Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 35
2
Effluent Releases from Nuclear Power
Plants and Fuel-Cycle Facilities
This chapter addresses the following charge in the statement of task for
this study (see Sidebar 1.1 in Chapter 1):
• Availability, completeness, and quality of information on gaseous
and liquid radioactive releases and direct radiation exposure from
nuclear facilities required to estimate doses for an epidemiologic
study.
There are two potential sources of data on radiation releases from
nuclear facilities that could be used to estimate doses for an epidemiologic
study:
(1) Measurements of radioactivity contained in airborne1 and liquid
effluents that are released from nuclear facilities.
(2) Measurements of radiation in the environment around nuclear
facilities.
This chapter describes these effluent release and environmental moni-
toring data and assesses their suitability for dose estimation. The primary
focus is on effluent release data; as will be shown in this chapter, these data
are more useful than currently available environmental monitoring data for
estimating radiation doses for an epidemiologic study.
1 The committee uses the term airborne to refer to gaseous and particulate releases to air and
liquid or waterborne to refer to releases to water.
35
OCR for page 36
36 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS
The effluent release and meteorological data collected by plant licensees
and reported to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) are
intended to demonstrate compliance with applicable USNRC regulations.
These data were not intended to be used for dose reconstruction to support
an epidemiologic study. The suitability of this information to support an
epidemiologic study depends on the intended use of the dose reconstruction.
For example, it might be necessary to obtain hourly or daily data on effluent
releases and meteorological conditions at each facility to reconstruct doses
to specific individuals living near those facilities. One the other hand, data
that are averaged over longer time periods (weeks and months) might be
sufficient to obtain rough estimates of annual doses to populations as a
function of distance and direction from those facilities. Dose reconstruction
is discussed in Chapter 3.
2.1 EFFLUENT RELEASES FROM NUCLEAR PLANTS
The operation of nuclear plants produces large quantities of radioac-
tive materials (Appendix D). Quantities of radioactive materials are most
readily expressed in terms of activity, defined as the rate of radioactive
decay of that material. Activity is usually expressed in units of becquerels
(abbreviated Bq; 1 Bq = 1 decay per second) or curies (abbreviated Ci; 1 Ci
= 3.7 × 1010 [37 billion] decays per second).2 An operating nuclear reactor
can contain on the order of 1014 Ci of activity excluding very-short-lived
radionuclides (NCRP, 1987). Most of this activity is the result of fission of
the reactor fuel (see Appendix D).
A small fraction3 of this activity is typically emitted to the environment
each year as a result of normal plant operations. Radioactive effluents are
released in airborne and liquid form. They originate from several sources
within a nuclear plant:
• Fission of residual uranium contained on the exterior of the fuel
rods, referred to as tramp uranium.
• Leaks from failed fuel rods.
• Diffusion of radioactive gases through intact fuel rods.
• Activation of materials in reactor cooling water.
2 These units are used interchangeably in this chapter, depending on the source of data. In-
ternational organizations generally use becquerels. Nuclear facility licensees and the regulator
generally use curies.
3 As will be shown elsewhere in this chapter (see Figures 2.1 through 2.4), operating nuclear
plants currently release a few curies to a few hundred curies of activity per year to the envi-
ronment. However, some plants emitted several hundred thousand curies of activity per year
to the environment in the past.
OCR for page 37
37
EFFLUENT RELEASES
• Erosion and entrainment of activated materials from pipes, valves,
and pumps in the cooling system.
Effluent releases from nuclear plants are permitted under regulations
promulgated by the USNRC, but they must be controlled, monitored, and
reported to regulatory authorities. Appendix F describes USNRC require-
ments for reporting effluent releases from nuclear plants, and Appendix G
describes the Radiological Effluents Technical Specifications (RETS) guid-
ance for monitoring and reporting such releases.
Nuclear plant licensees are required to report emissions of radionu-
clides to the environment to the USNRC on an annual basis. Because
nuclear power plants are industrial sites, plant licensees also are subject to
environmental reporting requirements mandated by other federal and state
regulatory agencies. These include industrial waste discharges (Clean Water
Act), air emissions (Clean Air Act), chemical inventory reporting (Emer-
gency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act), hazardous waste disposal
(Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), storage tank management, and
spill prevention (Oil Pollution Act).
Tables 2.1 and 2.2 provide lists of the radionuclides that are typically
reported in effluent releases from nuclear plants. The characteristics and
quantities of typical releases are described in the following sections. The
radioactive isotope carbon-14, which is not shown in the tables, is mainly
produced by neutron activation of oxygen-17 in the coolant of reactors of
all types. The production of carbon-14 is estimated to be about 5 Ci per
gigawatt (thermal)-year (GWth-y) in boiling-water reactors (BWRs) and 4
TABLE 2.1 Common Radionuclides in Reported Airborne Effluent
Releases from Nuclear Plants
Category Commonly Reported Radionuclides
Fission and activation gases Krypton (85, 85m, 87, 88)
Xenon (131, 131m, 133, 133m, 135, 135m, 138)
Argon (41)
Iodines/halogens Iodine (131, 132, 133, 134, 135)
Bromine (82)
Particulates Cobalt (58, 60)
Cesium (134, 137)
Chromium (51)
Manganese (54)
Niobium (95)
Tritium Hydrogen (3)
SOURCE: USNRC (2007), Table 2.1.
OCR for page 38
38 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS
TABLE 2.2 Common Radionuclides in Reported Liquid Effluent Releases
from Nuclear Plants
Category Commonly Reported Radionuclides
Mixed Fission and Iron (55)
Activation Products Cobalt (58, 60)
Cesium (134, 137)
Chromium (51)
Manganese (54)
Zirconium (95)
Niobium (95)
Iodine (131, 133, 135)
Tritium Hydrogen (3)
Dissolved and Krypton (85, 85m, 87, 88)
Entrained Noble Gases Xenon (131, 133, 133m, 135, 135m)
SOURCE: USNRC (2007), Table 2.2.
Ci per GWth-y in pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) (EPRI, 2010). Most
of the activity produced is released into the atmosphere. Effluent releases
of carbon-14 have not been required to be reported to the USNRC in the
past. However, starting in 2010, plant licenses are required to estimate and
report releases of this radionuclide to the USNRC. It has been estimated
by some that the atmospheric releases of carbon-14 result in a relatively
large contribution to population dose (Kahn et al., 1985; NEA, 2003).
Additional discussion of the carbon-14 contribution to dose is provided in
Chapter 3.
2.1.1 Airborne Effluent Releases
Figures 2.1 through 2.4 provide graphical illustrations of selected air-
borne effluent releases reported to the USNRC for operating plants in the
United States in 2008. The figures show noble gas releases (Figure 2.1), io-
dine-131 releases (Figure 2.2), particulate releases (Figure 2.3), and tritium
releases (Figure 2.4) from BWRs and PWRs.
The following observations emerge from an inspection of these figures:
• At present, nuclear plants typically release between a few curies
and several hundred curies per year in airborne effluents.
• Most of the activity released in airborne effluents is from fission/
activation gases and tritium. The median activities of these releases
are (currently) approximately the same for BWRs and PWRs, in
spite of the fact that tritium production in PWRs is higher than in
OCR for page 39
39
EFFLUENT RELEASES
(A)
Figure 2.1a.eps
bitmap
FIGURE 2.1 Noble gas releases from (A) BWRs and (B) PWRs in 2008. SOURCE:
Daugherty and Conatser (2008).
OCR for page 40
40 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS
(B)
Figure 2.1b.eps
bitmap
FIGURE 2.1 Continued
OCR for page 41
41
EFFLUENT RELEASES
(B, continued)
Figure 2.1b continued.eps
bitmap
FIGURE 2.1 Continued
OCR for page 42
42 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS
(A)
Figure 2.2a.eps
bitmap
FIGURE 2.2 Iodine-131 releases from (A) BWRs and (B) PWRs in 2008. SOURCE:
Daugherty and Conatser (2008).
OCR for page 43
43
EFFLUENT RELEASES
(B)
Figure 2.2b.eps
bitmap
FIGURE 2.2 Continued
OCR for page 44
44 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS
(B, continued)
Figure 2.2b continued.eps
bitmap
FIGURE 2.2 Continued
OCR for page 45
45
EFFLUENT RELEASES
(A)
Figure 2.3a.eps
bitmap
FIGURE 2.3 Particulate releases from (A) BWRs and (B) PWRs in 2008. SOURCE:
Daugherty and Conatser (2008).
OCR for page 86
86 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS
to the plant due to effluent releases. However, this assumes that ambient
temporal variations in natural background at the control location were
the same as at the other measurement locations, which is not necessarily a
valid assumption. Annual exposures can vary temporally by as much as 10
mR per year due to variations in soil moisture, and they can vary spatially,
even at locations only a few hundred meters apart, due to variations in soil
composition (Beck and Miller, 1982), consistent with the spatial variation
in the Dresden plant TLD data (see Section 3.5 in Chapter 3).
Lang et al. (1987) studied TLD data collected at the Hatch plant (lo-
cated in Georgia) over a 4-year period. They concluded that it would be
very difficult to detect increases in 3-month exposures below 10 percent of
average background levels from TLD data because of measurement error
and spatial and temporal variations in natural background radiation levels.
The maximum (i.e., MEI) annual external radiation exposure from air-
borne effluent releases from nuclear plants is currently estimated as << 1 mR
per year (USNRC, 2009). Although airborne effluent releases from some
nuclear plants in the 1970s and 1980s were up to 1000 times higher than
current releases (UNSCEAR, 1982,1988, 1993, 2000, 2008; see also Sec-
tion 2.1.1 in this chapter), estimated maximum quarterly integrated expo-
sures for most plants were still likely less than 1-2 mR (see Chapter 3). Even
if changes on the order of a few mR per quarter could be detected, they
could not be unambiguously attributed to effluent releases from nuclear
plants because of variations in natural background. Consequently, the pas-
sive monitoring systems around nuclear plants cannot be used to quantify
increases in exposure resulting from routine effluent releases and therefore
cannot be used to validate estimated population doses.
Real-time monitors, when used, can provide quantitative information
on actual increases in exposure rates at a plant due to airborne effluent
releases and can be used to validate estimates based on measured release
rates. Several sites do monitor external radiation levels using HPIC detec-
tors. For example, the state of Illinois maintains an array of HPIC detec-
tors around the Dresden plant. An example of HPIC measurements made
at various distances from a nuclear plants site in the northeastern United
States is shown in Figure 2.16 (Beck et al., 1972).
As discussed later in this chapter, fluctuations in exposure rates above
background can be integrated to estimate exposure for comparison with the
estimated levels calculated from the reported plant effluent releases. This
provides an independent verification of the reported effluent release levels.
2.3.5 Monitoring Deposited Radionuclides
Continuous air sampling measurements generally have lower limits of
detection that are below the levels of airborne particulates and iodine that
actually occur as a result of plant releases during normal operations. Con-
OCR for page 87
87
EFFLUENT RELEASES
FIGURE 2.16 Mean hourly exposures over a 1-week period at three sites near at
Figure 2.16.eps
the Millstone plant. Site A is located inside the fence line; Site B is located approxi-
mately 2 km from the stack; and Site bitmap
C is located several kilometers away from the
stack. SOURCE: Beck et al. (1972).
sequently, such measurements are generally not useful for validating specific
calculations of air activities, and possible ground contamination, based on
measured release rates.28 Plant licensees collect and analyze soil samples at
a few locations around their facilities at least annually. But even after years
of plant operation, the total increase in soil activity is either too low to de-
tect or too low to distinguish from background levels. Soil and air sampling
data can, however, be used to provide an upper bound on dose estimates.
Because predicted levels of exposure rates from deposited radionuclides
released by a plant are only small fractions of the estimated exposures from
noble gas releases, these potential direct radiation exposures cannot gener-
ally be detected by the plant’s passive monitoring systems either.
Monitoring programs based on arrays of passive detectors are adequate
(as intended) for demonstrating compliance with operational limits on
maximum exposure to any individual (i.e., the MEI), but they are not useful
for confirming direct exposure at any specific location based on measured
release rates, nor are they useful for estimating population doses for an
epidemiologic study. Air sample data collected by plant licensees are not
28 However, air monitors are useful for detecting and quantifying activity in air that might
result from an accident or abnormal release that could result in potential doses approaching
or exceeding regulatory limits.
OCR for page 88
88 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS
sensitive enough to estimate deposition of radionuclides from the plant, nor
are analyses of soil or vegetation samples.
2.3.6 Independent Validation Studies of
Environmental Monitoring Programs
A number of independent entities conduct studies on radioactive ef-
fluent releases, environmental radioactivity, and maximum dose estimates
to independently corroborate data collected by plant licensees. In the early
years of nuclear plant operations, USEPA and Atomic Energy Commission
research organizations conducted numerous independent studies in the
environment around plants, measuring external radiation levels and radio-
nuclide concentrations in plants, animals, and water (e.g., Beck et al., 1972;
Blanchard et al., 1976; Carter et al., 1981; Kahn et al., 1970, 1971,1974;
Gogolak, 1973; Gogolak and Miller, 1974a,b; Voilleque et al., 1981; Weiss
et al., 1974).
In almost all instances, these studies did not detect radionuclides attrib-
utable to nuclear plants in environmental samples, even when plants were
emitting much greater amounts of activity than at present. Independent
estimates of MEI doses from noble gases and iodine-131 in milk were also
generally of the same order as those reported by plant operators, generally
confirming that radioactive effluents from the plants were not being signifi-
cantly underestimated. Some of the studies also provided direct confirma-
tion of reported release and atmospheric diffusion calculations.
Some states also conduct independent monitoring around nuclear
plants.29 For example, the state of Texas conducts environmental moni-
toring activities within the 10-mile emergency planning zones of its two
nuclear plants (Comanche Peak and South Texas). The state deploys solid-
state detectors to measure direct radiation and air monitors to measure
gaseous effluents, particulates, and radioiodine. The state also samples
liquids, vegetation, sediments, and fish and invertebrates for radioactivity.
The state of Illinois conducts independent monitoring near its six op-
erating nuclear plants (Braidwood, Byron, Clinton, Dresden, LaSalle, and
Quad Cities) as well as some shut down facilities. The state maintains a
network of 415 environmental dosimeters to measure and document ambi-
ent gamma radiation levels within 10-mile (~16 km) radii of these plants.
The state also collects samples of water, sediment, fish, milk, and vegetables
from 132 locations (see iema.illinois.gov). A committee subgroup observed
29 The USNRC provided funding to states to carry out environmental monitoring around
nuclear plants from 1979 to 1997. Support was discontinued because state programs were seen
to duplicate licensee REMPs. Several states (e.g., Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Washington) have continued to conduct environmental monitoring with their own funding.
OCR for page 89
89
EFFLUENT RELEASES
real-time data being collected by the state around the Dresden plant using
an HPIC detector.
Some states have their own onsite inspectors at nuclear plants in addi-
tion to the USNRC’s resident inspectors. For example, the Pennsylvania Bu-
reau of Radiation Protection assigns a nuclear engineer to each of the state’s
five nuclear plants (Beaver Valley, Limerick, Peach Bottom, Susquehanna,
and Three Mile Island) to review operating procedures, conduct inspec-
tions, and maintain an awareness of environmental monitoring programs
run by plan licensees.30 The Bureau also monitors environmental dosimeters
at 30 locations. New Jersey also has its own REMP.31
Environmental monitoring around one nuclear plant is also being car-
ried out by a private entity. The C-10 Foundation32 is monitoring airborne
radioactivity and wind speeds and directions in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire communities that are located within the 10-mile emergency
planning zone for the Seabrook plant. The monitoring data are available
in near real time.
In addition to the various validation studies specific to nuclear plants
described above, there have been a number of more recent studies validating
atmospheric transport models similar to those used at USNRC-licensed fa-
cilities (Brown, 1991; Napier et al., 1994; Rood et al., 1999; Thiessen et al.,
2005). There have also been a number of other recent studies that describe
the validation of models used for estimating doses resulting from releases
of various radionuclides to the environment that are similar to the mod-
els used for estimating doses from USNRC-licensed facilities (BIOMOVS,
1991; IAEA, 2003; Till et al., 2000) (see Chapter 3 for a discussion of dose
assessment).
2.3.7 Utility of Environmental Monitoring
Data for Estimating Radiation Doses
As described in Sections 2.3.1 to 2.3.3, nuclear plant licensees are
required to measure radioactivity in the environment surrounding their
facilities, including in the air, water, and foodstuffs. Almost all environ-
mental measurements reported by plant licensees, even in early years of
plant operations when radioactive effluent releases were much higher than
30 See http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/publicationsandmedia/insight/insight-web-extra/
revealing-the-green-side-of-nuclear-energy-power-plants-closely-monitored-to-protect-the-envi
ronment/.
31 See http://www.nj.gov/dep/rpp/bne/index.htm.
32 This not-for-profit foundation was established in 1991, when the Seabrook plant began
operations. The foundation’s environmental monitoring activities are carried out under con-
tract with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health.
OCR for page 90
90 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS
at present, are either below minimum detection limits (MDLs) or are not
sensitive enough for use in dose estimation. Consequently, monitoring data
can play only a minimal role in the calculation of doses received by popula-
tions residing in the vicinity of nuclear facilities.
Environmental concentrations of radionuclides released from nuclear
plants and the resulting absorbed doses must instead be calculated from es-
timated effluent releases, as described in Chapter 3. The committee judges,
however, that the measured environmental concentrations, even if they are
usually below MDL, are useful for assessing upper bounds of dose in the
vicinity of nuclear plants. In addition, the usually rare measurements above
the MDL can be used to assess the validity of the reported effluent releases
or the method of calculation of environmental concentrations.
2.4 AVAILABILITY OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA
Estimates of doses from airborne emissions require detailed informa-
tion on both radioactive effluent releases and the local meteorology at the
time those releases occurred. All nuclear plants are required to conduct
meteorological monitoring (see Appendix F) for use in estimating offsite
doses from airborne effluents. For continuous releases, facilities generally
use average annual values for wind speed and direction as a function of
atmospheric stability and release height to estimate offsite doses. However,
to estimate doses for sporadic batch releases, data are required for the ac-
tual times of release because local meteorology can vary significantly over
short time intervals.
As discussed previously in this chapter, airborne releases of primary
importance from nuclear plants are noble gases, tritium, and carbon-14.
One needs to know the direction and strength of the wind and the state of
the atmosphere to estimate transport of these releases. Transport of noble
gases is unaffected by rain. However, this would not be the case for facili-
ties that release radioactive particulates, which would include many fuel
cycle facilities.
The committee could not determine the extent to which detailed me-
teorology data are readily available for all plants and years of operation.
Some plant licensees report annual meteorological data in their REMP
reports. More detailed meteorology data may need to be recovered directly
from facility licensees or from nearby meteorological stations. If detailed
meteorology data are not available for plants with significant batch releases
or highly time-variable continuous releases, then estimated doses may be
significantly more uncertain than those for plants with relatively time-
invariable continuous releases. However, batch releases are generally sig-
nificant only for PWRs. However, as shown earlier in this chapter, airborne
releases for PWRs tend to be lower than for BWRs.
OCR for page 91
91
EFFLUENT RELEASES
2.5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter provides the committee’s assessment of the availability,
completeness, and quality of information on airborne and liquid radioac-
tive effluent releases and direct radiation exposure from nuclear facilities
to support an epidemiologic study. Based on its assessment, the committee
finds that:
1. Effluent release and direct exposure data collected by facility li-
censees, when available, are likely to be sufficiently accurate to
develop a population-level dose reconstruction that provides rough
estimates in annual variations in dose as a function of distance
and direction from nuclear facilities (see Sections 2.1.3 and 2.2.2).
However, even when available, such data would not be sufficient
to support detailed reconstructions of doses to specific individuals
living near nuclear facilities, which would require very precise in-
formation on the whereabouts and dietary habits of the individuals
under consideration. Facility-specific evaluations will be required
to determine the availability and quality of the effluent release and
direct exposure data. These data are likely to be of better quality
for later years of facility operations relative to earlier years because
of improved QA procedures (see Sections 2.1.4 and 2.2.3).
2. Carbon-14 releases from nuclear plants may make a significant
contribution to population dose, especially in recent years. How-
ever, plant licensees have not been required to estimate or report
carbon-14 releases until 2010. It will be necessary to develop a
methodology for estimating releases of carbon-14 prior to 2010 to
support dose estimation for an epidemiologic study.
3. Meteorology data collected by nuclear plants and fuel-cycle facili-
ties are probably adequate to support estimates of radiation doses
for continuous effluent releases. However, the committee was un-
able to determine the extent to which detailed meteorology data are
readily available for all facilities and years of operation. Facility-
specific evaluations will be required to determine the availability
and quality of meteorology data to support dose estimation for an
epidemiologic study (see Section 2.4).
4. Environmental monitoring data have limited usefulness for estimat-
ing doses from effluent releases around nuclear plants and fuel-
cycle facilities. Almost all environmental measurements reported by
facilities are either below the MDLs or are not sensitive enough to
allow for the development of adequate dose estimates. Data from
environmental monitoring that are above MDLs can, however, be
used to validate reported effluent releases or the methods of dose
calculation (see Sections 3.3 and 3.6 in Chapter 3).
OCR for page 92
92 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS
5. Obtaining and digitizing effluent release and meteorology data
for use in an epidemiologic study will be a large and costly effort.
Existing digitized data for nuclear plants are of marginal useful-
ness (see Section 2.1.3), and to the committee’s knowledge such
data do not exist in electronic form for fuel-cycle facilities. It may
be necessary to contact individual licensees to obtain these data, in
addition to information on surface water dispersion of effluents,
and information on the use that is made of the environment around
facilities. Data may not be available for all facilities and all years
of operation.
In light of these findings (especially Findings 1, 2, and 5), the committee
recommends that a pilot study be undertaken to demonstrate the feasibility
of obtaining sufficient data on effluent releases, dispersion of the released
activities in the atmosphere and surface waters, and the use that is made of
the environment around facilities for use in dose estimation to support an
epidemiologic study. This pilot study should:
• Obtain effluent release, direct exposure, and meteorology data for
the six nuclear plants and one fuel-cycle facility discussed in Section
2.1.3 for their entire periods of operation; the committee suggests
Dresden (Illinois), Millstone (Connecticut), Oyster Creek (New
Jersey), Haddam Neck (Connecticut), Big Rock Point (Michigan),
San Onofre (California), and Nuclear Fuel Services (Tennessee) for
the reasons described in Section 2.1.3. If data from these facilities
are not available, then other facilities having similar characteristics
should be selected.
• Digitize these data into a form that is usable for dose estimation
(see Chapter 3).
• Develop interpolation algorithms for estimating effluent releases
for sites and/or years when detailed effluent release data are not
available.
• Develop a methodology for estimating releases of carbon-14 from
the six nuclear plants for all years of plant operations.
The results of this pilot study should be used to inform decisions about any
Phase 2 epidemiologic study effort.
Finally, the USNRC did not ask the National Academy of Sciences to
review effluent release monitoring and reporting requirements as part of
this study. Nevertheless, the committee notes that it would be useful for the
USNRC to review these requirements to determine if they can be adjusted
to improve the usefulness of effluent release, meteorological, and environ-
mental monitoring data for future dose reconstructions. Making such data
OCR for page 93
93
EFFLUENT RELEASES
freely available to the public in summary form (as the USNRC is doing now
with its Effluent Database for Nuclear Plants; see Section 2.1.3) could be an
important step for informing the public about these releases.
REFERENCES
Beck, H. L. (1975). Techniques for Monitoring External Environmental Radiation around
Nuclear Facilities, Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Nuclear Safety Research
(In Japanese), May.
Beck, H. L., and K. M. Miller (1982). Temporal Variations of the Natural Radiation Field.
Transactions of the Second Special Symposium on the Natural Radiation Environment,
Wiley Eastern.
Beck, H. L., J. A. DeCampo, C. V. Gogolak, W. M. Lowder, J. E. Mclaughlin, and P. D. Raft
(1972). New perspectives on low level environmental radiation monitoring around
nuclear facilities. Nucl. Tech. 14:232239.
BIOMOVS (Biospheric Model Validation Study) (1991). Multiple Model Testing Using Cher-
nobyl Fallout Data of I-131 in Forage and Milk and Cs-137 in Forage, Milk, Beef
and Grain. BIOMOVS Technical Report 13. Stockholm: Swedish Radiation Protection
Institute.
Blanchard, R. L., W. L. Brink, H. E. Kolde, H. L. Krieger, D. M. Montgomery, S. Gold, A.
Martin, and B. Kahn (1976). Radiological Surveillance Studies at the Oyster Creek BWR
Nuclear Generating Station, Report EPA-520/5-76-003. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, June.
BNL (Brookhaven National Laboratory) (1983). Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear
Power Plants, 1980. NUREG/CR-2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 1, January.
Brown, K. J. (1991). Rocky Flats 1990-91 Winter Validation Tracer Study. Report AG91-19.
Salt Lake City, Utah: North American Weather Consultants.
Carter, J. W., K. A. Morgan, J. W. Poston, and B. Khan (1981). Assessment of Public Health
Risk Associated with Radioactive Air Emissions from Two Minnesota Nuclear Power
Plants. Report, School of Nuclear Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.
Commonwealth Edison (1976). Dresden Nuclear Power Station Radioactive Waste, Envi-
ronmental Monitoring and Occupational Personnel Radiation Exposure, July through
December 1975 (February).
Daugherty, N., and R. Conatser (2008). Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Plants: Annual
Report 2008. Washington, DC: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Denison Mines (2011). Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Report for Period January 1, 2011
through June 30, 2011 (August).
DEP (Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection) (2006). Reassessment of Mill-
stone Power Station’s Environmental Monitoring Data. Division of Radiation (March).
Detroit Edison (2007). Fermi 2—2007 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release and Radiological
Environmental Operating Report for the period of January 1, 2007 through December
31, 2007.
Dominion (2010a). North Anna Power Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Independent Spent Fuel
Storage Installation (ISFSI) Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (April 26).
Dominion (2010b). North Anna Power Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Independent Spent Fuel Stor-
age Installation (ISFSI) Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (April 26).
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (2010) Millstone Power Station Units 1, 2, and 3 2009
Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Report (April 28).
EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) (2010). Estimation of Carbon-14 in Nuclear Power
Plant Gaseous Effluents. EPRI Technical Report 1021106.
OCR for page 94
94 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS
Exelon (2010). Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 1, 2 and 3. Annual Radiological Envi-
ronmental Operating Report, 1 January through 31 December 2009 (May).
Exelon (2011). Dresden Nuclear Power Station Units 1, 2 and 3 Annual Radiological Environ-
mental Operating Report, 1 January through 31 December 2010 (May).
Gogolak, C. V. (1973) Comparison of Measured and Calculated Radiation Exposure from
a Boiling Water Reactor Plume, Report HASL-277. New York: U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission.
Gogolak, C. V., and K. M. Miller (1974a). Method for obtaining radiation exposure due to a
boiling water reactor plume from continuously monitoring ionization chambers, Health
Phys. 27:132.
Gogolak, C. V., and K. M. Miller (1974b). Determination of gamma ray exposure in the
vicinity of a boiling water power reactor, presented at the Symposium on Population
Exposures, Conf. Report 741018, p. 207 (October).
Harris, J. T., and D. W. Miller (2008). Radiological effluents released by U.S. commercial
nuclear power plants from 1995–2005. Health Phys. 95(6):734-743.
Honeywell (2010). Facility Effluent Report, January 1, 2010–June 30, 2010. Honeywell-
Metropolis Works (August).
Hull, A. P. (1973). Average Effluent Releases from U.S. Nuclear Power Reactors, Compared
with Those from Fossil-Fueled Plants, in Terms of Currently Applicable Environmental
Standards. Informal report, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Health Physics and Safety
Division.
IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (2003). Testing of Environmental Transfer Mod-
els using Data from the Atmospheric Release of Iodine-131 from the Hanford Site, USA,
in 1963. Report of the Dose Reconstruction Working Group of the Biosphere Modelling
and Assessment (BIOMASS) Programme, Theme 2. Vienna: IAEA.
Kahn, B., R. L. Blanchard, H. L. Krieger, H. E. Kolde, D. G. Smith, A. Martin, S. Gold, W. J.
Averett, W. L. Brinck, and G. J. Karches (1970). Radiological Surveillance Studies at a
Boiling Water Nuclear Power Reactor, EPA Report BRH/DER 70-1.
Kahn, B., R. L. Blanchard, H. E. Kolde, H. L. Krieger, S. Gold, W. L. Brinck, W. J. Averett,
D. B. Smith, and A. Martin (1971). Radiological Surveillance Studies at a Pressurized
Water Nuclear Power Reactor, Report RD 71-1.
Kahn, B., R. L. Blanchard, W. L. Brinck, H. L. Krieger, H. E. Kolde, W. J. Averett, S. Gold,
A. Martin, and G. Gels (1974). Radiological Surveillance Study at the Haddam Neck
Nuclear Power Station, EPA Report EPA-520/3-74-007.
Kahn, B., M. W. Carter, and J. W. Poston (1985). Verification of Radiation Exposure from
Airborne Effluent at a PWR Nuclear Power Station”, in Environmental Radiation ‘85,
Rocky Mountain Chapter, Health Physics Society, 1404 Bridger St., Laramie WY 82070.
January 6-10, pp. 575-582.
Klemic, G., J. Hobe, S. Sengupta, P. Shebell, K. Miller, P. T. Carolan, G. Holeman, H.
Kahnhauser, P. Lamperti, C. Soares, N. Azziz, and M. Moscovitch (1999). State of the
art of environmental dosimetry:11th International Intercomparison and Proposed Per-
formance Tests. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 85(1):201-206.
Lang, E., J. Hardeman, and B. Kahn (1987). Use of environmental TLD data at a nuclear
power station to estimate detection limits for radiation exposure due to station operation.
Health Phys. 52(6):775-785.
Marley, R. C. (1979). Radioactivity Releases to the Environment by Nuclear Power Plants—
Locally and for the Total Fuel Cycle. MIT Energy Laboratory Report MIT-EL 79-014
(March).
Napier, B. A., J. C. Simpson, P. W. Eslinger, J. V. Ramsdell, Jr., M. E. Thiede, and W. H.
Walters. (1994). Validation of HEDR Models. PNWD-2221 HEDR UC-000 (May), Bat-
telle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.
OCR for page 95
95
EFFLUENT RELEASES
NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) (1987). Public Radia-
tion Exposure from Nuclear Power Generation in the United States. NCRP Report 92.
Bethesda, Maryland: NCRP.
NCRP (2007). Uncertainties in the Measurement and Dosimetry of External Radiation. NCRP
Report 158. Bethesda, Maryland: NCRP.
NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency). (2003). Effluent Release Options from Nuclear Installations:
Technical Background and Regulatory Aspects. Paris: NEA/Organisation for Economic
Co-Operation and Development.
NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute) (2010). Guideline for the Management of Buried Pipe Integrity.
Report NEI-09-14. Washington, DC: NEI (January).
NFS (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.) (2011). Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report, July through
December 2010 (February).
Phillips, J. W. (1978). Summary of Radioactivity Released in Effluents from Nuclear Power
Plants from 1973 thru 1976. Report EPA-520-3-77-012. Washington, DC: Office of
Radiation Programs.
Rood, A. S., G. G. Killough, and J. E. Till (1999). Evaluation of atmospheric transport models
for use in Phase II of the Historical Public Exposures Studies at the Rocky Flats Plant.
Risk Anal. 19(4):559-576.
Thiessen, K. M., B. A. Napier, V. Filistovic, T. Homma, B. Kanyár, P. Krajewski, A. I. Kryshev,
T. Nedveckaite, A. Nényei, T. G. Sazykina, U. Tveten, K. L. Sjöblom, and C. Robinson
(2005). Model testing using data on 131I released from Hanford. J. Environ. Rad.
84(2):211-224.
Till, J. E., G. G. Killough, K. R. Meyer, W. S. Sinclair, P. G. Voillequé, S. K. Rope, and M. J.
Case. (2000). The Fernald Dosimetry Reconstruction Project. Technology 7:270-295.
UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). (1982).
Ionizing Radiation: Sources and Biological Effects. United Nations Publications.
UNSCEAR (1988). Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations
Publications.
UNSCEAR (1993). Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations Publications.
UNSCEAR (2000). Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations Publications.
UNSCEAR (2008). Sources of Ionizing Radiation. United Nations Publications.
USEC (United States Enrichment Corporation) (2008). Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Docket No. 70-7001, Application for Renewal of Certificate of Compliance, GDP-1
(April).
USNRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) (1977). Regulatory Guide 1.111, Methods
for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine
Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors. Revision 1 (July).
USNRC (1978). Regulatory Guide 4.1, Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs
of Nuclear Power Plants.
USNRC (2006). US NRC Liquid Radioactive Release Lessons Learned Task Force Final Report
(September).
USNRC (2007). Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants, Annual Report 2007.
Washington, DC: USNRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
USNRC (2009). Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants, Annual Report 2008.
Virginia Department of Health (2009). Environmental Radiation Surveillance Data, Annual
Report 2009. Division of Radiological Health.
Voilleque, P. G., B. Kahn, H. L. Krieger, D. M. Montgomery, J. H. Keller, and B. H. Weiss
(1981). Evaluation of the Air-Grass-Milk Pathway for 1311 at the Quad Cities Nuclear
Power Station. NUREG/CR-1600.
OCR for page 96
96 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS
Weiss, B. H., P. G. Voilleque, J. H. Keller, B. Kahn, H. L. Krieger, A. Martin, and C. R. Phillips
(1974). Detailed measurements of 131I in air, vegetation and milk around three operating
reactor sites. Environmental Survelliance Around Nuclear Installations, p. 169. Vienna:
IAEA.
Yhip, K. C., G. J. Oliver, and R. L. Andersen (2010). The Industry Groundwater Protection
Initiative: A Watershed Moment. Radwaste Solutions (March/April).
