ML20127L306
| ML20127L306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1969 |
| From: | Price H US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Fraser D HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211230488 | |
| Download: ML20127L306 (21) | |
Text
, , , . , g u,.
- - - - = - - ^^ ^~ ^ ~
I 4./ '
s
- r Mu
(
6 o - 243 ~ ,
JUN 171969 I
R morable Donald M. Praser House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Fraser:
In msponse to your request of March 6,1%9, I am pleased to provide
' our coments cn the statements enclosed with your letter concerning the N nticello Nuclear Generating Plant which were prepared by Mr. Russell Hatling of Minneapolis.
i Pbr your convenient aference, we have runbend on the enc 15 sed copy of Mr. Hatling's compilation of questions and answers _the respective passages to which our cocments pertain.
- Sincerely, i
orew so es tv c. x, sas Hamid L. Price Dimotor of Regulation
Enclosures:
- 1. Comments on Mr. Hatlirg's Statements
- 2. Mr. Hatling's Conpilation of Qaestions
~
NPNYbhESErbffNNY$AGMF nticello Nuclear Plant ENCLOSED & ATTACHED. SEE PAGE 2 FOR NOTE AND PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES.
I co dos .- RUr LKornblith 5/ /69 5/ -/69 5/ /69
- l=
4 omes> ...RPL .....fMC . ._ DIR . A, OCR DRL _,,,,,
Schur, Shapa r' D D @ R ,,,,,,, p sunnAuc > g jdmps -
estem dadlock ..s.e.e . M y"'c_e\r/- . , _ _ . ,_ PAMorris ,
om > ..h/22/69..... .. . 5LBl69- attached // see attache Form AEC-Ste (Rev.9-53) AECM 0240 ..p p 3.jggy. . 6.1L%)g 9' .j2., .EL.. - 5p yrs e a sovievesev ee4 ann. ortwe i sen o-su4.i} /
9211230488 690617 PDR U ADOCK 05000263 PDR
ikinorable Donald M. Praser Distribution: H. L. Price C. K. Beck M. M. Mann C. L. Henderson R. L. Doan
- Forrest Western, RPS P. A. Morris, DRL H. K. Shapar, 000 B. Schur, 000
- 0. Hadlock, 000 L. D. Iow, CO Lester Komblith, CO A. A. Schoen. DOS F. J. Shon, DOS H. F. Soule, DOS A. Pressesky, RDT W. P. Gamill, RDP Congressional (2)
, W. G. Dooly G. Ertter (DR-2057) '~
mm Public Document Room (50-263) l
' b j g p3 [9 (' $
NCTfE: ABC Coments on Russell Hatling's i " Questions and Answers" have been reviewed in draft by, and reflect ccaments of: C. K. Beck, M. M. Mann, F. Western, P. A. Morris, L. Kornblith, H. K. Shapar; A. A. Schoen, F. J. Shon, & H. F. Soule, DOS; A. Pressesky & W. P. Gamill, RDr.
5 1
oma , _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
su== > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Form AEC-stb (Rev.9 53) AECM 0240 as,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,ge,in..,,,,,,
b..
's
's '
Honorable Donald M. Preser House of Repmamitatives
Dear Mr. Fraser:
In msponse to your request of March 6,1969, I an pleased to provide our correntsLattached} the statements enclosed with your 3etter conceminr, the Ponticello HucIcar Generating Plani; which wem pmpared '
by Mr. Russell Fatling, of Mimeapolis.
For your convenient refemnce, we * .'.ve numbend crt the copy of Mr. Hatling's certpilation of questions and answers the meix-etive passages to which our conments pertain.
Since mly, Hamid L. Price
. Directw of Rerulation Ehclosums: DISTRIBUTION:
- 1. Ocments on Mr. HLPrice LKornblith Hatline,'s statemnts CKBeck RMrh
- 2. Mr. Entling's staterents htHann Schoen N'JrE: _AEC comments on Russell RLDoan Soule Hatling's " Questions and Answers,' MeMerson Pressesh have been reviewed in draft by,- FWestern Ganmill p g ypyg and reflect connents of: CKBeck, FM4 ann, FWestern, PAMarris, Maw LKornblith, HKShapar, DOS ((SHeni. 'PDR (50-263)
Schoen, Soule), RDF (Pressesky, MDooly Gamill) GE"tter (DR-2057)
DR Reading
- 0CR CO DOS- RDP -
D Kornblith :
4/ /6e 4/ /60 4/ //so RETYPED IN MR. D00LY'S OFFICE 4/22/69 gs hd *;
mia .m.. . . . . . .
_mc. . ... . .m .0ca m . 0" ._..
so-- x' .. . .. J.dw (see attachec )ncerice _ . , [M
,,,4/22/69 . [. .. d[..
N /69 4/21/69 , 4/, /69
, / /69-4 3 /( 7 69 Form AEC-318 (Rev.9 53) AECM 0240 e a sovenement enierisse orrica i sese e-as eit
l ,. ;
j .-
_AEC CONTFS ON OUESTION AND ANSWR COMDILATION PPZDAAED BY FR. RUSSEL HATL MINNEAPOLIS, MINNFFMA, CONNING RADIOACTIVITY REIF.ASES FROM THE MNTICKLIA NUCIEAR GENERATING FIl#P
- 1. Fr. Hatling calls the safety record of nuclear energy plants " dismal."
To the contrary, the safety record of nuclear energy plants has been out-stand $ng. "'he AEC has licensed the operation of 114 coweri research, and testing reacters which have acetrulated a total er about 780 reactor-years of cperatjon without a radiation fatality or serious radiation exposure.
Within this total,17 reactors were constructed for the generation of electric nower. These nuc3 car power nlants, about which Mr. Hatling is
- prirarily concerned, have ccmoiled a record of about 90 reactor-years of
! operatire experience. We kra,1 of no instance where the coeration of these licensed clants has resulted in exnosure of any reber of the public to radiation levels exceeding annual limits specified in AEC regulations, which are designed for protection of the public.
- 2. We aae not certain of the basis used by Mr. Hatling in referring to eicht
, "of the original 12" nuclear power plants as having " failed." As noted aheve,17 central station nuclear electric power clants have been licensed for coeration to date. A nu-ber of the early power reactors were small nrototypes built for research and developtrent under coonerative nrograms i
' between the AEC and electric utilities. They constituted an imoortant step in the R&D nrocess toward develonnent of deoendable and economical nuc3 car olants for the production of electricity, includirc exploration of l the #easibility of different types of mactors. Ooeration of five of these plants has been terminated. They are: Hallam Nuclear Power racility, Hallar, Nebr.: Carolinas-Vircinia Tube Reactor, Parr, S.C.; the Pathfinder Atomic Power Plent, Sioux Falls, S. Dak.; Piaua Nuclear Power Pacility, Piaua, Ohio; and the Boiling Nuclear Superheat Reactor, Punta Higuera, Puerto Rico. While there were operating difficulties with each of these reacters, no public health and safety problen ever arose frcm their coeration, shut-i down, or dismantling. Of the remaining 12 nuclear power plants now licenced to operate, nine are currently generating electricity, including the first f'ive to be licensed by the AEC. Two are undergoing repairs:
the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant in Michigan and the Elk River Nuclear Plant in Mlnnesota. The twelfth plant, Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant in New Jersey, has only recently been authorized to cmmence coeration at Itw power levels.
b 4Elk River plant, which Mr. Hatling reports as having failed, recently.
' ex).arienced an operatina difficulty after nearly six years of operation.
A srall leak was detected in a 1 1/2-inch reactor water level monitoring line which is welded to the upper cortion of the Elk River reactor pressure vessel. The licensee has conducted an extensive' inspection of other picing connected to the vessel, and the results are being evaluated. Some
. . - = =
, . . . . . . ~ . - - ._ - - -. - . .
.. ! similar m1 functions have occurred in the operation of other nuclear power l plants; none has resulted in a radiation injury to any emoloyee or posed a threat to public health anu safety.
From all the records available to us, the radioactivity $n effluent releases from licensed power reactors, including those from the Pathfinder olant referred to in Mr. Hatline s remarks, has been below the limits that would be permissible under the AEC regulations in Part 20 of Title 10, Chaoter 1, Code of Federal Regulations, " Standards for Protection Against Padiation."
The release limits in AEC rer,ulations are based on tuides develoced by the Federal Radiation Council and approved by the President for the guidance of Federal agencies. These guides are ccanatible with recomrrendations of
, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the Internati.onal Comission on Radiological Protection. The radioactivity that may be released in effluent water frcn a nuclear reactor consists of
- a mixture of radioisotopes of different maximum pemissible concentraticns.
An analysis of this mixture was perfomed at the Pathfinder olant by the licensee durity.1967, the last year of operation oc this plant.
~
It shoered that' average concentrations of radioactivity in the effluent water were less than one percent of the AEC Part 20 limit, based on the actual radio-isotopic composition. Releases of radioactivity in gaseous effluents from the Pathfinder plant durirv,1967 were less than 10 percent of applicable 31rhits snecified in the operating license.
- 3. Any nuclear facility either built for the AFC or'aoproved as a licensed i facility must treet rigorous safety standards, and is kept under continued I surveillance throughout its lifetime for ourooces of safety.
The first production reactors at Hanford were a wartime effort built for military purooses by the former Manhattan Engineer District. After the Atomic Energy Conmission was established in January 1947, the Cconission continued and exnanded operation of the Hanford facility for military ourposes, but undertook an extensive program to reduce releases of radiou activity to the environment. Substantial reductions were made. Extensive environmental studies indicate that at no time since the production onerations began at Hanford in 1944 have the concentrations of radioactivity in the i Columbia River exceeded levels specified in the nationally established standarxis for controlling exposure to people.
4
- 4. The claims made in the article in the May , June 1965 issue of the Journal of Enviromental' Health were answered in an article in Public Health Reoorts, April 1966, by .Tohn C. Bailar III and John L. Young, Jr., of the National Cancer Institute. A copy of this sticle, " Oregon Malignancy Pattern and Radioisotooe Storage - A Reappraisal," is enclosed. Reporting on an
,' independent study of cancer statistics from 1934 to 1963, it concludes that "no evidence was found that. persons living downstream from the Hanford' Preserve or along the Pacific coast of Oregon have had an excess risk.of death from cancer in general or from leukemia in particular."
.q 1
. , , , . . ..w+,. .c. .# -r. - . . - . . - - , ..
.. 5 The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 charged the Atomic Energy Comission with the role of encouraging an expanded civilian program of peaceful uses of atomic energy "to the maximun extent consistent with the ccomon defense
- and security and with the haalth and safety of the public." Thus, the j AEC regards the protection of public health and safety as an overriding consideration in the licensing and regulation of nuclear reactors.
The AEC regulatory function is carried out independently from the Cormission's operational and develop:mntal activities. Three organizational units below
- the Connission 3cvel participate in the licensing and regulation of' nuclear
- power reactors. These are the AEC regulatory staff, which includes pro-
' fessional personnel in many technical disciplines; the Advisory Comittee i
on Reactor Safeguards, a statutory body of highly qualified scientists and engineers; and atomic safety and licensing boards, drawn frcm a panel of 4
technically qualified experts and persons experienced in administrative procedures to conduct public hearings and issue initial decisions on
. licensing applications. None of these units has any operating or pro- -
' motional resoonsibilities, and each group is independent of the others.
- Tneir sole responsibility is 'in the field of nuclear safety,and related
- regulatory mtters. Details of the licensing and regulations process are contained in the enclosed booklet, " Licensing of Power Reactors."
{ 6. Throughout history, ran has been confronted with the problen of balancing risk amainst benefit in many walks of life. Many risks are so small that, i while they cannot be reduced to absolute zero, the effort that would be 1 reauired to further reduce them could not be justified. Independent comittees cf scientists have been continuously active in seekinz to define safe practice in the use of ran-rade radiation, and the AEC has followed procedures to ensure that the best scientific advice available is utilized.
To place in persnective the use of man-made radiation, it should be noted that the humn race _ has always been subject to exoosure to radiation from j natural sources -- radioactivity in the crust of the earth, cosmic rays frem outer space, and naturally occurring radioactive materials in the body. At 3
most locations on the, earth's terrain, the total exposure from such sources exceeds 125 millirems per year. Additional exposures that would result l- Trom proposed releases of radioactivity to the Mississippi River 1rcm the 1 operation of the Monticello reactor would be very small fractions of this j leveli
- 7. This statement seems to imply that an X-ray exposure of an unborn child would be srall cor: oared.to the exposure an unborn child might receive over a period of several months as a res' ult of the proposed releases frco the
~
W Monticello reactor to the Mississippi F1ver. Such an implication is not, correct. The evidence for a possible increase in the incidence of leukemia resulting from X-ray examination of the obstetrical abdcmen of the mother Rem stands r " roentgen equivalent ran" -- a measure of the dose of ionizing radiation to body tissues, roughly coual to a dose of one roentgen of high voltage X-rays. A millirem is one-thousandth of a rem.
j l
^^:_..-. -_i......,
o .~
_4-i t
relates to exposures of the unborn child raming from 50 to 5,000 millirems.
As noted in 6, above, exposures to oeople (including unborn children) that could be expected frcm radioactive raterial in the river would be much less than such levels. Further, the fact that X-ray exposures occur in a period
- less than tributed a second over longer is believed periods to make them more hazardous than if. dis-of time.
8.
Under recor:nendations of the Federal Radiation Council (FRC), marimum exposures of a population group that could occur from radioactivity in water would be less than one-third of the level ouoted by Mr. Hatling.
The FF,0 further recomends that, within such limits, exoosures be kept as
) low as practicable. Thus, there is no "FRC standard dose."
- As indicated in connection with several of it. Hatling's statenents, the exoosures that could be expected to occur from releases of radioactivity from the cited Fonticello by Mr. Hatling..reactor to the river are much lower than the level Any health risks associated with exposures as low as those under dis-cussion are too stra11 to be determined by observation or experiment and can only be inferred by extranolation from observable effects of exoosures that are far higher. The method of extracolation cormonly used, is to assu~c that at these very low levels, the ratio of dose to effect is the j
sara as at very high levels. This assumption is considered by most radiobiologists to provide reasonable estimates of unoer limits of the resultant incidence of disease in a large population rather than actual values.
low levelsThere may be is reason to believe much lower that the actual than estirrated incidence at these upoer limits.
9.
I It may be noted that the source of the statement that Northern States Power estirates a total waste, including fuel leaks, of 91.4 curies yearly is attributed to an article by members of the faculty of the University of Minnesota printed in the Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science, i
( Discussions with Northern States Power suggest that this estimate-is based i on a statement by Northern States Power that in a single day the annunt of radioactivity go in 11auid wastes released from the reactor could possibly un to 0.25 curie.
Apparently, the authors have assumed that it is the exnectation during of Northern the entire year. States Power to release this much activity daily Neither we nor Northern States anticipate that annual releases of liquid effluents will approach amounts comparable to 91.4 curies. -
Mr. Hatling also attributes to the Journal of the Minnesota Acaderqy of Science a statement that the General Electric ccrnpany " guesses 30,000 curies" of radioactivity would be discharged into the Mississippi River the first year from the Monticello plant.
an estimate by General Electric. We are not able to find such
- ,... ~
t
- 10. The curie is the basic unit adopted to express ar.ounts of radioactivity in terms of the number of atomic disintegrations cer second, and equals the number of disintegrations per second in the r&dicactivity of a gram of radium. This does not mean, however, that one curie of a particular radioisotone is equivalent to cae curie of another in any other respect.
l It indicates nothing hbout the varying kinds and strengths of radiation erdtted by different kinds of radioactive raterials. For exar: ole,
} recomended raxir.um concentrations in drinking water, measured in. curies per unit volume, range up to a rd111on times higher for tritium than for radium. The properties of radium are such that public health authorities
- are concerned if only a few milligrams of it are lost or misplaced. The l cited attempt to comoare the radioactivity in releases from nuclear oower plants during routine operations with "the activity of the entire world supply of radium" has no validity, and is altogethe'r misleading as to l the relative imoortance of the two.
- 11. Levels of radiation under which ecological syste s have developed are i generally of the order of 100 to 150 millirems per year, but there are i sizable inhabited areas in Brazil, India, and at least one island in the Pacific in which natural levels of radiation are rany times higher. By j comparison General Electric Comnany has estirated that radioactivity i released to the Mississippi River during operation of the Monticello plant would increase the radiation exoosure of anirals and clants using the water by very srall fractions of the lowest' levels occurring in nature.
We are confident that Dr. Odun (not Dolun) was not concerned with such minute increases when he es writing of the effects of higher levels of radiation on strains or species of animals.
1
- 12. The number of curies mentioned in the quotation is not relevant to the question of discharge of radioactivity from the Monticello plant. to the Mississippi River. The question of balance between reduction in levels of radioactivity released and effort to achieve such reduction has been l discussed in Item 6, above.
Enclosures:
- 1. Article, " Oregon Malignancy Pattern and Radioisotope Storage - A Reappraisal"
- 2. Booklet,'" Licensing of Power Reactors" w ., , , v.- e,--w-- _ _.--u_ --
t
.- , t
- Volumo 81 Number 4 .
i AMBIIIL IDGG e+
.A I .
Pellehed since 1878 v; ., ., , ~ g Mj\
' i
,s '
-.e.
l Iaolation of patho;cnic lepto.4pires from waters used for Par
. . .. ...... 299 recreation . . . .
Smnicy I.. Diesch and IT'illiurn F. .\lcCodloch l
305 licahh and .afety in summer camp *. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Puni D. Stanilonis and Boyer J. Alcycr A
Oregon mali;; nancy pattern and radioisotope storage.
. .... ......... 311 CvN'yjy7g reappraisal. . . . . . . .. ..
John C. Bailar ill and John L. Young. Jr.
I
' Rapid biochemical presumptive test for Gonorrhcal urethri.
. . . . . . . ............... 318 tis in the male. . . .
A.11. H. Pedersen and R. E. Kelly IIcahh and planning department efforts in a community re.
323 nowal program. . . . . . .............................
Lowell E. Bellin Prevalence of amblyopia. . .. . . . .................. 329 blerton C. Flom and Richard W. Neun>aict I 343 Specch defects and mental retardation. Survey in Oregon.
Robert IV. Blakeley t
)
hfental hygiene seminars for school per'sonnel. Report of a
........................... 348 pilot project. . . . . . .
'j t
Ghislaine D. Godenne ,
usar Research in henhh services. Conference report. . . . . . . . . . 351
/ hf+,,
l/h - blarcus Rosenblum J. L'jdd 7, Continued >
T 3 9N; C
- _ _. .a
- '7* {.-.cy,.Mg-joeoe .. --
This phorraccy of the 1090's is pcrt of the permanent exhl'ait of '
rnodicci history which opened this raonth in the Museum of His-tory' ond Technology, Smithsonian Institution, Wcshington, D.C.
- -SmH4 soni an Instliuflom phefegraph
.._,.w, eesp. .me** +.. W m.a .= c easso ,,44p =m-=me. e.ap.een _u, we, I
i -.n--~.
y.
' A Reapprainil 1 l .
j , 4 Oregon Mclignanby Pattern
~
and Radioisotone Storage A d a.
o JOHN C. 3AllAR lil, M.D., ond JOHN L. YOUNG, Jr., M.P.H.
h I
ported excess ri3k wa3 present before the IIan-f.X INClm.1 SED mortality noe for cancer,i. ford Atomic Energy inehtding Weilityleukemia started operation.
particularly, ataon G. No study was made of cancer mortality Oregon re3idems near the south bank of tl:a Cohnnhia Ilh er or along the Pacific Coast. was rates along the north bank of the' Columbia.
4 Iliver, which is in the State of Washington.
j reported mently by Fadeley (1). This wound be an imponant observation if it were con-finned, becau e there is an increae in tlic radio- Mdod of Anolysis l
active c mtem, of water which floses through or Total cancer mortality .ates and leukemin '
h- onps of counties in Cee-pa-. toe liannyrd (M asiu,ngtmi) Atomic Stor- mom % i-and M'digm 6m im Gros 10M vge 1 resene oefore i,t h earned do vn9 team p.u;. the area, which 1 adeley reponed to havwere adjusted by the indirect method (4-0) for inga martality rates. llecause of the fo,aowmg dhterences between conmies in the ago and sex feanov- ot ms report, however, we have re ex- composition of the population (tablo 1 and fig, amined the,questmn. 1). Tho 1050 observed mortality rates for all
- 1. kvend ndaud entmt.te, were onutted w.it h- fonos of canece an 1 for lenFenn.a m the U.d.
out explanation m thcanalys.u' whito populatinn (7) were taken as standard.
- 2. Ua ae data (numbers of deaths) were not . .
For the yeare prior to IND, the rates include a reponed, and random vaciations et rates cal- small adjestment. for ditieren:es in canoe-3f-culated on the staall nundiers of death < ocent- .
death assignments in the fourth, fitth, and e.xth l rulg m sagic counties were not consulered. revisions of the International Clessification of
... .\hhough the age and sex stnu ture of the p;,c,,cs {g, fj),
populat.on vanes from one comity tc another' Because the 1000 nonwhite populations were the tater were neither ago adjusted nor sex sme k Q p (2.1 pW md M's "U), "*"'U' ington (3A percent), no adjustmentJwns made
- 4. rho tact that throughout the L.mte
. d s. tates for race. Tl.o numbers of deaths on which the and in many otber countries cancer mortality rates in table 1 are based ar'c shown in tahic 2.
rates are mgher m cities than in rund areas Table 3 lists the counties included in each area, and fleure 9 shows the boundaries of the i , (9.J) wa> not mentioned. The river and Pacificcounties and county groups. Cmmtics in the conmie.s generally are more densely populated than the inland countics, and, on this basis, they Metropolitan Portland area werc' considered separately irom the other river countics because might be expected to haro higher rates. .
- 5. No study was n'ade of cancer mortality ei the ditierent cancer risk between urban and rural nreas in genend (2,3),
data from earlier years to determine if the re-The age-sex ndjusted mortality rates for all The nushors are whh the Biometry Branch, National forms of cancer and the r. umbers of deaths Conier /rutitute, Public HeahA Service., upon which these rates were based for Oregon 311 Vol. C1, No. 4. April 1966 sem aime+ + .esw ee .ew e .
1
I i -
- t .
t, in both Staten have increased rapidly in recent l .
nnd Whia; tem are shmvn by cotuity.in tables
/> years, the incava3e 1ms been about the sone ns 4 nr.;i f.. We did not include a similar tabula- in the rest of the United Stntes. Interestingly, tion of 'enhemia mortality in thi3 typort be- the excess in leukemin Ir.ortality existed before cause the numbers of death. in most countiesthe IInnford 1%rve began operation in IDre.
wele quite small, Second, total cancer mortality rates in the Portland region of Oregon have remained es.
' / i Results sentially unchanged since 1933. Mortality in Several trends arc clear from l'gure 1. First, the river counties has increased up to the Stato
' l total cancer mortality rates in Oregon and
, average, but. remains substantially helmv that
' Washington have been consistently lower than for the entiro United States, and mortality in the average : ate for the U.S. white population. the ocean cotmtics has nerunity declined, In
' In contrast, lenkemin mortality rate, in both Washington total cancer mortality in the river
' ' States have been above average for as long as counties has been consistently lower than in data by county aro availabic (1040 in Oregon other parts of the State. Mortality rates for nnd 1004 in Washington). Ahhough the rates l
Mortality v.nes $ per 100,000 popu'c: ion for all forms of cancer and for lenkemin I i Table 1. ,
' in the Uulled Sintes, Oregon, nud Washington, la various Ihne periods l1034-37 ! 103p-42 k 1043-47 f 1945-52 1953-57 l. 1058-G3 Area 1 l !
I i
All forms of enneer m.
141 8 144,0 8 141.0 14' 14R G 13S.2 Total United Wntes 8......... ..
laa 5 I 132.5 12S. 5 !
O ren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............I
- 12 % 8
- 111, d 8 12A 6 .
- 12:L 8 1 112. 7 l 129.
127,3 O l 131. 4 I 131 7 121. 8 Itiver ec. int b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113. 5 . 121, 5 121 6
- 12tL 3 j g a,g 347, 4 Ocean counties.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i' 14...
- 1Lin4 s 137, g 143,3 4 140,9 118. s 122, G , 221 8 i l'onla nd com.t ics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' 112. 7 a 121. G j 12a 3 l 1:14 5 1 nh.ud com.t ics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 135.0 , 139.3
- 14 L X ! 13a 7 134 2 [ 125. 0 128. 9 W a s hin gt on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 121. 5 101 0 114. 4 >
125. 4 127.2 1 11. 7 R iver cou nt los . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .t 120 ;i 121 5 128.7 135.6 I 137,5 Ocea n coun t ies. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 134.I 134.D 12K 1 121 9 1 139.4 142. 0 130.7 4
Portla nd count ics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13& S 131. 0 ,13G. 4 HD. I I dnnd countics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
1 Leukemia
- 6. I 6. 8 : 7. o
- 3. 4 f 4, 2 4. D Total United States 8. . . ....... . -_ '
G. 2
- 7. 4 7. G
(*) - 14.8 5. 3
- 7. 3 7. 0 O rr2 o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' 4. S 4. 0 5. 5
(') 6. 2 S. I G. 2 lhver count ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (*) l 75.0 4. 2
- 7. 5 8. 3
- Oecon coun tics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '
- S 5. G G. 0 7. 0
( (*) 5. 3 7. 0 , 7. 3 Ponland countics. . . . . ... . .. . . . . (*) 13.4 3. 7 G. 9 7. 4 I nland count ics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 3.1 4. I fx 4 G1 W u shington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 6 L2 6. I 6.1
' 2. 7 4. S 7.1
- 3. 3 'I 4. 0
< Riv er countica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.1 3. 7 4.1 7. 4 Occan countics.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . l 7. 4 7. 6 G. 7 81.1 3. 2 7, 2 7. O
.* Putland countics. . . . . . . . .... . . . 4
- 3. 2 4. 3 5. 5 0.1 I nla nd counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .
a 1tates adjusted for n;to and sex by the indirect method, taking U.S.1050 observe in 10-year og(e groups as standard.S nates Ur white population only. - -
8 Itates for 1956-62.
- Hntes for 1935 only.
- 11ates for 1930-42.
3 i
4Lenkemia deaths by county not avni*abic for theso years.
' i 1 Itates for 1010-42. Leukemia deaths not availabic by county for 1034 8 Hatea based onleukemia deatljs in 1035 and 1937 only.
ord 103G.
Pulalic Heahh Reportr t 317. '
p 4'
s .
- ~.-
I
--..: - ~
v nem-.
I
. . 1
.5 1 ,
- i. ,
i i .
. Fi;; tire 1. /.i.nual raur:clity re:c. per 100,000 population for all forms of cancer and for
' leukemia, United Stata, Oregon, and Wnshington,1935-60 a
1 Att 70aa$ OF C ANCtR ' WA$Hj NGtO N
, r" OREGON -
200 --
,' 4. . _
i- .
. ^$
i l '
- 4 150 - ,.
g,,%'d .........***M.* @ D 'f/
i
- D'.;;;p...s:to"8"'[,3;;."; -
.,,:....*; ..***t
- . ," ,jf @
. h% *-c *I.f * -
l hs. --- - _ ,.- -
. g .**A **~~~~
i '
s %z-.-
l _
/ Y _
l i I 4
i I I I .l I gg. i e _e i
i
! ! LIUKf ulA
' 9 i
+
,0 .
4 s
E8- #g - .
! il' g- Apd..* ,- . ;:...... ..g.c.4. ,,
- y,- ..... ....p. y.
- y. -
. 0 , - : *
.. ,^
{ [
f.** g l r
/
yo by- v'f ~ .
- j?
ac tg .' /
./
f
.,* p I
l 4
'- # ,*,. // ., / /
i l \ s .= / l' f /
1 3- ' ' ,V J
- ~~~J
<* /
t, * /
.' s i L h:..,.. #
- r. *.
}
- __ ,.*gf f 1
l
- y (fl.,4 _l/s <
i .-
4--
>j. .
l 8
. i t t .e v *
-- River co..netes l 3 ;--
= = = Oceon counties j-
.i .
- "" Portiond oreo counties
- -- Inland counties
- = = = State totol f -
~~
" * " U.S. white i
s e
' I f I I ' -- ' ' ' ' ' '
2 1950 1955 1960 . 1935 1940 1945' 1950 1955 1960'
{ 1935 1940 1945 '
Year NoTr. : Avnllable leukemin mortality data for 1935-40 are shown in tdbles 1 and 2. -
i 313 Vol. El, No. 4, April 1966 6
em* -se e + - hens **-=.6tu-og*.*ae w .ngg...w w . egg,
- I 1
, . - . ~ . . - . .- - . - . . . ~..
~
- t:n. ..u.u. coa..ne, i.a e a'.o .,cci, p..ecally low. but in the inost recent period (19503) they
.. Tre;..l. in mnrtahty ran, for ;eaketc.ia are weiu t he lowest in the State.
, some wi.a: !?., clear.ca: than t reui iur :otal In hhington lenkemin mnrinlity rate, in c.n.cer beam e of the -:aall nm.ier, of i.eatho '
the river countles incivased rapidly befoiv 10.,0,
- in onn.e area In Giep.a !cuker.& :anttality hnt they hnvc nctually decreased sinco that time incre,. ed at about the mitional nierage in the while rates in other parts of.the State and in
' Ponland awa, slightly inster in river comaics, the total United States were rising. Lenkemin
, and even faster in iho inland countie4 Untes mortality rates in the ocean counties also have for the ocean conmies have fhe,naicd widely, increased rapidly sinec 1034,,b'ut the increase j
) Toble 2. Numbers of deaths from n!! forms of cancer and from leukemia in the Unlied i
.) Sinics, Ore;;on, and Wo.hington, in various time periods
! 6 1
Area 1053-57 l 105S-G3 i! 19:14-37 { 10Gb42 i 194'l-47 i
- 1945-52 I i*
8 All forms of cancer l
i ! I i i .
Total l'nited States 8... .. ...l 527,601 733. u 15 j d24,540 '0G9,0'17 { 1,102,27D .__
j st,2pa,3cg Onvon. ... . ...................I 8 1.229 - a5.845 8,659 10,229 11,641 l 15, x:;2
!!iver coimlics. . . . . . ...........!
- I nn ; 5 52 L Gs2 578 992 i 1, 3 3.;
Oc ean cou nt ie ... . . . . . ...... .. ' 17:1 ' s 752 l 3, 139 j,4g , g,7ag 2,;p,g Portla nd vomo ic3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Goa - 62,736 4,29S 4.994 5, 4 9 *> s
'
- 35n f 8 1,784 1 2,500 2,901 1 3, 4ns 7,522 4, c.
Inlam t count ie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
W h.hin;: m n. 4 ... ..............; S,644 12,127 e 13,690 10,4G2 l 25, t32
!. uiver coinaie.. . ... . . . . . . . . . . 4in . 393 i c.ts 843 10,13n 1, ons l 1, Soi Oce.m comd h*. . . . . . . . . . ...... . 755 1. ONn ; 1. 221 1,42 L l
- 1, 448
- 1, 970
- Portland count ic.s. . . . . . . . . .....' -
2n4 t 10,InD 345.. 43 l I 11,387 '
541 13,G57 '
590 10,024 x57 21,024 I nhuul count io . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... '7.270 I I i
! . Leukemic.
I d < i ; i o
Tot nt 1: nit ed States 8. . .. . . .. . 13,Tuc 20, usa 30,24r,' 41,470; $1,Ithi ! 8 AS,260
}
Orn on . . . . .................. N ' lin ; 354 I 84M G4.s i 873 D iver cou n t ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M ' ? 16 l ' 3n 3S $4 i 74 Ocea n cou nt ic3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (*) 8 30 t 44 79 121 I 127
' M ?
b4 j 199 234 2s0 g 4ns 1%n hunt enu m ice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l '4n SI 132 193 ; 264 Inlanel counties. . . . . . . . ......... (*)
t' Wu.bic 0 on . . . . . . . ...............
- 98 . 365 573 745 041 1 1,342 l !!i n r cou n t ie< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' O '. 14 31 50 SG I 75
' 10 ' 32 30 50 32 , un Ocea n em ru t ies. . . . . .............
l'oni:md countien . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 'I! Wg 25 ; 32 31 45 I nlain; cou nlici. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. ' 81 : 311 , 478 004 S02 1,12a I i l t Nmnber.4 which were reported. Before the rates wete calculated for tablo 1, corr.parability ratios were
. ; applied to mijnst for ditTerenece in cause.of. death assignments between the 4th, 5th, and Gth revisions of the i intern:aional Clauitiention of Discases.
-+
r WI.ite population only.
- 1)ata for 195$-02.
j ,
41hua for 1935 only.
4 4 Datt. ior 1039-42.
,
- Data not cynilable by county. +
' ' f Data for'1940 42.
! 8 Total includes one with county of residence unknown.
i
- Data for 1935 nu.11937 only.1 Leukemia dea % not available by county for 1034 and 103G.
i Socacts: 0:cgot. leukemia deatlas by county for 1940.-57 and deaths due to all forms of cancer by county for 1041-44 were obtalacei from the State llegistrar, Ore;on Stato lloard of IIcalth, Portland. Wail.ington leukemia deaths by county for 1935 and 1037-57 and deaths due to all fortas of cancer for 1934,103G-38, and 10 31-44 were ,
obtained from the Stato lle;;istrar Washincton State Board of Health, Olympia. The remainder of (ho datn were
, obtained from annual volumes of kital Statistics of the United States.
314 Public IIcalth Itcports l
q
. . acen no ;.n e act timn t hat oi she .Saic as a Figure 2. Conntles in Oregon and hhing.
- ton, by geogrnphic category w*h. . . e.
L sieailicant tiend- were oh-etved in indi- ,_
vidual countie3 in cilher Ta'b!n ftnit or .
f
-(e: 1 Hodt,rd
()regon j
) { }
/ worH Summory I. r' n / --
Colurn. ..> o .v
. llecause of tecent concern over po.sible egn. River 9, ' ,
' tamination of thc Cohnnbia ]liver by rndmactivo 't i ~g ,
product s from the ]Innford (hhington) C; Ycc ( :'s [
.t.>.j .
i
~
t: .e..
Tahic 3. Counties in Orc;:oa and hhing- f Q,J% .Q . 1'- W ton, by prographic entegory Q "
Portland Area j o uct Area c ties
, 'f -
i 1
' i .
, - f OREGON Wushing,t on. . 30 i l--. I--.
Oregon. . . . . . 3G 1: ire c. .. ... .... 8 ' /:i .. ...... 7 LI I \ \ l C}at' op q llenton Cowlit a -'
Cohnnoir.
(;ihm '. Frankliu lilitkitat '
CI'ortland CR.ver COceca Oiaioad llood liiver Mornne 2 M mania nhennan Lt.iiakum .itomic faungt l'ieserve, an independent study
' LHa Walht '
1 i na
[
was uudenaken to determine cancer trends in
. ,! on n e. . . . . . . . . . . . ; 7 Washington and Oregon from 1904 to 1003.
....... ... Gr Igll,illarbor For the analynis. the conniles within the two cun. land Suttes were divided into frmr cate;rories: rirce,
, $35E" ocean, Metropolitan Portland, and inland.
[",".,v'n".
Lt.. i
- Itennha of the study revented that in both 8.m Whatco J""n"t d, tater niortality rate.s for all forna of cancer
- llllaiano.c .
c .
at,s oyaan 1 3Id W d u'".'.....!, combined have been consistently below the mor-f ,, a
-. /wdad. 1
. ct .[,[,f, """; 3ii clark !
tality rate for the U.S. wh.ite poptdation. ] loth *
- i. ,,1 States have had a con 3istent excess in leukemin a m an.omah .
g"""@ on j. Adanutracaa. . . . . . . . . ,
.'tmonality, but the exce.ss was pre 3 cut before the
' / ,. in ,. a . . . . . . . 10 . . l-(. $$',( Hanford Ptwerve began operation. No im-
! N k. - coinmbia i portant instality trend.s were observed
- in indi-
$,',7 :
J G;o f,"yX.'".I vidual countic.4 in cither State.
] >c. a m ... !
- f.ci , o evidence was found that. persons livhut
- G rcia ,
g?L downstream froin the linnford Preserve or
@.fg along the Pacifie coast of Oregon have had an l JIl J e:Ter.-oi, 1,cw;., ' I cxcess risk of death from cancer in genctn} or
. t
- i. '
Jo-'l.hinc j
- ].Li col" m'*you from leukemia in particular.
lilamah t Lake i ( Okantigan Linn 4 Pend Oreille .
aiMRINCi$
~ 3I AU,*"Y
, ,i j' ! -
(1) Pmleley,IL C.: Orcunn maligunney pattern physi-mraphically related to IIanford Washington 1 Snohomielt I.0Ik Spokano radioisotope storage. J linvirnu IIenith ':27 :
~\ ~' '
N. "#L *r-3 """*
\ Whccler va li t's"l's.
r f . Whit man l,
i (2) Levin, M. L., et al.: Cnneer incidence in urban and rural nrens of New Yttrk State. J Nut Yamhill -l fil Yakima I Cancer Inst 24: 1:N3-1274. Ju..e 1000.
I i ,
315 Vol. 81, No. 4. April 1966 1
,. , /-
- .t. - e . c. . ..d . .,s . . ; '. O . In the Unite.d 8tute,.19n01930. U.S. Govern.
- n. cut 1*rintine Other. Wu.hinem, ILC. 1917.
1 . . .. ... .a .. ! . . i. .n .
- .* u . a.' P... ' . l w . .\. m o sG) .N .;e;mi n..i n, M. *
- Intrenluttlon to deme./rulihy.
.. . L '"i l' . . G te .:i.cu Pm.t h. 4 The N.dety of .\ttuatica. Chiengo. ID*4.
o .. . W,*. m , Iut W (7) Ontd..n. T., Crittenden. M.. nnd linen *xd W. t i o 1:4 .\. a : ; ...u;p.a . of ad;c.d .m ' o - i'. 7. Cancer inurtunity trenda in the United 8taten.
M.-d U nh er lt y. l*rro. Ts.uduc. 11.G! . Nnt Cancer in=t Monogr C. U.fi., Gowrmuent
- 55) 1.nol. c. P., a nd G rewe. It.1i. : Ytul sta.i.tica ratu l'rlating Oulec Washington. D.C.,1301.
Tchlo 4. Mortality roles per 300,000 popubtlon cud numbers of deaths for rll forna of cancer by coun:y, in various time pedoa, Oregon .
I 11 ate. f Numbers
- 1 Maly j i 1 l l l
. 1035 i 193 h 10:3- ' 101S- l 1053- l 1% 1035 1939- 1943d 104S' I 1053- 1053-t 42 47 52 57 G3 l 42 I
47 1 52 57 63 I i f 6 i
- l I l 4
.._-__._.u._-i H.-__.-
i i i
i' It!wr: ! l I 225 ' 269 C'.atm;t 130. 5 1310 l 11a 6 ;37.s' 15h o' ;41. 3 l 2G 125 1G3 315 Co;unuia. . . . . ' 119. 'i 111 3 101. 0 123. L M18; 2h 83 1lu 15a I IE 2.0 G i;lian t. . . - 50.3 ' 1;R 1 ,117.~31011 i 144. G t 2 10 :G 17 15 2A
.... 89. I 7113. I 02 iland 1:iver.. .. ium 6 1:15i tm. S Sa S ,129. 7 ' 139. 2 't 48 SS { 55 } 3 t' Wrrow. . . . . . . 12. 5 ! '13 SI 131 1 '14u.0 12 1 S 110.4 5 20 L: 37 ' 32 39
%ctm a n. ...... 55. o. 7;. 3 ' G4. S . 12 1 3 ! 107. S 121.3 2 S: 3 15 i iG to J mat isi .. . . .' 100. 0 10S.1 l 1IG. 9 3 ;!4 , 143. 199 255 1 291 3s4 Y aco. . . .... 101.2 ' 113.7 123 G ' 129.3 I 127. 5
' 107.
12a 5 12G. G }i7 12d123 70 l 07 115 l 127 170 l l i l j
Oco n: i i Coc . ., .... 15n - 13.1. 6 ; 11f.. ; IU - 147.5 , 01.6 32 1G2 l 200256 I 525 364^
5 C ur r,s . . . . . . . . 14 3. 3 ' $1. 0 ! S7 ! 1:'a i. 92 4 57, 1 5 14 24 46 . 43 2 Daanha . . . .... 121.6 97.1, . 110,9 lit A , 1*P;.s . 119.2 31 117 000 l 270 ' a ,4 431 141 9 i 121 2 141. G 12 1 *i ' 2". 2 124. 4 . 70 32S 485 ' GG5 ; 71G 1, 122 l.a . m .. . ....
..incoln. . . lua ' 2 111 5 1 !1 G 103.'. . I12. O ! 121. 0 12 GG lbS ! 124 I 155 22.,
)
illa mosA: . . . . . . 14 G7 93 j 9.) ' 113 161 143.0 { 143.2 l 129 111. 5 0 ' 120. 5 l' 131. S
- Portlari: 127. 4 l 10S,5 Ciac k a m as . . . . . . 121 b ' 1214 120. 5 ! 131. S G7 274 4M 557 642 f 15 M nh nomah, . . . . 147.I 1 '4. I 149,7 ' 14A 2 143.I 147.S 493 2, 802 3,540 4 5'nne
- Wad ingt on. . . . . 125.I 122.3 10G G: 121.5 ; 123.4 117. 4 4G 210 2S L ' ,047 390 4,367 350 G57
. I' i I Inland:
11ak er. . . . . . . . 131. 3 127.4 , 127 ; ! 120. 6 121 4 ! 107 5 21 On 110 1;31 120 is llenton. . . ... ..) 1212 121.0 4 10 .i 91 2 101. O g 1116 20 02 11S 120 ; 15C 225 I C rook . . .. .. I15. 0 IM G 1 SS. 3 14b.1 ,160.6 4 IS GS 23 i 56 57 Dachutes . . . . .. , 108. 9 1016 121. O il 129. 6 ; 117,4 111.S i121 L 13 7-> 110- 113 12s 193 0 30 30 .. ; 43 Ct 01.7 i 134.2 ! 112. 7 i 125. S Gra 11a At. rney . ....... .. .. .. ...} 4d 107.3 5 1214 73. S l 121. G ; 105. G 124.G i 12S.I 2 14 31 29 37 19 j Jackson........ 101.S 127. S 12n 3 ,119. S I 13101 120. 4 3G '211 313 379 ' 501 G3d J cRe rson. . .. . . . . 59. I 121.1 Oi 6 115.S 1 0 G 10 21 3d
.losep ' inc . . . . . . 15G.7 104,5 44.2 1 105.3 104,51 127.O'! 113.4 ISS.? 25 Si 12S ' 187 102 3.en Klamat h. . . .. . .l DS. ? 118.S 124 3 ! 113. 0 110.0 131 4 21 125 185 IS; 219 35d 1Ac........... M3 07.1 l 01. 3 1 la 7 131. I 141. 3 2 20 25 33 42 59 1.h n . ........ 11l.5 ' 121 4 122. i 110.7 30 173 23G 2no 330 431 M alheur. .s. . . . . C '. 4 127.1 } 131 Si 60 ' 103. 7 115.7 124.2 131.$ 10 47 S4 100 132 157
'\ lari su- . . . . . . 113.S 131.5 121 4 110.G ilo. 3 12G. D 72 432 593 G56 ,, TSo 1,131 l'ol k . . . . . . . . . . . 101.G 121 1 1210 I 111. S . I10. S ,113. 3 17 05 134 13S 1 152 2n5 Union. . . . . . . . .. 112.G 114,5 115.6 17 7S 120 140 14S 157 131 2 127.Oi135.5l13aG 104,3 11S,7 115.2 135. 1 6 37 37 43 44 c5 Wallowa.. . . . . . . 97. 3 Whetler. . . . . .. 89.7 100, l. 12E 7 147.5 150.S, 122 0 2 10 16 10 10 I?
Yn mhill . . . . . . . . 110.3 118.0 141.1 131 8 143.5 124. S S 143 237 2 ;7 2Ss 3f2 I i Souncre: Ore;;on deaths due to all fonus of cancer to: the years 1041-44 by county were ohinined from the Snue lle;;btree, Oregon State lioard of 1Icalth, Portland. 'lM remainder of the data were obtained from renectis e voh.mes of htal Statistics of the United States.
316 Pu1>lle IIcalili Ileports k
i
. e
- - -.m . ~ . _ . ~ - - - + -.- - .-- - , -
_ . . . . . , _ _ - . . _ . . . +
.- . -.-. - . _ . _ _ . . . .(
I
- 9961 !!'dY 4 'oX 'l3 *to.t LIC ,
ii c
utung palpra otp ;o upmung guy.1 jo num!or o.spaa6a.t tuo.ij paulungo a.tus mup otn jo Japaluuiu ost,1, v31 st:3:0 'iptott p puutt omg uo6tpt m,g 9empatt omy asp tuo.t; paupaqo am '
s Armc3 Sq 1y-) tat puo 'st-9 tut 'tt9t nual atp .:oJ .iaauna jo yuco; 1pt on mip visvap uoltuppu,ti :nniang f
l S TCt l 0 '001, S TCt : C V 'Itt . 9 }I 3tt1 "
}
- inuntuA ttT. 'I tf6 , 111 I
l SC9 Il 009
, 9V2 '071 C VII "Ttt " * 'umu tp!,g tut 111 l 191 - 9 TCt i O 'Ini ! t '9t t ' O TCt I
iT-
!: 3 li 912 l CSCWT.{ 111 IttI (Ot ? Til t 'It! t tti j 0 Ttt j C TCt j S Tit ! * * * " *tiontmt,1,
, Cit' '; ?tt ' 4 Td
- I YCI titt!" ** "*PMN SY t i 090't!VY9' Ott i tt! ' 00 i 101 10( C hCI l: 6 '001*mt U TC[ ! t 'It! ; 9 *tVI .* * "" *.mu%
tis 90'l !!C't !!6 ' 9 'T,t t . C St! .
i SvY 'C
- Vt ! u Vt't C YOI . t) 1 et 9 '17.1 ' 0 NT.i - V Tt t ,"' ""'WPu'"'"w
!Yr 'I ; SDi't; OtM i W1 o T.t r
- 0 v.ut e rCt I wt 3 U Ntt *"
Ntt sCe , ITC !. w 019 w t'itt -
'N
- tS 'C i Mo *C 09','tl ifV tu 't 16t 'l 926 s Ttt t 'Ot t 4 ut t 9 'it! ' 9 T.M 1 1T.?tYt!1*-'
- at!.00 I"' '.
- CE i Tit O '19I . 6 M t l';05 t ';C1 IV . %9 ' li- 01' tt
?ot O 'Itt t*!!! . 1'!!! l ';I t G TO: S tr.t * * * ' " cw ' " t '
"CC 191 41 1 ; 1Ct CN Y Nt' N TV t ' ; 'UV L * - " u " ".t *
!?! -
T1 ' 14 tv .7 0 tti , 0 9tt ! *;n 9 't ;:t i Titt l0 tt!
' Cut , ti 9V i V TCt C Yt! " .91 -*" M" w
- T4!
e , Yiv,tl ,T.0 t t's Mt , tcT. ;i tot O ! T. t J. Ut! l t Ti ! n :T . TCt 9Ttt' 41+1 *
- wr" 7
- tol ' Ott IM ttui 1 l01 .?G
- t'Itt C 'it ! 4 TCt T. Tut am s '
l';.! , O'It! 0 ?';1 int . 6 'ttt i 9 .;t .
M; T.ot . Ilt WC- t 1.Ct '
- O' stV ' tit TIM t 0 31'! ' t T9I U1N 3 { 1M1'0! bOS '?,119 'ti 19'i't, 903 'Ci i NrI , 91?;! , N T.3 9W * *" ten 1t < 07.1 61 .' o r i Ts . FC
- O Tot ! I'llt , * 'Dit t lui t T9 . 9 G '011 N:t y Tot . 0 C; "pp irm t T., . (C j VC !MI 6 ! l'ott ; 6 TT.! *
- * *
- 4J3 tt i CU r I YT. 61 , 9 Yit i V ~itt i V 'Gil .1 *t T.I , 9 Til ' t 'CN
. G TUI ; 9"C6 ; O Pi N T.S i 0 '!!I f 1: !! ,
- W 'ut ,
UN 1.Y l g Vt l OF I T.
it St . nr !' Et GU ! (C ,
UCC l t tt! ' C TCt ! 9 tu ' C101 5 9'G!t t lat 'Ge* tTut . ti tot F VCI S tN l CIT.b9[ TC) *J*~~ P!'*'uc t"",W "3 910 107. } W MC ! ti 011 i w't CU t 4 '!T.! t T;I 1 T!: 6 97.1 i 011 ' t to t ' * ' * ""& V GM I lu 13
- 9'06 w T 11 1* *111 j V $01 ," * * ~ ~ ~ WDY Or I 1r ! FC ' tt ,
it i tT.
t,; 'Y Cl ib i ,
- !rmtut
' +
j i !
I Iff , ttt ; 10C
- V'101 I SCI 4 Tt! ' I 't ti ' ? 'Ott ' 6 TCt r "Ma"t ) ""imi%I .e 10S 007 i It? .i ;
. I -
Y ht! '. Utt l 'tti
- G O'101 TCt ty'9t t
' mov'".R M1 . $07 100 ' CSF TCt INC P 'lti ytt
, 19 2 '20( i: V' : Y CT: N '"t ! I tot - E '111
- W '"d Ytt l"M i Ull ! 111 , F5 b Ut! 9 tVi 9 'M t V c.C; , ' ~.1 1 i Ttt uo. t..li ir O' 'W r sV ! 00 g s!!-
It T. '1H 19t 16
- s T.I t U lt: ,
N,"M i TT.1 .
'tCI { ttt !N i IG st!': 6 , Vit t- ,
- M t
i 6CC It 4 't';t i tri l 'ht i V Nn! ; t 'IM 0 Tut
- Ymp"It
'---*u m"Li
!T9 . O ' . I'.1 i G '! 01 int! 1 nut , I *101 . O ' "I CUC i CVt Mt ! y!I i T.i t .W .
! . t av.m s I , . , i !
i 5 ,
I i t '071 C TCt 0 N91 e t T.T.I ' V 'OM I
C UV! * ""lD'.u 9;".u Olt . 109 Ott , OtC 1:CC
- ODI tw V TO N Yi1 t tu nuup;mu3\
i GI in 21 6 T1t t 'In *
- tt i OC tt I '!C 1 Bit t Tr 1 C Ts 9 '101 C Tit *'*8""'".4 it i sr. I 10 ' UC ' IC tt 9" (P;Ct i i Ttt , O TCt Iw t 301 6 Y.0
- W.T!
O!I j (W ' Vi ; tr ; 0'; 11YCl i V' tot ' t TOI f * " * " t i'". !
6C1 96 11 IV . 0t i 15 tV'tT.!t9'1H 'rTh t 2.51 -1 IT.! ? Tot ' 0t '011, tti 0 "101 t' * " ""XI P Pit ".) .
9st 9CI' l t 17. , int ; til i' tut 10 i t O 'Ut!
'"~ 1 l; t t t i 4 i t9 C Vi l' Hit a.n!:t sOU 505 ;. tt i i. 19 i ;10 e i i i i
- ~ . _ - . . - . -
- i. .
.- ii _. _ '
,.m '
i i [
- i .
i i '
j ,
' TS LE D ft . 4R 09 - 10 CV lt
-stut { -ttnt I f.0 i 10 C7 I -
-%9t l-tVGt -Stut l-UtGl \ ' 40Gt ;-M:Ot ; -sTG1 { -trot ', '!-st r.i { -1101 I t >
31uno,)
i > ,
i I . . - - -- ,
- 6 i,
oaqumg . poing j *
- i. [
i
- ttoditpj*g 'spotJ,k! attt!t St:q.'tta tt} 'Altttioa it[ Jaatte)
Jo stuJOJe JOJ Uppp Jo *AM[nluu pne ungtgd gggg{ J.H[ WJ il{lpg T alye,[ n i . 3: .. q v! -uin ct 9 9 4 TM mt *t' JJuo.ttp,.! 'tc HJ'eb it tut 3aifs a!NovN ":r A .- estt w #" u o o;t v >i"y pa nq 1 op ,
, , ..,..e, .q m .e m ; ,;-n q ; , o ..i. .i . 3 ;t y .
*gij t iall'? g tialpllt '*ti"pp.if it e: . ** - .
- i* i ' . ".. ,m.4.
it';tt 4'll 20.1531;<pV
- 4tttU12""I ' 'be*'" * . e .~.g .c ~g jg '*- ,
i ., i ., y 3., ininguantino31 It T *ttuutp1t peu 1 g . 9 i t
- - - . - - . - . . - , _ww e
RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF OPERATING THE ICffICEL!D UUCLEAR GE!ERATING PLANT - 1 1 j The application by Northern States Power Company for a permit -to construct the Monticello plant was reviewed from the standpoint of radiologcal safety by four bodies in the Atomic Energy Comnission's' 1 - process of licensing and regulation, as outlined in the attached booklet,
" Licensing of Power Reactors." These review gmups included the AEC regulatory staff, the Coranission's statutory Advisory Comittee on t
Feactor Safeguards (ACRS), and an atomic safety and licensing board which
^
conducted a public hearing in the matter on May 25-26, 1967, at Buffalo, Minnesota. The initial decision of the board, granting a provisional i construction permit, was then reviewed by the Coranission itself. The
- ; construction pemit was issued on June 19, 1967.- Each of these review
- bodies concluded that the proposed plant could be constructed and operated without undue rick to the health and safety of the public.
On November 8, 1968, the applicant applied for an operating license. Further safety reviews are now being conducted by the AEC regulatory staff. Tne ACRS will also review this application and advise the Comission thereon. Parther, if an operating license is granted, the plant will be under AEC surveillance and undergo periodic safety
- inspections throughout its lifetime, j
S:rall amounts of radioactive material are pennitted by AEC regula-tions to be released 3nto the environment at controlled rates and in controlled amounts from a nuclear power plant. This requires a continuous i program of monitoring and control to assure that release limits are not exceedad. The release limits in AEC regulations are based on guides developed by the Federal Radiation Council, a statutory body., and , approved by the President for the guidance of Federal. agencies. These release limits are such that continuous use of air or water at the point
- of release from the site would not result in expostnes exceeding national i and international standards for radiation protection of the public.
- The concentrations of liquid radioactive effluents released from i
the plant are further reduced by dilution in the body of water to which they are. discharged. A survey or all operating nuclear power plants has chown that the concentrations of radioactivity in liquid releases
- during 1967 nere only a small fraction of the release lintts applicab]e
, to the radionuclides in the effluent. 8 6
}
r I i i . 4
DONALD M. FftAhEM + ' FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE '
'+-~*w ~~ . - - - . . .
807 Hou.. dwics tutos.4e ##" " #^""'
> liEi!E!!il' Congre#6of tfje1HnitchStateg CUC~
l _,_ o._ I o.a . . Wouge of Rtpresentatibes ""**"'"
=mm u...u ,
,,,,,,,,,,,,w,,,,
Glasbington,D.C. 20515 comuirrtE March 6, 1969 be.2057 Congressional Liaison Atomic Energy-Commission Washington, D.C. Gentlemen: For some time, I have been concerned with the whole question i of discharging radioactive wastes into our country's streams. My recent cause for concern is the proposed construction of' a nuclear power plant near Monticello, Minnesota. Enclosed is a copy of a fact sheet sent to me by one of my
, constituents in advance of a meeting of the Minnesota Water Pollution Control Agency March 11, at which a decision on the plant reportedly will be made. I would appreciate knowing what
; your answers are to the questions raised in the enclosed sheet.
Best wishes. l' Sincerely,
! e 7 y nald M. Fraser Encl.
I i l - 2 2057
~ ac - . 2 .. ., _ ; __ 3_ -z =
i
. .;t- ,, .
- v. ( ,
. %s . . . ,
MONTICELLO: A nuclear energy gamble The stakes: mutation, cancer, death ( Citizens are concerned about the idea of radioactive wastes being dumped into the Mississippi at Monticello. We should be. It's our drinking water. And in spite of the assurances of safety from the' Atomic Energy Conmission and Northern f tp .es Power Company -- the safety and performance records of nuclcar energy plants have been dismal. Of the original 12 nuclear power plants that have beer. put into operation, 8 have f ailed -- including the one at Elk River where radioactive leaks forced shutdown -- and the Northern states Power " Pathfinder" plant in Sioux Falls which exceeded its yearly concentration limit despite being operated below full power. Three plants _have been abandoned (one at an estimated $7 million decontamination cost, paid by the taxpayer, of course).1 In all cases where these plants failed, citizens had been assured, as now, of complete safety. Q. If there were a real danger to health from radioactive waste, would the Atomic Energy Commission approve of such a plant? A. It appears that the AEC not only would but in fact has approved of such plants. The Hanford, Washington Atomic Energy facility on the Columbia River is an example. A 1965 study showed that Gregon counties bordering the Columbia River downstream f rom the Hanf ord f acility had a 53 percent higher cancer rate than the rest of the state. The JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH reported: "This physiographic pattern of malignancy provides strong circumstantial evidence that not just leukemia but all types of cancer are influenced,by bodily ingested radioisotopes in quantities heretofore thought. safe."' We night add, ' declared safe' by the AEC. Q. But why would the AEC approve a nuclear power installation where even
- the slightest question of safety exists?
l A. It is importarit to keep in mind that the A!:C was established to promote the use of nuclear energy. Limiting such use, even for safety reasons, is clearly a conflict of interest for the AEC. Q. What is a ' safe level' of radioactivity in the environment? A. There is no 'nafe level' of radioactivity. Radiation as minimal as X-ray exposure of an unborn child is associated with leukemia in later i life.2 Standards depend on how many deaths and mutations we are willing to accept. For example, the Federal Radiation Council.has set its standards at
.5 rem yearly exposure. "If we assume the population of the= Twin Cities metropolitan area to be two million, then a continuing yearly exposure '
of .5 rem -- the FRC standard dose -- would be expected to cause from h 10 to 100 cases of leukemia per year and about an equal number of other > 1
- m. _ _ . . .
i
,e i
+
- ( I I r
. 4 ..
* (2) s;. ? ,
... Whether a loss of considering this magnitude is the benefits (cancer) j types of neoplasmsacceptable to society i can only y "3 be determined by L to be gained from a part:cular use of atom c energ . [
deaths?' A question one might ask is 'whose benefits and whose l t discharge How much radioactive waste would the proposed Monticello P an Q. 1nto the Minmissippi?_ including fuel leaks, of A. Northern States Power estimates a total waste, 91.4 Curies yearly.4 l d restimating General Electric, who has a reputation for seriousi y un ear. Note radioactive discharge, guesses 30,000 Curies the f rst ye 29,998.6 Curies. The real figure is anybody's' guess._ We can the discrepancy: is equivalent to the activity of one gram of radium.ti d when cap,sules (" A Curie d Yet the all recall the excitement and intensive containing a few milligrams of radium were lost or m spi ace searches i l l nuclear inst tu e quantity of radioactivity proposed for release from a stions ng e as power plant each year, even under the most optimistic assumpis to its operation, supply of radium.")4 Power and'the What about the present argument between Northern Stateslimits of radioactive contam Q. Pollution Control Acencv as to allowable ' nation? l point that net This is a sham battle diverting attention f rom the rea i should A. amount of radioactive waste is safe and under no condit ons dumping it in our drinking water be tolerated. in his widely used textbook, PUNDAMENTALS OF htECOLOGY, Eugene says: P. Dolum,"Should a system receive a higher ' lying level down,' of so radiation to than t a under which it evolved, nature will not take it limination,of speaks adaptations and adjustments will occur along with c sensitive strains or species." radioactive waste dumped into the Mississippih and people. will Put another way: result in mutations or f reaks _ in plants, animals, fis No limits have " Cancer and the death rate due to cancer will increase.bee hey learn That will apparently depend on how loud people protest as t what is happending. ' i River?_ to discharge radioactive waste into the Mississipp Q. Is is necessary ; A. NO.
"The quantity of radioactive wastes which is discharged Radioisotopes in the wastesdepends the extent of the waste treatment system. There need be no can vary from none to several million Curies per year.- h ult of radioactive discharge.since The onlythose gainthat of fare released setting these are releasest e resis a 4 deliberate decisions. unspecified electrical cost to the consumer."
slightly lower, and as yet
( Q. What can you do?
- s.
- A. Make your voice heard.
Don't leave it to the other guy. Protest now against dumping radioactive waste in any amount into the Mississippi River or any other body of water in Minnesota, Send your protest to: i Governor Harold LeVander, State Capitol Bldg. , St. Paul, Minnesota Mayor Arthur Naftalin, Minneapolis Court House, Minneapo}is, Minnesota Your Own State Legislator, State capitol Bldg. , St. Paul, Minnesota Mr. John.Badalich, Chairman - Pollution Control Agency, Department of Health Building, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota t i ATTEND POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY MEETING (Permit for NSP will be granted or denied at this meeting) r Tuesday, March 11 i 9:00 AM Veterans Service Building I Capitol Approach - St. Paul '
)-
Source Materials : (1) United States Atomic Energy Commission, " Operating History of U. S. Nuclear Reactors" (2) Robert Cunningham radeley, " Oregon Malignancy Pattern Physiograph-ically Related to Hanford Washington Radioisotope Storage," [ r JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, May-June, 65 ' (3) R. E. Pogue and D. E. Abrahamson, " Benefits, Risks, and Regulations," JOURNAL OF MINNESOTA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, Vol . 35, No.1,1968. (4) Abrahamson and Pogue, " Discharge of Radioactive and Thermal Wastes," JOURNAL OF MINNESOTA ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1968. I L 4 l E I f l I.
/ IL Prepared and Distributed by Russell Hatling, 2nd Ward
- {
vb f I e W-__ . N% - Meesen 2 -- - - , rm,, e. - ---* "-
.-- - T ~' " " ' "
l
\
l _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - - _ - -}}