Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Phase 1 (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
Pages 11-34
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 11... ...
The operating facilities include four in situ uranium recovery facilities, one con ventional uranium mill,2 one conversion facility, two uranium en richment facilities, and five fuel fabrication facilities. There are 1 These are referred to as nuclear plants and fuel-cycle facilities in this report; the more generic term nuclear facilities is used to refer to nuclear plants and fuel-cycle facilities collectively.
|
From page 12... ...
This assessment will be carried out in two consecutive phases: A Phase 1 scoping study will identify scientifically sound approaches for car rying out the cancer epidemiology study that has been requested by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
|
From page 13... ...
initiated an investigation of cancer risks in populations near 52 commercial nuclear power plants and 10 Department of Energy nuclear facilities (including research and nuclear weapons production facilities and one reprocessing plant) in the United States (Jablon et al., 1990)
|
From page 14... ...
The only civilian back-end facilities currently in operation in the United States are interim storage facilities for managing used fuel, most of which are located at commercial nuclear power plants. In the United States, almost all of these fuel storage facilities are co-located with nuclear plants.
|
From page 15... ...
FIGURE S.1 Schematic depiction of the nuclear fuel cycle.
|
From page 16... ...
2 1978 California 4 Diablo Canyon Power Plant 1 1984 (Diablo Canyon) 2 1985 San Onofre Nuclear 1 1967 1992 Generating Station (San 2 1982 Onofre)
|
From page 17... ...
2 1983 Quad Cities Nuclear Power 1 1972 Station (Quad Cities) 2 1972 Zion Nuclear Power Station 1 1973 1997 (Zion)
|
From page 18... ...
Prairie Island Nuclear 1 1974 Generating Plant (Prairie 2 1974 Island) Mississippi 1 Grand Gulf Nuclear Station 1 1984 (Grand Gulf)
|
From page 19... ...
Oregon 0 Trojan Nuclear Power Plant 1 1976 1992 (Trojan) Pennsylvania 9 Beaver Valley Power Station 1 1976 (Beaver Valley)
|
From page 20... ...
Texas 4 Comanche Peak Nuclear 1 1990 Power Plant (Comanche 2 1993 Peak) South Texas Project 1 1988 2 1989 Vermont 1 Vermont Yankee Nuclear 1972 Power Station (Vermont Yankee)
|
From page 21... ...
Active Uranium Fuel Fabrication Facilities Wilmington, NC Global Nuclear Fuels-Americas, Active LLC Columbia, SC Westinghouse Electric Company, Active LLC Columbia Fuel Fabrication Fac. Erwin, TN Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
|
From page 22... ...
That request resulted in the present study. The NAS was asked to develop a design for a cancer epidemiologic study to assess potential cancer risks associated with living near USNRClicensed nuclear facilities (see Sidebar 1.1)
|
From page 23... ...
23 INTRODUCTION Index Nuclear Power Plant, State Index Nuclear Power Plant, State Figure 1.1a.eps 1 Browns Ferry, Alabama 34 Seabrook, New Hampshire 2 Farley, Alabama 35 Hope Creek, New Jersey bitmap Oyster Creek, New Jersey 3 Palo Verde, Arizona 36 4 Arkansas Nuclear, Arkansas 37 Salem, New Jersey 5 Diablo Canyon, California 38 Fitzpatrick, New York 6 San Onofre, California 39 Ginna, New York 7 Millstone, Connecticut 40 Indian Point, New York 8 Crystal River, Florida 41 Nine Mile Point, New York 9 St. Lucie, Florida 42 Brunswick, North Carolina 10 Turkey Point, Florida 43 McGuire, North Carolina 11 Edwin I. Hatch, Georgia 44 Harris, North Carolina 12 Vogtle, Georgia 45 Davis-Besse, Ohio 13 Braidwood, Illinois 46 Perry, Ohio 14 Byron, Illinois 47 Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania 15 Clinton, Illinois 48 Limerick, Pennsylvania 16 Dresden, Illinois 49 Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania 17 LaSalle, Illinois 50 Susquehanna, Pennsylvania 18 Quad Cities, Illinois 51 Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania 19 Duane Arnold, Iowa 52 Oconee, South Carolina 20 Wolf Creek, Kansas 53 Robinson, South Carolina 21 River Bend, Louisiana 54 Summer, South Carolina 22 Waterford, Louisiana 55 Catawba, South Carolina 23 Calvert Cliffs, Maryland 56 Sequoyah, Tennessee 24 Pilgrim, Massachusetts 57 Watts Bar, Tennessee 25 Cook, Michigan 58 Comanche Peak, Texas 26 Palisades, Michigan 59 South Texas Project, Texas 27 Fermi, Michigan 60 Vermont Yankee, Vermont 28 Monticello, Minnesota 61 North Anna, Virginia 29 Prairie Island, Minnesota 62 Surry, Virginia 30 Grand Gulf, Mississippi 63 Columbia, Washington 31 Callaway, Missouri 64 Kewaunee, Wisconsin 32 Cooper, Nebraska 65 Point Beach, Wisconsin 33 Fort Calhoun, Nebraska FIGURE 1.1a Currently operating nuclear power plants in the United States.
|
From page 24... ...
. Perhaps for this reason, epidemiologic studies continue to be used to assess cancer risks in populations near nuclear facilities in other countries (see Section 1.2 in this chapter and Appendix A)
|
From page 25... ...
. Since 1985, epidemiologic studies of cancer risks in populations near nuclear facilities have been carried out in at least 11 countries.6 The majority of these studies investigated rates of cancer deaths or cancer occurrence in populations living in various-size geographic areas including counties and municipalities, zones of increasing distance, or zones based on models of dispersion of releases from the nuclear facilities (see Table 4.2, Chapter 4)
|
From page 26... ...
Epidemiologic studies of cancer risks in populations near nuclear facilities have used a number of approaches to assess exposures of study populations to radiation from facility releases (see Section 4.2.1 in Chapter 4)
|
From page 27... ...
The focus for this study is on cancer risks arising from exposures to radiation from nuclear plants and fuel-cycle facilities past and present in the course of their ordinary day-to-day operations. The study is not focused on risks arising from nuclear accidents (e.g., Chernobyl or, more recently, Fukushima)
|
From page 28... ...
The committee decided not to consider mining and milling facilities in this Phase 1 study because of their low associated populations. The committee recognizes that people who live near these mining and milling facilities may be just as concerned about cancer risks as people who live near nuclear plants.
|
From page 29... ...
Hatch Nuclear Plant 2,063 135,568 12 Vogtle Electric Generating Plant 1,941 398,181 13 Illinois Braidwood Station 16,834 971,587 14 Byron Station 12,339 600,581 15 Clinton Power Station 1,643 419,698 16 Dresden Nuclear Power Station 22,872 1,815,892 17 LaSalle County Station 3,211 345,966 18 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station 6,252 451,281 19 Iowa Duane Arnold Arnold Energy Center 12,180 351,236 20 Kansas Wolf Creek Generating Station 1,690 75,810 21 Louisiana River Bend Station 5,647 536,645 22 Waterford Steam Electric Station 13,774 1,119,079 23 Maryland Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 18,438 443,962 24 Massachusetts Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station 23,108 1,245,016 25 Michigan Donald C Cook Nuclear Plant 16,977 563,815 26 Palisades Nuclear Plant 7,693 288,716 27 Fermi 18,035 2,230,762 28 Minnesota Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 21,107 964,863 29 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant 6,650 789,039 30 Mississippi Grand Gulf Nuclear Station 1,657 87,677 31 Missouri Callaway Plant 1,620 225,301 32 Nebraska Cooper Nuclear Station 892 54,338 33 Fort Calhoun Station 9,305 829,567 34 New Seabrook Station 47,004 1,667,009 Hampshire continued
|
From page 30... ...
Summer Nuclear Station 2,940 663,629 55 Catawba Nuclear Station 50,337 1,768,246 56 Tennessee Sequoyah Nuclear Plant 29,485 714,473 57 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 5,152 362,142 58 Texas Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant 6,842 285,159 59 South Texas Project 1,691 66,066 60 Vermont Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station 12,737 345,863 61 Virginia North Anna Power Station 6,903 507,945 62 Surry Power Station 13,081 984,927 63 Washington Columbia Generating Station 407 282,505 64 Kewaunee Power Station 2,974 324,911 65 Wisconsin Point Beach Nuclear Plant 3,297 304,151 Total: 934,488 45,020,247 NOTE: Plants in close geographic proximity may have overlapping populations, so persons living near those plants could be included (i.e., counted) in more than one plant population.
|
From page 31... ...
Census Data Index State Licensee Type 5 mile 30 mile 1 Nebraska Crow Butte Resources, Inc Mining 196 10,796 2 Wyoming Uranium One Mining 237 5,986 3 Power Resources, Inc Mining 72 14,378 4 Uranium One Mining 123 5,340 Kennecott Uranium Corp.a 5 Wyoming Milling 21 1,438 6 Illinois Honeywell International, Conversion 11,334 184,442 Inc 7 North Carolina Global Nuclear Fuels- Fuel 35,854 349,780 Americas, LLC Fabrication 8 South Carolina Westinghouse Electric Fuel 14,512 796,391 Company, LLC Fabrication Columbia Fuel Fabrication Fac. 9 Tennessee Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.
|
From page 32... ...
Small groups of committee members visited the Dresden Nuclear Power Station (Illinois) in April 2011, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (California)
|
From page 33... ...
. Protocol for an analysis of cancer risk in populations living near nuclear-power facilities, Rev.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.