement • It’s time for change – let’s educate the public on it – any recommendations????

  14. Conclusion • Improvements can be made by adding a few pages on general information • Trends/plots can be improved – better comparisons to pre-operation or other “historical data” • All data (+, zeros and -) need to be used when performing averages • All data should be presented (positive data, especially plant related can be “highlighted” to indicate which are actually “positive”) – these should be discussed in the “discussion” anyway

  15. Comments/Questions

More Related