Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

2 Effluent Releases from Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel-Cycle Facilities
Pages 35-96

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 35...
... This chapter describes these effluent release and environmental monitoring 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.
From page 36...
... Dose reconstruction is discussed in Chapter 3. 2.1 EFFLUENT RELEASES FROM NUCLEAR PLANTS The operation of nuclear plants produces large quantities of radioactive materials (Appendix D)
From page 37...
... 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)
From page 38...
... 2.1.1 Airborne Effluent Releases Figures 2.1 through 2.4 provide graphical illustrations of selected airborne effluent releases reported to the USNRC for operating plants in the United States in 2008. The figures show noble gas releases (Figure 2.1)
From page 39...
... 39 EFFLUENT RELEASES (A) Figure 2.1a.eps bitmap FIGURE 2.1 Noble gas releases from (A)
From page 40...
... 40 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS (B) Figure 2.1b.eps bitmap FIGURE 2.1 Continued
From page 41...
... 41 EFFLUENT RELEASES (B, continued) Figure 2.1b continued.eps bitmap FIGURE 2.1 Continued
From page 42...
... 42 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS (A) Figure 2.2a.eps bitmap FIGURE 2.2 Iodine-131 releases from (A)
From page 43...
... 43 EFFLUENT RELEASES (B) Figure 2.2b.eps bitmap FIGURE 2.2 Continued
From page 44...
... 44 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS (B, continued) Figure 2.2b continued.eps bitmap FIGURE 2.2 Continued
From page 45...
... 45 EFFLUENT RELEASES (A) Figure 2.3a.eps bitmap FIGURE 2.3 Particulate releases from (A)
From page 46...
... 46 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS (B) Figure 2.3b.eps bitmap FIGURE 2.3 Continued
From page 47...
... 47 EFFLUENT RELEASES (B, Continued) Figure 2.3b continued.eps bitmap FIGURE 2.3 Continued
From page 48...
... 48 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS (A) Figure 2.4a.eps bitmap FIGURE 2.4 Tritium (H-3)
From page 49...
... 49 EFFLUENT RELEASES (B) Figure 2.4b.eps bitmap FIGURE 2.4 Continued
From page 50...
... 50 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS (B, continued) Figure 2.4b continued.eps bitmap FIGURE 2.4 Continued
From page 51...
... . Airborne effluent releases from nuclear plants also display significant variability across time.
From page 52...
... from 1975 to 2002. Noble gases constituted the largest source of releases from the Dresden plant during this time period, which again is typical for effluent releases from nuclear plants.
From page 53...
... , and radioactive particulates (green bars) for the Dresden plant Figure 2.6.eps from 1975 to 2002.
From page 54...
... for 1980 data; Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for 2008-2010 data.
From page 55...
... Groundwater contamination is discussed in Section 2.1.4.3. Figures 2.8 through 2.11 provide graphical illustrations of selected liquid effluent releases for nuclear plants in the United States.
From page 56...
... E Ginna Arkansas One 1-2 Dresden Mon cello San Onofre 1-3 Oyster Creek Peach Bo om FIGURE 2.9 Comparison of liquid radioactive effluent releases, excluding tritium, for selected BWRs (left)
From page 57...
... SOURCE: Data from UNSCEAR. Figure 2.10.eps 1.E+06 1.E+05 1.E+04 GBq/a 1.E+03 1.E+02 Dresden Oyster ck Millstone 1.E+01 Oconee 1.E+00 2000 2006 2004 2008 2002 1990 1996 1980 1984 1986 1988 1998 1994 1982 1992 1972 1978 1970 1976 1974 FIGURE 2.11 Variation of annual tritium releases in liquid effluents from selected nuclear plants.
From page 58...
... 2.1.3 Availability of Information on Effluent Releases Information on releases of airborne and liquid radioactive effluents from nuclear plants to the environment is available in reports that are submitted by plant licensees to the USNRC. These reports are available in pdf format for all operating nuclear plants in the United States beginning in 2005 (http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plantinfo.html)
From page 59...
... SOURCE: BNL (1983) for 1980 data; Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for 2009-2010 data.
From page 60...
... The committee then asked the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 10 to contact plant licensees to determine whether they have maintained records of effluent releases and associated meteorological data.
From page 61...
... However, these annual reports do not provide specific information about effluent release points or associated meteorological data required to estimate atmospheric dispersion. They also do not distinguish batch releases from continuous releases.
From page 62...
... Obtaining and digitizing these data will be a large and costly job. 2.1.4 Data Quality and Suitability for Estimating Radiation Doses The committee assessed the quality of the effluent release data and its suitability for use in dose estimation for an epidemiologic study.
From page 63...
... Further investigation showed that this issue began in April 2004, which resulted in non-conservative reporting of station effluents and calculated offsite doses for this period. This affected the data reported in the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports for the calendar years 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 … and the Annual Radiological Environmental Operating Reports for the calendar years 2004, 2005, and 2006."
From page 64...
... 2.1.4.2 Liquid Effluent Releases Estimating doses from liquid releases in surface waters requires detailed information on the specific radionuclides released; the total amount of activity of each radionuclide released; the time of release; the hydrology at the time of release; and the use that humans make of the water. In its review of available data, the committee noted that, as was the case for airborne effluent releases, the availability and completeness of the data varied significantly from plant to plant, particularly during the early years of operation.
From page 65...
... They also include routine liquid releases initially prepared and monitored in accordance with regulatory guidance, but which were discharged to an unanalyzed environmental pathway as a result of degraded radioactive waste equipment or piping. TABLE 2.5 Summary of Inadvertent Releases of Radioactive Liquid Effluents at Nuclear Plants Nuclear Power Date of Release Radionuclides Plant Discovery Source of Release Detected Braidwood March 2005 Vacuum breaker valves on the Tritium circulating water blowdown line Byron February 2006 Vacuum breaker valves on the Tritium circulating water blowdown line Callaway June 2006 Vacuum breaker valves on the Tritium, cobalt-58, circulating water blowdown line cobalt-60, cesium-134, cesium-137 Dresden August 2004, Non-safety related HPCI suction Tritium January 2006 and return line Hatch December 1986 Fuel transfer canal due to Tritium operator action Indian August 2005- Unit 1 and Unit 2 spent fuel Tritium nickel-63, Point Unit 1 leakage pools cesium-137, predates August strontium-90, and 2005 cobalt-60 Oyster September 1996 Condensate transfer system due Tritium Creek to operator action Palo Verde March 2006 Rain condensing onto property Tritium after a gaseous release Perry March 2006 Feedwater venturi Tritium Point Beach 1999 Retention pond Tritium, cesium-137 Seabrook June 1999 Spent fuel pool Tritium Salem September 2002 Spent fuel pool Tritium Three Mile May 2006 Condensate storage tank Tritium Island Watts Bar August 2002 Effluent release pipe and SFP Tritium and mixed transfer tube sleeve fission products SOURCE: USNRC (2006)
From page 66...
... As a result of lack of historical groundwater monitoring data, estimation of public dose impacts arising from uncontrolled liquid releases at many sites has required licensees to retroactively undertake the following activities: 1. Install new groundwater and/or surface water monitoring net works to evaluate current and potential movement of the released liquid(s)
From page 67...
... 2.2 EFFLUENT RELEASES FROM FUEL-CYCLE FACILITIES Unlike nuclear plants, it is difficult to make general statements about airborne effluent releases from front-end nuclear fuel-cycle facilities, beyond the fact that the majority of releases involve uranium and uranium progeny with lesser amounts of other radionuclides (see Appendix E)
From page 68...
... Radionuclide Airborne Effluents Liquid Effluents 10–2 9.12 × 10–1 (measured) Natural U 4.28 × (measured)
From page 69...
... TABLE 2.8 Airborne Effluent Releases for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant for Calendar Year 2006 Reported Release from Location (curies) C-400 C-709/ Seal C-400 Cylinder C-710 Exhaust/ Grouped Drying Drying C-310 Wet Air C-409 Radionuclide Sources Station Hoods Stack Group Dissolver C-360 Total Uranium-234 1.39 × 10–4 1.27 × 10–5 5.91 × 10–4 2.04 × 10–3 1.05 ×10–2 1.03 × 10–7 1.31 ×10–4 1.34 × 10–2 Uranium-235 4.84 × 10–6 4.42 × 10–7 2.05 × 10–5 7.09 × 10–5 3.64 × 10–4 3.59 × 10–9 4.56 × 10–6 4.65 × 10–4 Uranium-238 2.86 × 10–5 9.94 × 10–6 5.49 × 10–5 2.12 × 10–4 3.65 × 10–3 1.88 × 10–8 1.36 × 10–5 3.97 × 10–3 Technetium-99 9.40 × 10–3 1.56 × 10–8 0.00 3.65 × 10–4 3.96 × 10–5 1.07 × 10–7 0.00 9.80 × 10–3 Thorium-230 3.95 × 10–7 8.73 × 10–9 0.00 3.48 × 10–6 0.00 1.25 × 10–9 0.00 3.66 × 10–6 Neptunium-237 1.76 × 10–5 3.01 × 10–7 1.31 × 10–7 2.93 × 10–5 1.22 × 10–5 2.59 × 10–9 1.66 × 10–5 7.61 × 10–5 Plutonium-239 4.65 × 10–8 5.99 × 10–9 0.00 1.47 × 10–6 0.00 8.5 × 10–10 0.00 1.52 × 10–6 SOURCE: USEC (2008)
From page 70...
... .18 A key take-away message from an examination of Tables 2.6 through 2.9 is that reported effluent releases from fuel-cycle facilities in recent years 18 The presence of plutonium-238 in the effluents would not be expected to result from commercial nuclear fuel production. This isotope is produced by irradiating uranium-238 with deuterons and is produced for use in thermoelectric generators.
From page 71...
... As for any operating industrial facility, significant unplanned releases from fuel-cycle facilities (as well from nuclear plants) could have large impacts on doses to populations.
From page 72...
... In cases where unplanned releases have occurred, such releases would need to be taken into account when making dose estimates for an epidemiologic study. To the committee's knowledge, data on radioactive effluent releases from individual fuel-cycle facilities have not been compiled into summary form.
From page 73...
... The following sections provide examples of environmental monitoring data for nuclear plants. Similar kinds of data are generated for monitoring around fuel-cycle facilities but are not presented in this chapter for the sake of brevity.
From page 74...
... levels at these plants. 2.3.2 Water Monitoring For environmental pathways associated with liquid effluent releases, monitoring usually involves sampling of surface water, groundwater, and drinking water in locations near the plant, as well as shoreline sediments from existing or potential recreational facilities (see Appendix G)
From page 75...
... . TABLE 2.11 Results of Environmental Monitoring at the North Anna Plant carried out by the Virginia Department of Health for 2009 Indicator Location Control Location Air particulates, gross beta, 10–3 pCi/m3 20-40 20-30 <0.05-<0.12 <0.10-<0.26 Air iodine (iodine-131)
From page 76...
... Many of the radiological concentration measurements collected under REMP yield values below detection levels. Table 2.14 presents environmental monitoring data for the Dresden plant from the plant licensees' 2009 REMP report (Exelon, 2010)
From page 77...
... These data are probably sufficient to create spatial patterns of radiological concentra 24 Nuclear plants are demarcated into zones for security purposes. The controlled area of a nuclear plant includes the land on which the plant is built and any surrounding area that is controlled by the plant licensee.
From page 78...
... (pCi/L) Surface Monthly 36 Gross beta 4 4.8-10.9 4.0-10.4 Water (12/12)
From page 79...
... 79 EFFLUENT RELEASES TABLE 2.14 Continued Indicator Control Location, Location, Total Required Mean Mean Number LLD Range Range Media Frequency of Samples Analysis Type (pCi/L)
From page 80...
... The cross-comparison indicates good agreement between the measurements from the effluent monitoring and environmental monitoring programs, providing a level of confidence in the data reported by both programs. 2.3.3 Foodstuff Monitoring Nuclear plant licensees are required to monitor for radioactivity in foodstuffs that are grown in the vicinity of their plants.
From page 81...
... 81 EFFLUENT RELEASES TABLE 2.15 Environmental Monitoring Data for the Millstone Plant for 2009 Environmental Media Radionuclide Indicator Mean Control Mean Well water (pCi/L) Barium-140 LLD Beryllium-7 LLD Cobalt-58 LLD Cobalt-60 LLD Chromium-51 LLD Cesium-134 LLD Cesium-137 LLD Iron-59 LLD Tritium LLD Iodine-131 LLD Potassium-40 79 49 Lanthanum-140 LLD Manganese-54 LLD Niobium-95 LLD Rutheium-103 LLD Ruthenium-106 LLD Antimony-125 LLD Strontium-89 LLD Strontium-90 LLD Thorium-228 LLD Zinc-65 LLD Zirconium-95 LLD Seawater (pCi/L)
From page 82...
... . FIGURE 2.14 Five-year comparison between liquid effluent monitoring data and environmental monitoring data for tritium at location 32-I at the Millstone Plant.
From page 83...
... Environmental measurements of foodstuffs around nuclear plants generally show no activity above control levels. In fact, most measurements are below detection limits.
From page 84...
... The purpose of direct exposure monitoring is to demonstrate that the FIGURE 2.15 Environmental monitoring sites around Millstone Point Nuclear Power Station located in Connecticut. SOURCE: Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Figure 2.15.eps Inc.
From page 85...
... . A careful TLD measurement program should be capable of identifying increases over background levels that might approach the design objectives for power reactors of 15 mrem to any organ.27 However, such programs are generally not capable of verifying the small predicted increases in exposures due to routine effluent releases from nuclear plants.
From page 86...
... Consequently, the passive 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.
From page 87...
... 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 generally be detected by the plant's passive monitoring systems either. Monitoring programs based on arrays of passive detectors are adequate (as intended)
From page 88...
... Some states also conduct independent monitoring around nuclear plants.29 For example, the state of Texas conducts environmental monitoring activities within the 10-mile emergency planning zones of its two nuclear plants (Comanche Peak and South Texas)
From page 89...
... 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 facilities (Brown, 1991; Napier et al., 1994; Rood et al., 1999; Thiessen et al., 2005)
From page 90...
... Consequently, monitoring data can play only a minimal role in the calculation of doses received by populations 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 estimated effluent releases, as described in Chapter 3.
From page 91...
... 4. Environmental monitoring data have limited usefulness for estimat ing doses from effluent releases around nuclear plants and fuel cycle facilities.
From page 92...
... • 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.
From page 93...
... . Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Plants: Annual Report 2008.
From page 94...
... . 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.
From page 95...
... . Effluent Release Options from Nuclear Installations: Technical Background and Regulatory Aspects.
From page 96...
... 96 ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS Weiss, B


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.