| Previous Part of This Section | Top of This Section | Next Section
E. A Radiological Paradigm, Continued:

The Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company is RADNET's model nuclear power generating facility; its radiological emergency response plan is useful for evaluating how protective action guidelines would be implemented in the event of a nuclear accident in Maine. In the case of the state of Maine, a near total lack of radiation monitoring equipment outside of the one mile radius where MYAPC and the state of Maine have installed seventeen pole mounted real-time monitors (these units measure ambient radiation levels only, as expressed in µR/hr) suggests that after any type of "incident" at the Maine Yankee reactor, it will be extremely difficult to track an air-borne plume of radioactive contamination, let alone obtain accurate data about the uneven levels of ground deposition. (See RADNET's review of the Maine Radiological Emergency Response Plan in RADNET, Section 12.)

The extremely liberal FDA/FEMA protection action guidelines for a domestic nuclear accident and the ability of the licensee to control both data collection and the dissemination of information originating at the corporate EOC in Brunswick raise the probability that what little information about radiological effluents and plume pathways is available can be easily manipulated. This situation, in which the licensee (or its representatives, the State Nuclear Safety Advisor and the State Nuclear Safety Inspector) has a near total control of radiological information, allows a rhetorical response from official sources ("well below protective action guidelines", etc. etc.) in lieu of real-time air concentrations or nuclide-specific / media-specific data (e.g. cesium ground deposition, forage concentrations, or for example, 140Ba milk concentrations). There remains a very large radiological monitoring gap to be filled between normal, nearly non-detectable levels of reactor effluents and the emergency conditions which would characterize a situation where the FDA / FEMA protective action guidelines would be invoked. Given the current lack of laboratory facilities, the limitations of manual terrestrial sampling methods, and the questionable availability of accurate aerial monitoring data, it is very likely that, in the event of a nuclear accident in Maine, there will be a grossly insufficient database upon which to judge which protection action guidelines or "levels of concern" would be appropriate to implement. The best illustration of this problem of a lack of data upon which to base implementation of protection action guidelines is the passage of the Chernobyl plume through Finland where a number of stations had nuclide specific real-time monitoring equipment far superior to any now available in Maine. In just a few hours on April 28, 1986, the Chernobyl plume passed Nurmijarvi, Finland. Air concentrations of over thirty Chernobyl derived radionuclides reached some of the highest levels ever observed other than (classified) close-in monitoring of nuclear weapons testing fallout. RADNET has reprinted the peak concentrations of the twenty one most important constituents of the Chernobyl plume as it passed over and impacted Nurmijarvi through rainfall associated deposition (See RADNET Section 10, Chernobyl: Finland, Sinkko). After passage of the plume, air concentrations of most nuclides returned to near normal within twenty four hours, illustrating the futility and folly of relying primarily on ambient radioactivity levels for evaluation of the seriousness of a nuclear "incident." The state of Maine is entirely without nuclide specific real-time monitoring equipment and also lacking in real-time ambient radiation monitoring capabilities outside of the one mile radius of the pole mounted monitors at MYAPC. The lack of radiological monitoring capabilities of the licensee, the NRC, the state of Maine, the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency allow the potential for a situation where there will be no way to evaluate the radiological impact of a MYAPC release as it passes the arbitrary 50 mile ingestion pathway perimeter and affects citizens in more distant parts of Maine and other states and countries. This shortcoming in emergency preparedness plans, monitoring equipment and laboratory capacity is consistent with the evasions and lack of truthfulness that has characterized licensee, state of Maine, and NRC statements about Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company policies and practices in the past.
 
F. Post-Chernobyl National Safety Guidelines for 131I in Milk (WHO, 1986)

The following WHO summary provides a selection of radiation protection guidelines in effect in Europe for 131I at the time of the Chernobyl accident:
 
Country
National Safety Guideline
Expressed in picocuries/liter
(Becquerels/liter) 
Soviet Union  2,000  54,000 
Poland  1,000  27,000 
Sweden  2,000  54,000 
Romania  185  4,975 
Austria  370  10,000 
Czechoslovakia  1,000  27,000 
West Germany  500  13,500 
Switzerland  3,700  99,900 
Yugoslavia 
Turkey 
United Kingdom* 2,000  54,000 
United States  555  15,000 
Italy  500  13,500 

4. Radiological Monitoring Programs and Remediation Guides
A. USA Programs

There is no one comprehensive radiological monitoring program that is maintained by any agency of the United States government that is even worth labeling "radiological monitoring" program. The EPA's environmental radiation data reports represent the closest approximation to anything that could be called monitoring. Many of the NRC citations listed below imply or mandate licensee radiological monitoring as in the REMP cited below. Most of the citations listed below are either remediation guides, survey manuals or fragments of that elusive comprehensive radiological monitoring program for all nuclides and all pathways which in the late 20th century has yet to be devised. See RADNET Section 9: Dietary Intake for excerpts from reports issued by the RISO National Laboratory. These annual reports on environmental radioactivity are more inclusive than anything published by the United States government and set an example which must be considered in any future update of our radiological surveillance programs.
 
1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

Code of Federal Regulations

All NRC regulatory guides have their basis as outgrowths of rule makings issued and printed in the Code of Federal Regulations. One of the first rule makings pertaining to residual radiation is the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's Regulatory Guide 1.86, June, 1974 which sets decontamination guidelines for remediation of facilities for release for unrestricted use. Table 1 in this guide is the one and only contamination guideline (other than the occupational and public exposure guidelines established in 10 CFR Part 20) and sets acceptable average, maximum and removable surface contamination levels. This short guideline sets the standard for grossly inadequate one-dimensional radiological surveillance paradigms.

The traditional preoccupation with surface contamination rather than volumetric contamination is illustrated by Table 1, which is still the primary guideline being used in decommissioning facilities such as the Yankee Atomic facility in Rowe, MA.
 

Nuclide Average surface
contamination levels
Maximum surface
contamination levels
Removable surface
contamination levels
U-nat, 235U, 238U and associated decay products. 5,000 dpm/100cm2 15,000 dpm/100cm2 1,000 dpm/100cm2
Transuranics, 239Pu, 129I
NORM 226Ra, 228Ra, 
230Th, 228Th, 231Pa, 227Ac, 125I
100 dpm/100cm2 300 dpm/100cm2
= 30,000 dpm/m2
= 500 Bq/m2
20 dpm/100cm2
Th-nat, 90Sr, 131I
NORM 232Th, 223Ra, 
224Ra, 232U, 126I, 133I
1,000 dpm/100cm2 3,000 dpm/100cm2
= 300,000 dpm/m2
= 5,000 Bq/m2
200 dpm/100cm2
Beta gamma emitters
except 90Sr but including 137Cs
5,000 dpm/100cm2 15,000 dpm/100cm2
= 1.5 million dpm/m2
= 25,000 Bq/m2
1,000 dpm/100cm2

Radioactive contamination at less than maximum acceptable surface levels noted above allow a return to unrestricted use of decommissioned nuclear facilities in the United States. The significance of the maximum surface contamination levels in Regulatory Guide 1.86 is illustrated by the fact that these contamination guidelines for isotopes such as 239Pu, 90Sr and 137Cs average five to ten times the cumulative fallout from all weapons testing (e.g. 239Pu: 60 Bq/m2, 90Sr: 1,500 Bq/m2, 137Cs: 3,500 Bq/m2). There are currently no volumetric contamination guidelines for recycled reactor metals (e.g. stainless steel, carbon steel, etc.)

These one-dimensional contamination guidelines are perpetuated in the new MARSSIM, which fails to meet the needs of what is in effect a revolutionary new approach to site release criteria: a 25 mrem/yr TEDE for all nuclides in all pathways. Surface contamination is not even the main pathway of concern at decommissioned NRC reactors and DOE weapons production facilities where the ingestion pathway is the critical route of exposure for the long-lived isotopes which characterize spent fuel wastes.

Most of the NRC rules and regulations pertaining to radiation protection including the new radiological criteria for license termination are included in 10 CFR Part 20, et. al., which focus primarily on occupational exposure. Radiation protection guidelines for the general public are currently 100 mrem/yr including an air emissions limit of 10 mrem/yr and an external dose limit of 50 mrem/yr. The NRC has no volumetric concentration guidelines for any media including human foodstuffs. The current draft of the new FDA proposed guidelines for contaminated foodstuffs (reviewed in this section of RADNET) provides an important point of comparison with DCGLs which will evolve out of the application of MARSSIM to decommissioned facilities in the future.

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Reports (REMP)

Annual REMPs are filed by every nuclear utility under the jurisdiction of the NRC. Up until recently, the only source for these monitoring reports would be either NRC public document rooms or the NRC public document distribution office, which charges 9 cents a page. In view of the rapid growth of electronic availability of information of every kind, REMP's for most licensees should be available on the Internet soon. For RADNET's review of an MYAPC REMP, visit RAD 11: Part 3 Plume Source Points or RAD 12: Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Section 5: Decommissioning Debacle: Site Characterization Management Plan. In general, nuclear utility REMP's, if MYAPC is a typical example, provide a grossly inadequate characterization of the environmental impact of plant operations, particularly for those facilities sited on bodies of water such as estuaries, lakes or rivers.



Berger, J.D. (1992). Manual for conducting radiological surveys in support of license termination. NUREG/CR-5849, Draft report for comment. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. and Oak Ridge Associated Universities.

Berven, B.A., Cottrell, W.D., Leggett, R.W., Little, C.A., Myrick, T.E., Goldsmith, W.A. and Haywood, F.F. (1986). Generic radiological characterization protocol for surveys conducted for DOE remedial action programs. ORNL/TM-7850. Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Boyns, P.K. and Sevart, M.D. (December, 1973). Aerial radiological survey of the area surrounding the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Morris, Illinois, September, 1968. EGG-1183-1528. [NRC] EG and G, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada. pp. 82.

Daily, M.C., Huffert, A., Cardile, F. and Malaro, J.C. (August 1994). Working draft regulatory guide on release criteria for decommissioning: NRC staff's draft for comment. NUREG-1500. Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. Fauver, D.N., Weber, M.F., Johnson, T.C. and Kinneman, J.D. (November 1995). Site decommissioning management plan. NUREG-1444. Supplement 1. Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

Gogolak, C.V., Huffert, A.M. and Powers, G.E. (August 1995). A nonparametric statistical methodology for the design and analysis of final status decommissioning surveys: Draft report for comment. NUREG-1505. Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

Huffert, A.M., Meck, R.A. and Miller K.M. (August 1994). Background as a residual radioactivity criterion for decommissioning: Appendix A to the generic environmental impact statement in support of rulemaking on radiological criteria for decommissioning of NRC-licensed nuclear facilities. Draft report. NUREG-1501. Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

Huffert, A.M., Abelquist, E.W. and Brown, W.S. (August 1995). Minimum detectable concentrations with typical radiation survey instruments for various contaminants and field conditions. NUREG-1507. Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

Huffert, A.M. and Miller, K.M. (August 1995). Measurement methods for radiological surveys in support of new decommissioning criteria: Draft report for comment. NUREG-1506. Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

Kennedy, W.E., Jr. and Strenge, D.L. (October 1992). Residual radioactive contamination from decommissioning. NUREG/CR-5512, Final report. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, U.S. NRC.

Tichler, J., Doty, K. and Lucadamo, K. (1993). Radioactive materials released from nuclear power plants: Annual report 1993. Vol. 14. NUREG/CR-2907, BNL-NUREG-51581. Brookhaven National Laboratory, U.S. NRC. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (September, 1978). Decommissioning of nuclear facilities - an annotated bibliography. NUREG/CR-0131. Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (August, 1979). Decommissioning of nuclear facilities - a review and analysis of current regulations. NUREG/CR-0671. Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (August, 1979). Technology, safety and costs of decommissioning a reference pressurized water reactor power station. NUREG/CR-0130 Addendum. Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (December, 1979). Facilitation of decommissioning of light water reactors. NUREG/CR-0569. Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1988). Final generic environmental impact statement on decommissioning of nuclear facilities. NUREG-0586. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (August, 1994). Generic environmental impact statement in support of rulemaking on radiological criteria for decommissioning of NRC-licensed nuclear facilities: Main report: Draft report for comment. NUREG-1496. Vol. 1. Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (August, 1994). Generic environmental impact statement in support of rulemaking on radiological criteria for decommissioning of NRC-licensed nuclear facilities. Appendices. Draft report for comment. NUREG-1496. Vol. 2. Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1995). Proposed methodologies for measuring low levels of residual radioactivity for decommissioning. NUREG-1506, draft report for comment. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1995). Measurement methods for radiological surveys in support of new decommissioning criteria. NUREG-1506. U.S. NRC, Washington, D.C.

2. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (January, 1996). Environmental Radiation Data Report 76: October - December 1993. EPA-402-R-96-004. National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Montgomery, AL.



Boulding, J.R. (1993). Description and sampling of contaminated soils: A field pocket guide. EPA/625/12-91/00.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1988). Guidance for conducting remedial investigations and feasibility studies under CERCLA, interim final. EPA/540/G-89/004. OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1988). Superfund removal procedures. OSWER Directive 9360.0-03B. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (1991). Site assessment information directory. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (May, 1992). Manual of protective action guides and protective actions for nuclear incidents. EPA 400-R-92-001. ANR-460. Office of Radiation Programs, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (March 1993). Environmental characteristics of EPA, NRC, and DOE sites contaminated with radioactive substances. EPA/402-R-993-011. Radiation Protection Division, Office of Radiation & Indoor Air, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (January 1996). Documenting ground water modeling at sites contaminated with radioactive substances. EPA/540-R-96-003. Radiation Protection Division, Office of Radiation & Indoor Air, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (January 1996). Three multimedia models used at hazardous and radioactive waste sites. EPA/540-R-96-004. Radiation Protection Division, Office of Radiation & Indoor Air, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (June 1996). Radiation exposure and risks assessment manual (RERAM). EPA/402-R-96-016. Radiation Protection Division, Office of Radiation & Indoor Air, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (November 1996). Technology screening guide for radioactively contaminated sites. EPA/402-R-96-017. Radiation Protection Division, Office of Radiation & Indoor Air, U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
 
3. Department of Energy (DOE)

National Laboratories Site Environmental Reports

Almost all these citations are either site specific environmental monitoring reports, which are often done annually for the larger weapons production facilities now under remediation or are survey guides. The DOE is one of four participants sponsoring the MARSSIM, a multi-agency radiation survey manual which is cited in the first part of this section of RADNET. This flawed document provides an interesting model on current thinking within the federal government on how radiological monitoring should be done.

Berven, B.A., Cottrell, W.D., Leggett, R.W., Little, C.A., Myrick, T.E., Goldsmith, W.A. and Haywood, F.F. (1987). Procedures manual for the ORNL radiological survey activities (RASA) program. ORNL/TM-8600. Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Mork, H.M., Larson, K.H., Kowalewsky, B.W., Wood, R.A. and Paglia, D.E. (July, 1966). Project SEDAN. Part I. Characteristics of fallout from a deeply buried nuclear detonation from 7 to 70 miles from ground zero. Part II. Aerial radiometric survey (final rept.). AEC-PNE-225F. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. pp. 117.

Myrick, T.E. et. al. (1981). State background radiation levels: Results of measurements taken during 1975-1979. ORNL/TM 7343. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

United States Department of Energy. (1991). Environmental regulatory guide of radiological effluent monitoring and environmental surveillance. DOE/EH-0173T. U.S. DOE, Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Energy. (1992). Environmental implementation guide for radiological survey procedures manual, DOE report for comment. Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

United States Department of Energy. (1994). Decommissioning handbook. DOE/EM-0142P. U.S. DOE, Washington, D.C.
 
4. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Radioactivity in domestic and imported foods

The Food and Drug Administration has a modest program of monitoring contamination in both imported and domestic foods. For a summary of these publications see RADNET Section 9: Dietary Intake. In this section, Chernobyl peak pulse in U.S.A. Imported Foods gives an example of data pertaining to the Chernobyl nuclear accident that was withheld from the public at the time it was collected. The complete survey is available upon request from the Center for Biological Monitoring.

United States Food and Drug Administration. (March 5, 1997). Draft: Accidental radioactive contamination of human food and animal feeds: Recommendations for state and local agencies. Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. FDA, Washington, D.C.

5. Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML)

The Environmental Measurements Laboratory was extremely active during the time of fallout derived from weapons testing in the late 1950's and 1960's. After weapons testing fallout declined so did the funding for EML and aside from a number of reports associated with the Chernobyl accident (see citations in RADNET Section 10: Chernobyl Fallout Data), the EML reports have become sparse. The EML home page (RADLINKS: Part II D-5) provides a link to citations of most of the monitoring reports that this small agency produced. Other important citations are annotated in RADNET Section 8: Anthropogenic Radioactivity: Baseline Data. These citations include: Bennet, 1978, two by Toonkel, 1980 and Klusek, 1984. A publication by Hardy, 1981 is annotated in RADNET Section 11: Major Plume Source Points: General Bibliography.

United States Department of Energy. (1990). EML procedures manual, HASL-300, 27th ed. HASL-300-ED.27-Vol 1. Environmental Measurements Laboratory, U.S. DOE, New York.

4/12/17: Reports from 1995 to 2007 can be found here: http://www.wipp.energy.gov/namp/emllegacy/publications.htm
6. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

Groundwater monitoring program

Some of the most interesting information collected by the USGS is in the vicinity of BEMR - listed remediation sites such as the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory or the Hanford Reservation. These studies are often cited in the environmental monitoring reports of the national laboratories referenced above. RADNET has not yet accessed any of these reports but would be interested in listing a representative selection of them in the future.
 
7. U.S. Intelligence Community

Remote sensing data

Most national intelligence agency radiological surveillance utilizes remote sensing data of one type or another. All of this data is classified information at this time. Visit RADNET Section 13: RADLINKS Part II-D: U.S. Intelligence Community. Visitors to these links will see many references to the remote sensing technologies which are utilized by the U.S. government to observe foreign nuclear weapons production source points which inevitably create their tell-tale plumes of gamma emitting contaminants. Also surf the IAEA links, as the IAEA cooperates with the U.S. and other government agencies in a joint anti-proliferation surveillance program.
 

Radiological Monitoring Programs and Remediation Guides
B. Programs Outside the USA

Aarkrog, A., Botter-Jensen, L., Chen Qing Jang, Dahlgaard, H., Hansen, H., Holm E., Lauridsen, B., Nielsen, S.P. and Sogaard-Hansen, J. (1991). Environmental radioactivity in Denmark in 1988 and 1989. Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark.

Aarkrog, A. (1992). Source terms and inventories of anthropogenic radionuclides. Report No. DK-4000. Riso National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark.

Commission of the European Communities. (1989). Council regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87 laying down the maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and feedingstuffs following a nuclear accident or any other case of radiological emergency.  Off. J. Eur. Commun., 11(L371), amended by Council Regulation 2218/89 Off. J. Eur. Commun., 1(L211).

International Atomic Energy Agency. (1996). International basic safety standards for protection against ionizing radiation and for the safety of radiation sources. Saf. Ser. No. 115. IAEA, Vienna.

International Commission on Radiological Protection. (1977). Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annal. ICRP. 1(3). Pergamon Press, Oxford, ICRP Publ. 26.

International Commission on Radiological Protection. (1991). 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Annal. ICRP. 21(1-3). Pergamon Press, Oxford, ICRP Publ. 60.

International Commission on Radiological Protection. (1993). Principles for intervention for protection of the public in a radiological emergency. Annal. ICRP. 22(4). Pergamon Press, Oxford, ICRP Publ. 63.

International Commission on Radiological Protection. (1994). Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides:  Part 2 ingestion dose coefficients. Annal. ICRP. 23(3/4). Pergamon Press, Oxford, ICRP Publ. 67.

International Commission on Radiological Protection. (1996). Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides:  Part 5 compilation of ingestion and inhalation dose coefficients. Annal. ICRP. 26(1). Elsevier Science, Oxford, ICRP Publ. 72.

International Commission on Radiological Protection. (1996). Conversion coefficients for use in radiological protection against external radiation. Annal. ICRP. 26(3/4). Elsevier Science, Oxford, ICRP Publ. 74.

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. (1996). Radioactivity in food and the environment, 1995. RIFE-1. MAFF, London.

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Scottish Environment Protection Agency. (1997). Radioactivity in food and the environment, 1996. RIFE-2. MAFF and SEPA, London.

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Scottish Environment Protection Agency. (September 1998). Radioactivity in food and the environment, 1997. RIFE-3. Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, MAFF and SEPA, London.

Simmonds, J.R., Lawson, G. and Mayall, A. (1995). Radiation protection 72; Methodology for assessing the radiological consequences of routine releases of radionuclides to the environment. Report EUR 15760 EN. Office for Official Publications of the European Community, Luxembourg.

| Next Part of This Section | Top of This Section | Next Section |

| Index | Introduction | Guide | Accidents | Definitions | Radionuclides | Protection Guidelines | Plumes | Baseline Data | Dietary Intake | Chernobyl | Source Points | Maine Yankee | Links | Bibliography | Alerts | Sponsor |