ML18234A117

From kanterella
Revision as of 23:23, 6 November 2018 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NUREG/CR-2907, Vol. 19, Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants - Annual Report 2013.
ML18234A117
Person / Time
Issue date: 09/30/2018
From: Jennifer Davis, Garry S M, Smith M A
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Oak Ridge Associated Universities
To:
Meyd, Donald
References
NUREG/CR-2907 V19
Download: ML18234A117 (101)
v • d • e


Text

NUREG/CR-2907, Vol. 19 Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants Annual Report 2013 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALSIN NRC PUBLICATIONS NRC Reference Material As of November 1999, you may electronically access NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC's Library at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Publicly released records include, to name a few, NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices; applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal memoranda; bulletins

and information notices; inspection and investigative

reports; licensee event reports; and Commission papers

and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC regulations, and Title 10, "Energy," in the Code of Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one of these two sources. The Superintendent of Documents Washington,DC 20402-0001 Internet:

bookstore.gpo.gov T elephone: (202) 512-1800

Fax: (202) 512-2104 The National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee R d www.ntis.gov800-553-6847 or, locally, (703) 605-6000A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment isavailable free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Branch Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: distribution.resource@nrc.govFacsimile: (301) 415-2289 Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted at NRC's Web site address www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/

doc-collections/nuregs are updated periodically and may differ from the last printed version. Although references to material found on a Web site bear the date the material

was accessed, the material available on the date cited

may subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal articles, transactions, Federal Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and congressional reports.

Such documents as theses, dissertations, foreign reports

and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings

may be purchased from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained at-The NRC Technical LibraryTwo White Flint North1 1545 Rockville PikeRockville, MD 20852-2738 These standards are available in the library for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually

copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from-American National Standards Institute 11 West 42nd Street New York, NY 10036-8002 www.ansi.org (212)642-4900 Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including technical speci

-

views expressed in contractorprepared publications in this

series are not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and adminis

-trative reports and books prepared by the staff (NUREG-XXXX)or agency contractors (NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2)

proceedings of conferences (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports

resulting from international agreements (NUREG/IA-XXXX),

(4)brochures (NUREG/BR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic

and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors' decisions

under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations (NUREG-0750).

DISCLAIMER: This report was prepared as an account

of work sponsored by an agency of the U.S. Government.

Neither the U.S. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any employee, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third

party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this publication, or represents that its use by such third party would not

infringe privately owned rights.

NUREG/CR-2907, Vol. 19 Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants Annual Report 2013 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Manuscript Completed: April 2018 Date Published: September 2018 Prepared by: J. Davis Oak Ridge Associated Universities 1299 Bethel Valley Road, SC-200, MS-21 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Steven Garry and Micheal Smith, NRC Project Managers

iii ABSTRACT There are 104 commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) licensed to operate on 65 sites in the United States (U.S.) regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Each year, each power reactor sends a report to the NRC that identifies the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents discharged from the facility. In 2013, these effluent reports comprised about 10,000 pages of information, which described the radioactive materials discharged, as well as the resulting radiation doses to the general public. This report summarizes that information and presents the information in a format intended for both nuclear professionals and the general public. The reader can use this report to quickly characterize the radioactive discharges from any U.S. NPP in 2013. The radioactive effluents from one reactor can be compared with other reactors. The results can also be compared with typical (or median) effluents for the industry, including short-term trends and long-term trends. Reference information is included so the reader can compare the doses from NPP effluents with the doses the general public receives from other sources of radiation, such as medical procedures, industrial devices, and natural materials in the environment. Although all operating NPPs released some radioactive materials in 2013, all effluents dischargeAdditionally, the doses from radioactive effluents were much less than the doses from other sources of natural radiation that are commonly considered safe. This indicates radioactive effluents from NPPs in 2013 had no significant impact on the health and safety of the public or the environment.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... ix ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................... xi 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Source of Data ................................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Limitations of Data ........................................................................................................... 5 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA .............................................................................................. 7 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Measuring Radioactivity in Radioactive Effluents ............................................................. 7 2.3 Dose Units and Limits ...................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Radiation Dose to the Public ......................................................................................... 10 2.5 Other Sources of Radiation Dose to the U.S. Population ............................................... 11 3 EFFLUENT DATA ................................................................................................................ 13 3.1 Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents ................................................. 13 3.2 Short-Term Trend in Gaseous Effluents ........................................................................ 50 3.3 Long-Term Trend in Gaseous Effluents ......................................................................... 54 3.4 Short-Term Trend in Liquid Effluents ............................................................................. 55 3.5 Long-Term Trend in Liquid Effluents .............................................................................. 59 3.6 Radiation Doses from Gaseous and Liquid Effluents ..................................................... 60 4

SUMMARY

........................................................................................................................... 75 5 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 77 6 GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................................... 81

vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Sources of Radiation Exposure to the U.S. Population ......................................12 Figure 3.1 BWR Gaseous Releases Fission and Activation Gases ................................31 Figure 3.2 BWR Gaseous Releases Iodine ....................................................................32 Figure 3.3 BWR Gaseous Releases Particulates ...........................................................33 Figure 3.4 BWR Gaseous Releases Tritium ...................................................................34 Figure 3.5 BWR Gaseous Releases Carbon-14 .............................................................35 Figure 3.6 PWR Gaseous Releases Fission and Activation Gases ................................36 Figure 3.7 PWR Gaseous Releases Iodine ....................................................................38 Figure 3.8 PWR Gaseous Releases Particulates ...........................................................39 Figure 3.9 PWR Gaseous Releases Tritium ...................................................................40 Figure 3.10 PWR Gaseous Releases Carbon-14 .............................................................42 Figure 3.11 BWR Liquid Releases Fission and Activation Products .................................44 Figure 3.12 BWR Liquid Releases Tritium ........................................................................45 Figure 3.13 PWR Liquid Releases Fission and Activation Products .................................46 Figure 3.14 PWR Liquid Releases Tritium ........................................................................48 Figure 3.15 Long-Term Trend in Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents ....................................54 Figure 3.16 Long-Term Trend in MFAPs in Liquid Effluents ..................................................59 Figure 3.17 BWR Gaseous Effluents Maximum Annual Organ Dose ................................67 Figure 3.18 PWR Gaseous Effluents Maximum Annual Organ Dose ................................68 Figure 3.19 BWR Liquid Effluents Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose ............70 Figure 3.20 PWR Liquid Effluents Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose ............71 Figure 3.21 Median Maximum Annual Organ Dose, Gaseous Effluents 5-Year Trend, 2009-2013..........................................................................................................73 Figure 3.22 Median Maximum Annual Dose, Liquid Effluents 5-Year Trend, 2009-2013...................................................................................................................73

ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Nuclear Power Plants, 2013 ................................................................................ 2 Table 1.2 Reactors for Which the NRC Has Normalized Data on a Unit-Specific Basis ................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2.1 Radionuclides in Gaseous Effluents .................................................................... 8 Table 2.2 Radionuclides in Liquid Effluents ........................................................................ 9 Table 3.1 BWR Gaseous Releases Fission and Activation Gases, 2013 .......................14 Table 3.2 BWR Gaseous Releases Iodine, 2013 ..........................................................15 Table 3.3 BWR Gaseous Releases Particulates, 2013 ..................................................16 Table 3.4 BWR Gaseous Releases Tritium, 2013 .........................................................17 Table 3.5 BWR Gaseous Releases Carbon-14, 2013 ...................................................18 Table 3.6 PWR Gaseous Releases Fission and Activation Gases, 2013 .......................19 Table 3.7 PWR Gaseous Releases Iodine, 2013 ..........................................................21 Table 3.8 PWR Gaseous Releases Particulates, 2013 ..................................................22 Table 3.9 PWR Gaseous Releases Tritium, 2013 .........................................................24 Table 3.10 PWR Gaseous Releases Carbon-14, 2013 ...................................................25 Table 3.11 BWR Liquid Releases Fission and Activation Products, 2013 ........................26 Table 3.12 BWR Liquid Releases Tritium, 2013 ..............................................................27 Table 3.13 PWR Liquid Releases Fission and Activation Products, 2013 ........................28 Table 3.14 PWR Liquid Releases Tritium, 2013 ..............................................................30 Table 3.15 Short-Term Trend in Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents, BWRs, Curies (Ci) .....................................................................................................................51 Table 3.16 Short-Term Trend in Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents, PWRs, Curies (Ci) .....................................................................................................................52 Table 3.17 Short-Term Trend in Mixed Fission and Activation Products in Liquid Effluents, BWRs, millicuries (mCi) ......................................................................56 Table 3.18 Short-Term Trend in Mixed Fission and Activation Products in Liquid Effluents, PWRs, millicuries (mCi) ......................................................................57 Table 3.19 BWR Gaseous Effluents Maximum Annual Organ Dose, 2013 ......................63 Table 3.20 PWR Gaseous Effluents Maximum Annual Organ Dose, 2013 ......................64 Table 3.21 BWR Liquid Effluents Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose, 2013 ........................................................................................................65 Table 3.22 PWR Liquid Effluents Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose, 2013 ........................................................................................................66

xi ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable ARERR Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report Bq becquerel BWR boiling-water reactor C-14 carbon-14 CFR Code of Federal Regulations Ci curie DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency GBq gigabecquerels H-3 tritium mCi millicurie MFAP mixed fission and activation products mrem millirem mSv millisievert NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements NPP nuclear power plant ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual PWR pressurized-water reactor RG Regulatory Guide SI International System of Units (abbreviation is from the French: Le Systme ) Sv sievert USGS United States Geological Survey U.S. NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose This report describes radioactive effluents from commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) in the U.S. during calendar year 2013. It is based on an extensive amount of information submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by all U.S. NPP licensees. The original information was submitted by the NPPs in their Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports (ARERRs) and comprises several thousand pages of data. The ARERRs may be viewed in their entirety on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-info.html. For the years between 1972 and 1993, this type of annual information was condensed into a tabular format and published as a large volume of tabulated data (Refs. [122] ). An evaluation of the practice of generating tabular annual reports revealed the need for a more concise summary report that presented the information in a more intuitive, graphic format (Ref. [23] ). As a result, this style of improved reports was created. This report joins a series of previous reports on radioactive effluents presented in the revised graphic format (Refs. [2429] ). The purpose of this report is to condense an extremely large volume of technical information into a few tables and figures from which the reader can quickly, if broadly, characterize the effluents from any operating U.S. NPP. These tables and figures are designed to provide easily understandable information for the public at large, while also providing experienced professionals with enough information to evaluate trends in industry performance and to identify potential performance issues for individual power plants. Those users wanting more extensive and detailed information are encouraged to retrieve the original ARERRs from the NRC Web site. 1.2 Scope This report summarizes data from all NPPs in commercial operation between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. The list of NPPs included in this report is provided in Table 1.1. The NPP typeboiling-water reactor (BWR) or pressurized-water reactor (PWR)is indicated in the table. The table also includes a list of shutdown reactors no longer in commercial operation that are either in decommissioning or have been decommissioned. Some of the shutdown reactors have been totally dismantled during the decommissioning process. As a result, for some shutdown reactors, no visible structures or facilities are present at the locations listed in Table 1.1.

2 Table 1.1 Nuclear Power Plants, 2013 Plant Name Type Full Plant Name Location Arkansas 1, 2 PWR Arkansas Nuclear One (ANO), Units 1, 2 Russellville, AR Beaver Valley 1, 2 PWR Beaver Valley, Units 1, 2 Shippingport, PA Braidwood 1, 2 PWR Braidwood Generating Station, Units 1, 2 Braceville, IL Browns Ferry 1, 2, 3 BWR Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 Decatur, AL Brunswick 1, 2 BWR Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1, 2 Southport, NC Byron 1, 2 PWR Byron Generating Station, Units 1, 2 Byron, IL Callaway PWR Callaway Plant, Unit 1 Callaway, MO Calvert Cliffs 1, 2 PWR Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2 Lusby, MD Catawba 1, 2 PWR Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 York, SC Clinton BWR Clinton Power Station Clinton, IL Columbia BWR Columbia Station Richland, WA Comanche Peak 1, 2 PWR Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1, 2 Glen Rose, TX Cook 1, 2 PWR Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 Bridgman, MI Cooper BWR Cooper Nuclear Station Brownville, NE Crystal River 3 PWR Crystal River, Unit 3 Crystal River, FL Davis-Besse PWR Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Oak Harbor, OH Diablo Canyon 1, 2 PWR Diablo Canyon, Units 1, 2 Avila Beach, CA Dresden 2, 3 BWR Dresden Generating Station, Units 2, 3 Morris, IL Duane Arnold BWR Duane Arnold Energy Center Palo, IA Farley 1, 2 PWR Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 Ashford, AL Fermi 2 BWR Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant Newport, MI FitzPatrick BWR James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Lycoming, NY Ft. Calhoun PWR Ft. Calhoun Station, Unit 1 Ft. Calhoun, NE Ginna PWR R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1Ontario, NY Grand Gulf BWR Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Port Gibson, MS Harris PWR Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 New Hill, NC Hatch 1, 2 BWR Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 Baxley, GA Hope Creek BWR Hope Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 Hancocks Bridge, NJ Indian Point 2, 3 PWR Indian Point Energy Center, Units 2, 3 Buchanan, NY Kewaunee PWR Kewaunee Power Station Kewaunee, WI LaSalle 1, 2 BWR LaSalle County Generating Station, Units 1, 2 Marseilles, IL Limerick 1, 2 BWR Limerick Generating Station, Units 1, 2 Saratoga, PA

3 Table 1.1 Nuclear Power Plants, 2013 (continued) Plant Name Type Full Plant Name Location McGuire 1, 2 PWR McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 Huntersville, NC Millstone 2, 3 PWR Millstone Power Station, Units 2, 3 Waterford, CT Monticello BWR Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant Monticello, MN Nine Mile Point 1, 2 BWR Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 Lycoming, NY North Anna 1, 2 PWR North Anna Power Station, Units 1, 2 Mineral, VA Oconee 1, 2, 3 PWR Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, 3 Seneca, SC Oyster Creek BWR Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Forked River, NJ Palisades PWR Palisades Nuclear Plant Covert, MI Palo Verde 1, 2, 3 PWR Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, 3 Phoenix, AZ Peach Bottom 2, 3 BWR Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2, 3 Delta, PA Perry BWR Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Perry, OH Pilgrim BWR Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Plymouth, MA Point Beach 1, 2 PWR Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 Two Rivers, WI Prairie Island 1, 2 PWR Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1, 2 Welch, MN Quad Cities 1, 2 BWR Quad Cities Generating Station, Units 1, 2 Cordova, IL River Bend BWR River Bend Station, Unit 1 St. Francisville, LA Robinson 2 PWR H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 Hartsville, SC Salem 1, 2 PWR Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 Hancocks Bridge, NJ San Onofre 2, 3 PWR San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2, 3 San Clemente, CA Seabrook PWR Seabrook Station, Unit 1 Seabrook, NH Sequoyah 1, 2 PWR Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 Soddy-Daisy, TN South Texas 1, 2 PWR South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 1, 2 Wadsworth, TX St. Lucie 1, 2 PWR St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 Ft. Pierce, FL Summer PWR Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Jenkinsville, SC Surry 1, 2 PWR Surry Power Station, Units 1, 2 Surry, VA Susquehanna 1, 2 BWR Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1, 2 Berwick, PA Three Mile Island 1 PWR Three Mile Island Generating Station, Unit 1 Harrisburg, PA Turkey Point 3, 4 PWR Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3, 4 Princeton, FL Vermont Yankee BWR Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Vernon, VT Vogtle 1, 2 PWR Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1, 2 Waynesboro, GA 4 Table 1.1 Nuclear Power Plants, 2013 (continued)

Plant Name Type Full Plant Name Location Waterford 3 PWR Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3 Killona, LA Watts Bar 1 PWR Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Spring City, TN Wolf Creek PWR Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1 Burlington, KS Reactors No Longer In Commercial Operation in 201 3 Big Rock Point BWR Big Rock Point Restoration Project Charlevoix, MI Dresden 1 BWR Dresden Generating Station, Unit 1 Morris, IL Haddam Neck PWR Haddam Neck Nuclear Plant Site Haddam Neck, CT Humboldt Bay BWR Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3 Eureka, CA Indian Point 1 PWR Indian Point Energy Center, Unit 1 Buchanan, NY La Crosse BWR La Crosse Boiling-Water Reactor Genoa, WI Maine Yankee PWR Maine Yankee Bath, ME Millstone 1 PWR Millstone Power Station, Unit 1 Waterford, CT Rancho Seco PWR Rancho Seco, Unit 1 Herald, CA San Onofre 1 PWR San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 San Clemente, CA Three Mile Island 2 PWR Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Middletown, PA Trojan PWR Trojan Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 Portland, OR Yankee-Rowe PWR Yankee Nuclear Power Station Franklin Co., MA Zion 1, 2 PWR Zion Generating Station, Units 1, 2 Warrenville, IL The NRC uses the information on radioactive releases, along with other information collected during routine inspections of each facility, to ensure NPPs are operated within regulatory requirements. One of those requirements includes maintaining radiation doses from radioactive information submitted with regard to NRC reporting requirements and guidance is included. Information not related to the NRC requirements for radioactive effluents or the NRC guidance on radioactive effluents is not included in this summary report. Additionally, information on solid radioactive waste is not included in this report because data on solid waste disposed in licensed waste disposal facilities is available from the Department of Energy Manifest Information Management System (MIMS) database at URL: http://mims.doe.gov/. Some reactors are no longer operating. For the 2013 data shown in the tables and figures of this report, those reactors are treated as follows. The Big Rock Point, Haddam Neck, Humboldt Bay, La Crosse, Maine Yankee, Rancho Seco, Trojan, Yankee-Rowe, Zion Unit 1, and Zion Unit 2 reactor sites are shut down and are not collocated with an operating reactor. The data from these shutdown reactors are not included in this report. The Millstone Unit 1 and Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactors are shut down and are collocated with one or more operating reactors. For these shutdown reactors, the licensee reports data for the shutdown unit separately from the operating units, and the results from these shutdown reactors are not included in this report on operating reactors. For the Dresden Unit 1, Indian Point Unit 1, and San Onofre Unit 1 5 reactors, which are shut down and collocated beside two operating units, the licensee reports the sum of the effluents from the shutdown unit with one or both of the operating units. For these shutdown reactors, the effluent data are included with (and attributed to) one or more of the operating units in this report. Crystal River Unit 3 ceased power generation in 2010 and shut down in February 2013, but will be included in the count of operating reactors for this annual report. In addition, Kewaunee shut down in May 2013 and San Onofre Unit 2 and Unit 3 shut down in June 2013 and are included in the count of operating reactors for this annual report. The historical radioactive effluent release data from all reactors, including the reactors that are no longer operating, are included in Figures 3.15 and 3.16, which depict the long-term trend of radioactive effluents. 1.3 Source of Data Each commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is authorized by the NRC to release small amounts of radioactive materials to the environment as specified in the licensing documents for the plant. NRC regulations require each NPP to establish and maintain a program for monitoring radioactive effluents (per Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 50.36a and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Section IV.B) and to report these effluents in an Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (ARERR) (per 10 CFR 50.36a) (Ref. [30] ). In accordance with the regulatory framework, licensees submit their reports to the NRC in a format outlined by Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.21 (Ref. [31] ), or an equivalent format. licensee reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, phone 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-info.html. The data from these reports are also entered into a database that is maintained by the NRC. The public may access this database through an NRC Web site (http://www.reirs.com/effluent/). The data, as reported by each site, are entered into the database. 1.4 Limitations of Data Some NPPs have more than one reactor unit located at a site. If the licensee reports data separately for each reactor unit, those data are included as reported by the licensee. Because some licensees operate multi-unit sites with a common radioactive waste processing system, these licensees report total effluents from the site instead of reporting the totals from each reactor unit. This complicates the task of presenting the effluent information in a manner that allows both (1) a direct comparison of one reactor unit with another, and (2) a direct comparison of each reactor unit with NRC limits and regulations. For purposes of this report, the data are reported on a per-unit basis. For multi-unit sites where the effluents are from a common radioactive waste system, the effluents are divided equally between the units. For example, Catawba has two units (1 and 2) with a common radioactive waste processing system. For this report, the total effluents for Catawba were split equally between Unit 1 and Unit 2. For other multi-unit sites, the effluent activity is not divided equally between the units. For example, in the case of Beaver Valley, the licensee reports gaseous 6 effluents from four sources: Unit 1, Unit 2, a common plant vent, and a common building vent. In this case, the releases from the common vents are split equally between Unit 1 and Unit 2, and the totals for each unit then are calculated. This method of splitting the data has been applied to radionuclide activity data and radiation dose data at some multi-unit sites. The affected NPPs and the type of data affected are listed in Table 1.2. Although there are other methods of reporting effluent data (e.g., on the basis of thermal or electrical power generation), the per reactor-unit basis (1) is most intuitive, (2) is most directly comparable with the NRC required design objectives and limiting conditions for operation (i.e., referred to as ALARA criteria in this report), and (3) is easily derived from the effluent data supplied by the licensee. This approach satisfies a primary objective for this report which is to allow the reader to quickly formulate reasonable comparisons between reactors and the regulatory limits. It should be noted, however, that for some multi-unit sites, the actual contributions from each unit might be different than the equal distributions calculated with this approach, such as when a plant is undergoing a major or extended outage. publication. If a licensee submits amended data in accordance with NRC regulatory guidance, the NRC reserves the right to update the data in future reports. For the most current data, the reawhich are available on the NRC Web site. Table 1.2 Reactors for Which the NRC Has Normalized Data on a Unit-Specific Basis Boiling-Water Reactors (BWRs) R D Pressurized-Water Reactors (PWRs) R D Browns Ferry 1, 2, 3 Beaver Valley 1, 2 Brunswick 1, 2 Calvert Cliffs 1, 2 Dresden 1, 2, 3 Catawba 1, 2 LaSalle 1, 2 Comanche Peak 1, 2 Limerick 1, 2 Cook 1, 2 Nine Mile Point 1, 2 Diablo Canyon 1, 2 Peach Bottom 2, 3 Indian Point 1, 2 Quad Cities 1, 2 McGuire 1, 2 Susquehanna 1, 2 North Anna 1, 2 Oconee 1, 2, 3 Point Beach 1, 2 Prairie Island 1, 2 San Onofre 1, 2, 3 Sequoyah 1, 2 Surry 1, 2 Notes: R = Radionuclide Data, D = Dose Data 7 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA 2.1 Introduction Radioactive materials may be disposed of in one of three forms: solid, liquid, or gas. This report summarizes the disposal of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents from commercial nuclear power plants. Note: Data on solid radioactive waste shipped from a nuclear licensed waste disposal facilities is available from the Department of Energy Manifest Information Management System (MIMS) database at URL: http://mims.doe.gov/. As described in Section 1.3, owners and operators of NPPs are required to report the radioactive effluents from their facilities to the NRC. The two basic characteristics most often used to describe radioactive effluents are the amount of radioactivity (curies or millicuries) and For this report, activity can be thought of as the amount of radioactive material present in radioactive effluents. The units for measuring activity are further described in Section 2.2. The activities of various radionuclides in radioactive effluents from NPPs are presented in Sections 3.1 through 3.5. Although the amount of activity is an important, inherent characteristic that helps to describe radioactive effluents, it is notby itselfa good indicator of the potential health effects from exposure to the radiation. Health effects are dependent on many factors, such as the radionuclide, the activity of the radionuclide, the type of radiation emitted by the radionuclide, the energy of the radiation, the uptake of the radionuclide into the human body, and the metabolism of the radionuclide by the human body. To properly describe the potential health effects from exposure to radioactive materials, a combined measure of risk (i.e., dose) that accounts for all of these differences is needed. The units for measuring dose (mrem) are described in more detail in Section 2.3. The methods and models for calculating dose from radioactive effluents are discussed in Section 2.4. The actual dose values due to radioactive effluents from NPPs are presented in Section 3.6. Radiation is around us all of the time. The human bodyeach of uscontains some natural radioactive materials such as radioactive carbon and radioactive potassium. Natural radioactive materials are also in rocks, in soil, in the air we breathe, and in the food we eat. As a result, humans have been exposed to radiation since the dawn of man. Over the last 100 years, man has developed new radioactive materials and new machines that create additional sources of radiation. These new sources include radioactive materials used in medicine, research, industry, and nuclear power plants. Section 2.5 contains basic information on the doses received by the average member of the U.S. population each year from all sources of radiation, including commercial NPPs. 2.2 Measuring Radioactivity in Radioactive Effluents In order to present the liquid and airborne (gaseous) effluent data in a manner that is both useful and concise, only significant radionuclides are included in the tables and figures in this report. Using the guidance in Revision 2 of RG 1.21 (Ref. [31] ), licensees evaluate radionuclides that have either a significant activity or a significant dose contribution in NPP effluents. The radionuclides chosen for inclusion in this report are shown in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.

8 Activity is a measure of the number of atoms that transform (historically referred to as decay) in a given period of time and is reported in various units, normally either curies (Ci) or becquerels (Bq). In the United States, the traditional unit for reporting activity is the Ci. One Ci is equal to 37,000,000,000 (37 billion) radioactive atoms transforming in one second. In this document, activity will be reported as curies and millicuries (mCi). A curie is equal to one thousand millicuries. In countries that have adopted the International System of Units (or SI units), activity is reported in units of becquerels (Bq). One Bq is one atomic disintegration (transformation) or decay per second. One curie equals 37,000,000,000 becquerels, which may be expressed in scientific notation as 3.7E+10 becquerels or 3.7 x 1010 becquerels. One curie is sometimes expressed as 37 gigabecquerels or simply 37 GBq. One curie of cobalt-60 and one curie of hydrogen-3 have the same activity; however, when an atom of cobalt-60 transforms, the atomic transformations typically produce one moderately energetic beta particle and two highly energetic gamma rays. By contrast, when an atom of hydrogen-3 (tritium) transforms, it emits a single, low-energy beta particle. Sensitive instruments can detect and measure the transformation products that are unique to each radionuclide. Cobalt and hydrogen are just two examples of elements that can be radioactive. Other examples are shown in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. The reporting of radionuclides in liquid and gaseous wastes is commonly grouped into categories (Ref. [31] ). These categories are described in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 as noble gases, iodines, particulates, tritium, carbon, and gross alpha activity. Each category contains one or more radionuclides. Beginning with the 2010 annual effluent summary report, a new radionuclide category has been added for carbon-14 (C-14) in gaseous effluents. Table 2.1 Radionuclides in Gaseous Effluents Gaseous Effluent Category Common Radionuclides Significant Radionuclides Fission and Activation Gases (sometimes referred to as Noble Gases) Krypton (85, 85m, 87, 88) Xenon (131, 131m, 133, 133m, 135, 135m) Argon (41) Kr-85 Xe-133 Xe-135 All (Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.6) Iodines Iodine (131, 132, 133, 134, 135) I-131 All (Section 3.6) Particulates Cobalt (58, 60) Cesium (134, 137) Chromium (51) Manganese (54) Niobium (95) Co-58 Co-60 Cs-134 Cs-137 All (Section 3.6) Tritium Hydrogen (3) H-3 Carbon Carbon (14) C-14 Gross Alpha Total alpha activity Not Presented in this Report The radionuclides listed in this report are the most significant radionuclides discharged from a Kr-85, Xe-133, and Xe-135) were selected for inclusion in Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 for noble gas radionuclides. These three were chosen because these radionuclides are the most significant, are representative of the overall effluent releases, and because as their activities increase, the activities of other fission and 9 activation gases typically increase as well. Conversely, if the activities of these three radionuclides are very low, the activities of other fission and activation gases also tend to be low. All noble gas radionuclides are included in Sections 3.2 Short-Term Trend in Gaseous Effluents, 3.3 Long-Term Trend in Gaseous Effluents, and 3.6 Radiation Doses from Gaseous and Liquid Effluents. Table 2.2 Radionuclides in Liquid Effluents Liquid Effluent Category Common Radionuclides Significant Radionuclides Mixed Fission and Activation Products Iron (55) Cobalt (58, 60) Cesium (134, 137) Chromium (51) Manganese (54) Zirconium (95) Niobium (95) Iodine (131, 133, 135) Fe-55 Co-58 Co-60 Cs-134 Cs-137 I-131 All (Sections 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6) Tritium Hydrogen (3) H-3 Dissolved and Entrained Noble Gases Krypton (85, 85m, 87, 88) Xenon (131, 133, 133m, 135, 135m) Not Presented in this Report Gross Alpha Total alpha activity Not Presented in this Report Much information about the operation of plant systems can be obtained from the radionuclides present in radioactive effluents. Additionally, the ratios of the activities of radionuclides can provide insights into fuel integrity, radioactive waste system operation, and general radioactive waste handling practices at a site. The reader who is interested in seeing the activities of all radionuclides released from any particular NPP is encouraged to review the detailed, site-specific ARERRs provided on the NRC Web site. Laboratory instruments can identify which radionuclides are present in radioactive effluents. The instruments can also measure the activities (curies or becquerels) of the radionuclides. As a result, many discussions about radioactive effluents focus on the curies (or becquerels) released. Although activity measures the rate of atomic transformations, it does not provide a direct measure of the potential health effects from exposure to radionuclides. When discussing potential health effects, the concept of dose is used. Radiation dose is discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. 2.3 Dose Units and Limits The traditional unit for reporting radiation dose in the United States is the rem. Small exposures are often reported as millirem (mrem) or as fractions of a mrem. One thousand mrem equals one rem. Other countries report radiation dose in units of sieverts (Sv). One sievert equals 100 rem. One millirem equals 0.00001 sievert or 0.01 millisievert (mSv). The number 0.00001 can be represented in scientific notation as 1 x 10-5 or 1E-05. Radioactive effluents discharged from NPPs are controlled by regulations. NRC regulations (10 CFR 20.1301) specify that the annual dose to individual members of the public does not exceed 100 mrem (1 millisievert) (Ref. [32] ). In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established environmental radiation protection standards for nuclear power 10 operations that the annual dose to any member of the public does not exceed 25 mrem to the whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid, and 25 mrem to any other organ. Typically, the median dose from radioactive effluents to members of the public is so low (usually less than 1 mrem in a year) that the radionuclides and the dose in the environment cannot be measured directly. As a result, hypothetical doses are typically calculated based on the measurements of radioactive effluents at the point of release from the plant. 2.4 Radiation Dose to the Public Licensees are required by 10 CFR 50.36a to establish Technical Specifications which require that operating procedures for the control of effluents be established and followed, and that the radioactive waste system be maintained and used to keep average annual effluent releases at small percentages of the public dose limits (Ref. [32] ). The Technical Specifications establish keep radioactive effluent releases ALARA and meet the ALARA criteria in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I (Ref. [30] ). The ALARA criteria are established as a small fraction (typically about 3 percent) of the NRC safety limits for dose to members of the public. The licensee is required to keep levels of radioactive material in effluents ALARA, even under unusual operating conditions. The ALARA criteria are design objectives and limiting conditions for operation, not safety limits. If releases ever exceed design objectives, the licensee is required to take corrective actions to ensure the plant systems are functioning as designed and to report this information to the NRC. ctive Effluent Controls Program in the Offsite Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) (or equivalent), and to control radioactive effluents in a manner such as to keep doses to members of the public from radioactive effluents ALARA. The methods of determining dose are described in the R be submitted to the NRC on an annual basis. The ODCM contains both the offsite dose calculation methodologies and a radiological environmental monitoring program. Those dose calculations are based on: actual measurements of the radioactive materials discharged to the unrestricted area;models of how radionuclides are dispersed and diluted in the environment;models of how radionuclides are incorporated into animals, plants, and soil; andbiokinetic models of human uptake and metabolism of radioactive materials.The dose calculation models are designed to calculate the dose either to a real individual closest to the NPP or conservatively to a hypothetical individual exposed to the highest concentrations of radioactive materials from radioactive effluents. This person is often referred to as the maximum exposed individual (or maximum exposed hypothetical individual). The parameters and assumptions used in these dose calculations typically include conservative assumptions that tend to overestimate the dose. As a result, the actual doses received by real 11 individuals are often much less than those calculated. Guidance for these calculations is provided in NRC RG 1.109 (Ref. [33] ). The calculated annual organ doses and annual total body doses are included in Section 3.6. All calculated doses are provided in Tables 3.19 through 3.22, and are shown graphically in Figures 3.17 through 3.22. 2.5 Other Sources of Radiation Dose to the U.S. Population Doses from NPP radioactive effluents were discussed in the previous sections. This section discusses the doses that the average American typically receives each year from naturally occurring background radiation and all other sources of radiation. With the information presented in this section, the reader can compare the doses received from NPP effluents with the doses received from natural, medical, and other sources of radiation. This comparison provides some context to the concept of radiation dose effects. In March 2009, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) publis[34] , [35] ). Report No. 160 describes the doses to the U.S. population from all sources of ionizing radiation for 2006, the most recent data available at the time the NCRP report was written. The NCRP report also includes information on the variability of those doses from one individual to another. The NCRP estimated that the average person in the United States receives about 620 mrem of radiation dose each year from all sources; i.e., bothnatural background radiation and man-made radiation sources. NCRP Report No. 160 describes each of the sources of radiation that contribute to this dose, including: naturally occurring sources (natural background) such as cosmic radiation from space, terrestrial radiation from radioactive materials in the earth, and naturally occurring radioactive materials in the food people eat and in the air people breathe; medical sources from diagnosis and treatment of health disorders using radioactive pharmaceuticals and radiation-producing equipment; consumer products (such as household smoke detectors); industrial processes, security devices, educational tools, and research activities; and exposures of workers that result from their occupations. Figure 2.1 is a pie chart showing the relative contributions of these sources of radiation to the dose received by the average American person. Larger contributors to dose are represented by proportionally larger slices of the pie. Doses to the public from NPPs are included in the industrial category; while doses to workers from nuclear power generation are included in the category of occupational dose. Doses to the public due to effluents from NPPs are less than 0.1 percent (one-tenth of one percent) of what the average person receives each year from all sources of radiation. Doses to workers from occupational exposures, including those received from work at NPPs, also are less than 0.1 percent of the dose to members of the public from all sources.

12 Figure 2.1 Sources of Radiation Exposure to the U.S. Population The chart above shows the contribution of various sources of exposure to the total collective dose and the total dose per individual in the U.S. population for 2006. Values have been rounded to the nearest 1%, except for those <1% [less than 1%]. Credit: Modification to image courtesy of National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.

13 3 EFFLUENT DATA 3.1 Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents The activity of the most significant radionuclides discharged in liquid and gaseous effluents for 2013 are shown in Tables 3.1 through 3.14. The data from these tables are illustrated graphically in Figures 3.1 through 3.14. The tables and figures are organized by the two types of reactors used in the United States: boiling-water reactors (BWRs) and pressurized-water reactors (PWRs). The tables and figures are further subdivided into liquid and gaseous effluents. Finally, the data are subdivided into the radionuclide categories (common radionuclides and significant radionuclides) as listed in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. These tables and her reactors of the same type. As described in Section 2.2, only the most significant radionuclides are included in the tables and graphs in Section 3.1. However, the total radiation dose from all radionuclides discharged from the reactors is included in Section 3.6, Radiation Doses from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents. For comparison between plants, median values are included in some tables and figures. The median is the midpoint of the data such that half of the power plants will have greater activity and dose values than the median plant and half of the power plants will have values equal to or lower than the median plant. The median is a method of estimating a central or typical value while avoiding bias caused by extremely high or low values in the data set. All operating nuclear plant units are included when calculating the medians, even those sites for which no measurable release of a particular radionuclide is reported. All licensees are required to have and use sensitive radioactive effluent measurement capabilities. Many times, radioactive effluent releases are so low in concentration that a release cannot be detected. If no value is listed for a particular radionuclide in a table, it is because the licensee reported that the radionuclide was not detected at that NPP. Blanks in data fields are generally used instead of zeros in order to make it easier for the reader to quickly identify the positive values. On the following pages, the tables are presented first. In general, the information in each table is organized in descending order of activity. The facilities discharging the most activity are shown near the top of each table, while the facilities discharging the least activity are shown toward the bottom of each table. The median is shown in the middle of each data set. Tables with information on more than one radionuclide are listed by the total activity per plant, in descending order. The figures are shown following the tables. In general, the information is organized in each figure in descending order of activity. The facilities discharging the most activity of the selected radionuclides are shown near the top of the figure, while the facilities discharging the least activity of the radionuclides are shown toward the bottom of each figure. The median is shown in the middle of each data set. Figures with information on more than one radionuclide are listed by the total activity per plant, in descending order of activity. Figures with information on more than one radionuclide are shown in multi-colored graphs. For example, Figure 3.1 is a multi-colored graph. In figures with multi-colored graphs, the total activity of the selected radionuclides is shown on the right side of the graph, while the relative contribution of each radionuclide to the total activity is shown on the left side of the graph. The relative contributions of each nuclide are shownin multiple colorsas a percent of the total activity. A multi-colored graph allows the reader to compare not only the activity but also the relative amounts of significant radionuclides released by the various 14 facilities. Multi-colored graphs contain two separate scales of measurement. The total activity is shown on a logarithmic scale, while the radionuclide percentages of the total activity are shown on a linear scale. Table 3.1 BWR Gaseous Releases Fission and Activation Gases, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Total Activity BWR Facility Kr-85 (Ci) Xe-133 (Ci) Xe-135 (Ci) Total (Ci) Grand Gulf 7.74E+02 7.12E+02 1.49E+03 LaSalle 1 2.34E+02 6.82E+00 2.41E+02 LaSalle 2 2.34E+02 6.82E+00 2.41E+02 Monticello 6.29E+01 8.89E+01 1.52E+02 Perry 4.95E-02 4.55E+01 1.88E+01 6.44E+01 Brunswick 1 2.73E+00 3.69E+01 3.97E+01 Brunswick 2 2.73E+00 3.69E+01 3.97E+01 Limerick 1 2.59E-01 1.98E+01 1.13E+01 3.14E+01 Limerick 2 2.59E-01 1.98E+01 1.13E+01 3.14E+01 Oyster Creek 2.78E+01 2.78E+01 Hatch 2 1.22E+01 1.16E+00 1.34E+01 FitzPatrick 1.33E+00 5.16E+00 6.49E+00 Hatch 1 4.89E+00 1.16E+00 6.05E+00 Nine Mile Point 2 4.29E+00 8.79E-01 5.17E+00 Susquehanna 1 2.26E+00 1.87E+00 4.13E+00 Susquehanna 2 2.26E+00 1.87E+00 4.13E+00 BWR Median Release 2.24E+00 1.16E+00 3.47E+00 Quad Cities 1 2.60E+00 8.68E-01 3.47E+00 Quad Cities 2 2.60E+00 8.68E-01 3.47E+00 Peach Bottom 2 1.52E+00 1.84E+00 3.36E+00 Peach Bottom 3 1.52E+00 1.84E+00 3.36E+00 Dresden 2 2.24E+00 8.15E-01 3.05E+00 Dresden 3 2.24E+00 8.15E-01 3.05E+00 River Bend 1.23E-01 2.45E+00 2.58E+00 Fermi 2 1.87E+00 4.52E-01 2.32E+00 Cooper 6.83E-02 1.19E+00 1.26E+00 Duane Arnold 7.04E-01 7.04E-01 Pilgrim 2.91E-01 2.91E-01 Hope Creek 1.46E-03 1.42E-02 1.57E-02 Browns Ferry 1 Browns Ferry 2 Browns Ferry 3 Clinton Columbia Nine Mile Point 1 Vermont Yankee 15 Table 3.2 BWR Gaseous Releases Iodine, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Activity BWR Facility I-131 (Ci) BWR Facility I-131 (Ci) LaSalle 1 3.15E-02 BWR Median Release 4.15E-04 LaSalle 2 3.15E-02 Peach Bottom 2 4.15E-04 Monticello 5.24E-03 Peach Bottom 3 4.15E-04 Brunswick 1 2.38E-03 Perry 3.49E-04 Brunswick 2 2.38E-03 Hatch 2 3.46E-04 Hope Creek 2.33E-03 FitzPatrick 3.37E-04 Browns Ferry 1 1.67E-03 Hatch 1 3.30E-04 Browns Ferry 2 1.67E-03 Quad Cities 1 2.46E-04 Browns Ferry 3 1.67E-03 Quad Cities 2 2.46E-04 Oyster Creek 1.36E-03 Nine Mile Point 1 1.31E-04 Grand Gulf 1.32E-03 Cooper 5.26E-05 Nine Mile Point 2 9.25E-04 Columbia 2.88E-05 Fermi 2 9.16E-04 Duane Arnold 2.38E-05 River Bend 7.65E-04 Clinton 1.63E-05 Pilgrim 5.08E-04 Vermont Yankee 1.33E-05 Dresden 2 4.57E-04 Limerick 1 Dresden 3 4.57E-04 Limerick 2 Susquehanna 1 Susquehanna 2 16 Table 3.3 BWR Gaseous Releases Particulates, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Total Activity BWR Facility Co-58 (Ci) Co-60 (Ci) Cs-134 (Ci) Cs-137 (Ci) Total (Ci)

Oyster Creek 8.92E-03 1.19E-02 4.75E-04 2.13E-02 Nine Mile Point 1 1.13E-04 2.61E-03 2.00E-06 2.72E-03 Fermi 2 1.08E-03 1.61E-03 2.69E-03 Dresden 2 7.48E-05 4.92E-04 1.21E-06 5.68E-04 Dresden 3 7.48E-05 4.92E-04 1.21E-06 5.68E-04 LaSalle 1 5.64E-04 5.64E-04 LaSalle 2 5.64E-04 5.64E-04 Browns Ferry 1 3.87E-06 4.34E-04 1.14E-04 5.52E-04 Browns Ferry 2 3.87E-06 4.34E-04 1.14E-04 5.52E-04 Browns Ferry 3 3.87E-06 4.34E-04 1.14E-04 5.52E-04 Hope Creek 5.39E-04 5.39E-04 Nine Mile Point 2 8.14E-06 4.24E-04 4.32E-04 Monticello 4.01E-05 1.78E-04 1.18E-04 3.37E-04 Hatch 1 1.06E-04 1.53E-04 8.06E-08 2.60E-04 Columbia 5.77E-05 1.59E-04 1.08E-05 2.27E-04 Peach Bottom 2 2.23E-04 2.40E-07 2.23E-04 Peach Bottom 3 2.23E-04 2.40E-07 2.23E-04 BWR Median Release 3.87E-06 1.59E-04 2.40E-07 2.21E-04 Quad Cities 1 2.16E-04 4.33E-06 2.21E-04 Quad Cities 2 2.16E-04 4.33E-06 2.21E-04 Brunswick 1 2.65E-05 1.59E-04 3.82E-06 1.90E-04 Brunswick 2 2.65E-05 1.59E-04 3.82E-06 1.90E-04 Cooper 1.17E-04 2.12E-06 1.19E-04 Pilgrim 1.07E-04 1.07E-04 Grand Gulf 1.55E-05 5.32E-05 4.38E-07 4.66E-06 7.37E-05 Susquehanna 1 1.92E-05 5.36E-05 7.28E-05 Susquehanna 2 1.92E-05 5.36E-05 7.28E-05 River Bend 3.41E-05 3.41E-05 Duane Arnold 9.76E-07 1.82E-05 1.91E-05 Clinton 1.05E-05 1.05E-05 FitzPatrick 6.10E-06 2.57E-06 2.74E-07 8.94E-06 Limerick 1 6.70E-06 6.70E-06 Limerick 2 6.70E-06 6.70E-06 Vermont Yankee 2.66E-06 2.66E-06 Hatch 2 8.22E-08 8.06E-08 1.63E-07 Perry 17 Table 3.4 BWR Gaseous Releases Tritium, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Activity BWR Facility H-3 (Ci) BWR Facility H-3 (Ci) Fermi 2 2.70E+02 BWR Median Release 2.65E+01 Hope Creek 1.81E+02 Clinton 2.65E+01 Brunswick 1 1.55E+02 Oyster Creek 2.49E+01 Brunswick 2 1.55E+02 FitzPatrick 2.21E+01 Browns Ferry 1 9.54E+01 River Bend 1.79E+01 Browns Ferry 2 9.54E+01 Limerick 1 1.78E+01 Browns Ferry 3 9.54E+01 Limerick 2 1.78E+01 Nine Mile Point 2 6.57E+01 Monticello 1.72E+01 Pilgrim 6.40E+01 Cooper 1.65E+01 Peach Bottom 2 4.22E+01 Columbia 1.52E+01 Peach Bottom 3 4.22E+01 Duane Arnold 1.49E+01 Quad Cities 1 3.94E+01 Dresden 2 1.21E+01 Quad Cities 2 3.94E+01 Dresden 3 1.21E+01 Hatch 1 3.59E+01 Perry 8.30E+00 Grand Gulf 3.54E+01 Vermont Yankee 5.05E+00 Hatch 2 3.53E+01 LaSalle 1 2.88E+00 Nine Mile Point 1 3.14E+01 LaSalle 2 2.88E+00 Susquehanna 1 6.15E-01 Susquehanna 2 6.15E-01 18 Table 3.5 BWR Gaseous Releases Carbon-14, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Activity BWR Facility C-14 (Ci) BWR Facility C-14 (Ci) Susquehanna 1 2.10E+01 BWR Median Release 1.42E+01 Susquehanna 2 2.10E+01 Hatch 1 1.42E+01 Nine Mile Point 2 2.00E+01 Hatch 2 1.42E+01 Limerick 1 1.90E+01 Cooper 1.22E+01 Limerick 2 1.90E+01 Fermi 2 1.22E+01 Peach Bottom 2 1.78E+01 Browns Ferry 1 1.17E+01 Peach Bottom 3 1.78E+01 Browns Ferry 2 1.17E+01 LaSalle 1 1.68E+01 Browns Ferry 3 1.17E+01 LaSalle 2 1.68E+01 River Bend 1.10E+01 Hope Creek 1.56E+01 Brunswick 1 1.04E+01 Columbia 1.54E+01 Brunswick 2 1.04E+01 Dresden 2 1.52E+01 FitzPatrick 1.00E+01 Dresden 3 1.52E+01 Oyster Creek 1.00E+01 Clinton 1.50E+01 Duane Arnold 9.70E+00 Perry 1.46E+01 Grand Gulf 9.49E+00 Quad Cities 1 1.44E+01 Nine Mile Point 1 8.56E+00 Quad Cities 2 1.44E+01 Vermont Yankee 7.09E+00 Pilgrim 6.26E+00 Monticello 4.20E+00 19 Table 3.6 PWR Gaseous Releases Fission and Activation Gases, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Total Activity PWR Facility Kr-85 (Ci) Xe-133 (Ci) Xe-135 (Ci) Total (Ci) Calvert Cliffs 1 2.03E+01 1.39E+01 7.49E-01 3.49E+01 Calvert Cliffs 2 2.03E+01 1.39E+01 7.49E-01 3.49E+01 Palo Verde 3 1.10E+00 1.49E+01 1.60E+01 Arkansas 1 1.55E+01 1.55E+01 Salem 1 1.39E+01 7.06E-03 1.39E+01 Vogtle 1 2.32E-02 6.27E-04 1.10E+01 1.10E+01 North Anna 1 2.31E+00 7.68E+00 2.59E-02 1.00E+01 North Anna 2 2.31E+00 7.68E+00 2.59E-02 1.00E+01 Vogtle 2 5.35E+00 5.53E-02 5.41E+00 Oconee 1 3.02E-03 5.26E+00 8.66E-05 5.26E+00 Oconee 2 3.02E-03 5.26E+00 8.66E-05 5.26E+00 Oconee 3 3.02E-03 5.26E+00 8.66E-05 5.26E+00 South Texas 2 3.82E+00 3.82E+00 Sequoyah 1 1.83E+00 6.02E-01 2.43E+00 Sequoyah 2 1.83E+00 6.02E-01 2.43E+00 St. Lucie 1 2.61E-02 2.31E+00 4.83E-02 2.39E+00 Callaway 1.52E-01 1.61E+00 2.00E-01 1.96E+00 Palisades 1.48E+00 4.43E-01 1.93E+00 Palo Verde 2 1.78E+00 9.12E-05 1.78E+00 Cook 1 9.19E-01 4.79E-01 1.19E-02 1.41E+00 Cook 2 9.19E-01 4.79E-01 1.19E-02 1.41E+00 Ginna 1.27E+00 4.30E-02 1.31E+00 South Texas 1 8.10E-01 8.10E-01 Millstone 3 7.27E-01 1.54E-02 4.22E-03 7.46E-01 Palo Verde 1 6.08E-01 1.29E-01 7.37E-01 Braidwood 1 5.21E-01 7.76E-02 5.99E-01 Braidwood 2 5.21E-01 7.76E-02 5.99E-01 Farley 1 3.93E-01 3.54E-02 4.28E-01 Harris 4.08E-01 1.09E-02 4.18E-01 Davis-Besse 3.74E-01 1.08E-03 3.75E-01 St. Lucie 2 2.44E-01 7.89E-02 3.23E-01 Summer 2.38E-04 1.56E-01 1.66E-01 3.22E-01 Catawba 1 2.96E-01 2.33E-02 3.19E-01 Catawba 2 2.96E-01 2.33E-02 3.19E-01 20 Table 3.6 PWR Gaseous Releases Fission and Activation Gases, 201 3 (continued) Shown in Descending Order of Total Activity PWR Facility Kr-85 (Ci) Xe-133 (Ci) Xe-135 (Ci) Total (Ci)

PWR Median Release 7.06E-01 2.33E-01 6.16E-03 3.05E-01 Byron 2 3.05E-01 1.64E-04 3.05E-01 Byron 1 2.96E-01 4.02E-04 2.97E-01 Indian Point 2 2.74E-01 1.83E-02 2.92E-01 Surry 1 2.12E-01 4.53E-02 2.57E-01 Surry 2 2.12E-01 4.53E-02 2.57E-01 Comanche Peak 1 2.27E-01 1.63E-02 4.42E-03 2.47E-01 Comanche Peak 2 2.27E-01 1.63E-02 4.42E-03 2.47E-01 Point Beach 1 2.33E-01 6.16E-03 2.39E-01 Point Beach 2 2.33E-01 6.16E-03 2.39E-01 Indian Point 3 2.00E-01 2.11E-03 2.02E-01 Robinson 2 1.78E-01 1.60E-02 1.94E-01 Millstone 2 1.21E-01 2.23E-02 1.64E-03 1.45E-01 Turkey Point 3 1.26E-01 1.34E-02 1.40E-01 Watts Bar 1 3.25E-06 1.27E-01 9.68E-07 1.27E-01 Three Mile Island 1 1.04E-01 1.09E-03 1.05E-01 Salem 2 7.33E-02 5.78E-04 7.39E-02 Turkey Point 4 5.36E-02 1.34E-02 6.70E-02 San Onofre 2 5.65E-02 5.65E-02 San Onofre 3 5.65E-02 5.65E-02 Wolf Creek 4.70E-04 5.33E-02 1.15E-05 5.37E-02 Beaver Valley 1 3.67E-02 8.73E-03 4.54E-02 Beaver Valley 2 3.67E-02 8.73E-03 4.54E-02 Kewaunee 1.78E-02 1.78E-02 Arkansas 2 1.61E-02 1.61E-02 Farley 2 1.35E-02 2.03E-03 1.55E-02 Waterford 3 1.40E-02 1.40E-02 McGuire 1 1.22E-05 5.65E-04 5.45E-03 6.03E-03 McGuire 2 1.22E-05 5.65E-04 5.45E-03 6.03E-03 Diablo Canyon 1 3.11E-03 5.82E-05 3.16E-03 Diablo Canyon 2 3.11E-03 5.82E-05 3.16E-03 Ft. Calhoun 7.56E-04 1.17E-04 8.73E-04 Prairie Island 1 4.86E-06 4.86E-06 Prairie Island 2 4.86E-06 4.86E-06 Crystal River 3 Seabrook 21 Table 3.7 PWR Gaseous Releases Iodine, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Activity PWR Facility I-131 (Ci) PWR Facility I-131 (Ci) North Anna 1 2.01E-03 PWR Median Release 0.00E+00 North Anna 2 2.01E-03 Arkansas 1 Cook 1 9.64E-04 Arkansas 2 Cook 2 9.64E-04 Beaver Valley 1 Calvert Cliffs 1 4.29E-04 Beaver Valley 2 Calvert Cliffs 2 4.29E-04 Callaway Palisades 1.92E-04 Catawba 1 Millstone 2 9.32E-05 Catawba 2 South Texas 2 7.66E-05 Comanche Peak 1 Palo Verde 1 6.14E-05 Comanche Peak 2 Braidwood 1 1.49E-05 Crystal River 3 Palo Verde 3 6.58E-06 Davis-Besse Braidwood 2 6.50E-06 Diablo Canyon 1 St. Lucie 2 4.95E-06 Diablo Canyon 2 Byron 2 3.27E-06 Ft. Calhoun Byron 1 1.78E-06 Ginna Robinson 2 1.73E-06 Indian Point 2 St. Lucie 1 1.02E-06 Indian Point 3 Farley 1 6.25E-07 Kewaunee Point Beach 1 5.94E-07 Palo Verde 2 Point Beach 2 5.94E-07 Prairie Island 1 Waterford 3 2.55E-07 Prairie Island 2 Millstone 3 2.15E-07 Salem 1 Farley 2 7.51E-08 Salem 2 McGuire 1 6.20E-08 San Onofre 2 McGuire 2 6.20E-08 San Onofre 3 Watts Bar 1 3.99E-08 Seabrook Harris 3.68E-08 Sequoyah 1 South Texas 1 9.48E-09 Sequoyah 2 Oconee 1 3.23E-09 Summer Oconee 2 3.23E-09 Surry 1 Oconee 3 3.23E-09 Surry 2 Three Mile Island 1 Turkey Point 3 Turkey Point 4 Vogtle 1 Vogtle 2 Wolf Creek 22 Table 3.8 PWR Gaseous Releases Particulates, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Total Activity PWR Facility Co-58 (Ci) Co-60 (Ci) Cs-134 (Ci) Cs-137 (Ci) Total (Ci) Turkey Point 4 1.09E-05 2.38E-05 5.82E-06 2.05E-04 2.46E-04 Millstone 3 1.95E-04 1.97E-06 1.41E-07 1.98E-04 Palo Verde 1 1.51E-04 3.23E-05 1.84E-04 Palo Verde 3 1.48E-04 3.12E-05 1.79E-04 Braidwood 2 1.15E-04 1.15E-04 Beaver Valley 1 1.04E-04 1.04E-04 Beaver Valley 2 1.04E-04 1.04E-04 Three Mile Island 1 8.73E-05 1.96E-06 0.00E+00 8.93E-05 South Texas 2 2.69E-05 2.66E-05 2.58E-07 5.38E-05 Kewaunee 5.84E-06 2.81E-05 3.39E-05 San Onofre 2 1.76E-05 1.76E-05 San Onofre 3 1.76E-05 1.76E-05 Harris 1.00E-05 3.59E-06 1.36E-05 Surry 1 1.07E-05 1.13E-08 1.07E-05 Surry 2 1.07E-05 1.13E-08 1.07E-05 North Anna 1 1.60E-06 5.92E-06 1.56E-06 9.07E-06 North Anna 2 1.60E-06 5.92E-06 1.56E-06 9.07E-06 Diablo Canyon 1 6.20E-06 6.20E-06 Diablo Canyon 2 6.20E-06 6.20E-06 Watts Bar 1 4.19E-06 4.19E-06 Point Beach 1 2.77E-06 2.69E-07 3.04E-06 Point Beach 2 2.77E-06 2.69E-07 3.04E-06 Byron 1 1.90E-06 8.44E-07 2.74E-06 South Texas 1 4.20E-09 1.76E-06 1.76E-06 Calvert Cliffs 1 1.55E-06 1.55E-06 Calvert Cliffs 2 1.55E-06 1.55E-06 Waterford 3 9.29E-08 1.34E-06 1.44E-06 St. Lucie 2 1.43E-06 1.43E-06 McGuire 1 5.35E-07 7.45E-07 1.28E-06 McGuire 2 5.35E-07 7.45E-07 1.28E-06 Prairie Island 1 9.09E-07 1.91E-07 6.85E-09 1.11E-06 Prairie Island 2 9.09E-07 1.91E-07 6.85E-09 1.11E-06 Sequoyah 1 9.43E-07 9.43E-07 Sequoyah 2 9.43E-07 9.43E-07 23 Table 3.8 PWR Gaseous Releases Particulates, 2013 (continued) Shown in Descending Order of Total Activity PWR Facility Co-58 (Ci) Co-60 (Ci) Cs-134 (Ci) Cs-137 (Ci) Total (Ci) PWR Median Release 9.34E-07 Crystal River 3 9.34E-07 9.34E-07 Robinson 2 2.25E-07 2.17E-07 4.42E-07 Summer 1.61E-07 1.61E-07 Farley 1 5.58E-08 5.58E-08 1.12E-07 Palisades 3.36E-08 3.43E-08 6.79E-08 Millstone 2 9.80E-10 1.00E-09 1.98E-09 Oconee 1 1.12E-11 1.12E-11 Oconee 2 1.12E-11 1.12E-11 Oconee 3 1.12E-11 1.12E-11 Arkansas 1 Arkansas 2 Braidwood 1 Byron 2 Callaway Catawba 1 Catawba 2 Comanche Peak 1 Comanche Peak 2 Cook 1 Cook 2 Davis-Besse Farley 2 Ft. Calhoun Ginna Indian Point 2 Indian Point 3 Palo Verde 2 Salem 1 Salem 2 Seabrook St. Lucie 1 Turkey Point 3 Vogtle 1 Vogtle 2 Wolf Creek 24 Table 3.9 PWR Gaseous Releases Tritium, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Activity PWR Facility H-3 (Ci)PWR Facility H-3 (Ci)Palo Verde 3 9.35E+02 PWR Median Release 3.21E+01 Palo Verde 2 9.20E+02 Point Beach 1 3.21E+01 Palo Verde 1 8.12E+02 Point Beach 2 3.21E+01 Braidwood 2 2.65E+02 South Texas 1 3.16E+01 Waterford 3 1.59E+02 Salem 2 3.03E+01 Braidwood 1 1.40E+02 Byron 1 2.96E+01 Harris 1.37E+02 St. Lucie 1 2.95E+01 Three Mile Island 1 1.18E+02 Davis-Besse 2.94E+01 Catawba 1 1.05E+02 Arkansas 2 2.75E+01 Catawba 2 1.05E+02 Surry 1 2.23E+01 Sequoyah 1 8.60E+01 Surry 2 2.23E+01 Sequoyah 2 8.60E+01 Salem 1 2.01E+01 South Texas 2 8.14E+01 Arkansas 1 1.95E+01 Seabrook 7.57E+01 Vogtle 2 1.95E+01 Millstone 3 7.46E+01 Comanche Peak 1 1.79E+01 Cook 1 6.26E+01 Comanche Peak 2 1.79E+01 Cook 2 6.26E+01 Indian Point 3 1.53E+01 San Onofre 2 5.50E+01 Indian Point 2 1.30E+01 San Onofre 3 5.50E+01 North Anna 1 1.26E+01 Kewaunee 5.02E+01 North Anna 2 1.26E+01 Oconee 1 4.87E+01 Robinson 2 9.96E+00 Oconee 2 4.87E+01 Prairie Island 1 9.46E+00 Oconee 3 4.87E+01 Prairie Island 2 9.46E+00 Ginna 4.78E+01 Millstone 2 8.32E+00 Wolf Creek 4.61E+01 Palisades 8.18E+00 Diablo Canyon 1 4.51E+01 Beaver Valley 2 7.45E+00 Diablo Canyon 2 4.51E+01 St. Lucie 2 7.25E+00 Byron 2 4.19E+01 Farley 1 5.51E+00 McGuire 1 3.97E+01 Calvert Cliffs 1 4.54E+00 McGuire 2 3.97E+01 Calvert Cliffs 2 4.54E+00 Vogtle 1 3.95E+01 Crystal River 3 3.62E+00 Callaway 3.80E+01 Turkey Point 3 3.17E+00 Watts Bar 1 3.50E+01 Beaver Valley 1 2.92E+00 Farley 2 3.31E+01 Turkey Point 4 2.73E+00 Ft. Calhoun 8.78E-01 Summer 3.17E-01 25 Table 3.10 PWR Gaseous Releases Carbon-14, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Activity PWR Facility C-14 (Ci) PWR Facility C-14 (Ci) North Anna 1 1.29E+01 PWR Median Release 8.76E+00 North Anna 2 1.29E+01 Arkansas 1 8.76E+00 Seabrook 1.25E+01 Three Mile Island 1 8.40E+00 Vogtle 1 1.21E+01 Turkey Point 3 7.72E+00 Vogtle 2 1.21E+01 Harris 7.60E+00 Comanche Peak 1 1.17E+01 Oconee 1 7.52E+00 Comanche Peak 2 1.17E+01 Oconee 2 7.52E+00 Salem 2 1.17E+01 Oconee 3 7.52E+00 Diablo Canyon 1 1.14E+01 Palisades 7.44E+00 St. Lucie 2 1.13E+01 South Texas 1 7.30E+00 Millstone 3 1.11E+01 South Texas 2 7.30E+00 Indian Point 2 1.10E+01 Ginna 6.80E+00 Arkansas 2 1.09E+01 Point Beach 1 5.88E+00 Watts Bar 1 1.08E+01 Point Beach 2 5.88E+00 Wolf Creek 1.07E+01 Turkey Point 4 5.80E+00 Davis-Besse 1.06E+01 Prairie Island 1 4.74E+00 Callaway 1.04E+01 Prairie Island 2 4.74E+00 Catawba 1 1.03E+01 Byron 1 4.48E+00 Catawba 2 1.03E+01 Braidwood 2 4.30E+00 Salem 1 1.03E+01 Byron 2 4.22E+00 Calvert Cliffs 2 1.02E+01 Braidwood 1 4.18E+00 Diablo Canyon 2 1.02E+01 McGuire 1 3.04E+00 Waterford 3 1.01E+01 McGuire 2 3.04E+00 Indian Point 3 1.00E+01 Palo Verde 1 2.72E+00 Millstone 2 9.92E+00 Palo Verde 2 2.72E+00 Summer 9.86E+00 Palo Verde 3 2.72E+00 Surry 1 9.37E+00 Kewaunee 2.41E+00 Surry 2 9.37E+00 Sequoyah 1 2.21E+00 Calvert Cliffs 1 9.28E+00 Sequoyah 2 2.21E+00 Farley 1 9.28E+00 Robinson 2 9.68E-01 Farley 2 9.28E+00 Ft. Calhoun 4.76E-02 St. Lucie 1 9.15E+00 Beaver Valley 2 4.20E-04 Cook 1 9.02E+00 Beaver Valley 1 Cook 2 9.02E+00 Crystal River 3 San Onofre 2 San Onofre 3 26 Table 3.11 BWR Liquid Releases Fission and Activation Products, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Total Activity BWR Facility Co-58 (Ci) Co-60 (Ci) Cs-134 (CI) Cs-137 (Ci) Fe-55 (Ci) I-131 (Ci) Total (Ci) Browns Ferry 1 1.15E-02 1.48E-01 3.57E-03 1.22E-01 2.98E-03 4.58E-04 2.88E-01 Browns Ferry 2 1.15E-02 1.48E-01 3.57E-03 1.22E-01 2.98E-03 4.58E-04 2.88E-01 Browns Ferry 3 1.15E-02 1.48E-01 3.57E-03 1.22E-01 2.98E-03 4.58E-04 2.88E-01 Perry 8.36E-04 7.01E-02 1.42E-03 1.24E-03 7.36E-02 Susquehanna 1 3.17E-03 1.24E-02 8.80E-07 1.56E-02 Susquehanna 2 3.17E-03 1.24E-02 8.80E-07 1.56E-02 Grand Gulf 1.24E-03 2.22E-03 6.26E-05 4.61E-04 9.75E-03 1.05E-05 1.37E-02 Hope Creek 4.49E-05 1.02E-02 3.41E-06 2.45E-03 9.14E-07 1.27E-02 Pilgrim 4.89E-04 5.74E-03 1.74E-05 5.72E-04 6.82E-03 Cooper 1.97E-05 5.84E-03 1.19E-06 6.67E-04 6.53E-03 Quad Cities 1 4.07E-03 4.86E-05 1.76E-03 5.87E-03 Quad Cities 2 4.07E-03 4.86E-05 1.76E-03 5.87E-03 Hatch 2 7.27E-04 3.91E-03 3.55E-04 1.82E-04 4.26E-05 5.22E-03 Hatch 1 1.78E-04 2.42E-03 3.61E-04 3.23E-04 3.28E-03 River Bend 2.63E-06 7.96E-04 7.99E-04 Brunswick 1 3.57E-05 1.56E-04 2.76E-06 5.28E-05 2.36E-04 4.83E-04 Brunswick 2 3.57E-05 1.56E-04 2.76E-06 5.28E-05 2.36E-04 4.83E-04 BWR Median Release 7.34E-07 8.05E-05 8.80E-07 9.02E-05 Limerick 1 9.65E-06 8.05E-05 9.02E-05 Limerick 2 9.65E-06 8.05E-05 9.02E-05 Peach Bottom 2 8.25E-08 3.57E-05 1.03E-06 7.94E-06 4.48E-05 Peach Bottom 3 8.25E-08 3.57E-05 1.03E-06 7.94E-06 4.48E-05 Nine Mile Point 1 7.34E-07 6.32E-07 1.37E-06 Nine Mile Point 2 7.34E-07 6.32E-07 1.37E-06 Clinton Columbia Dresden 2 Dresden 3 Duane Arnold Fermi 2 FitzPatrick LaSalle 1 LaSalle 2 Monticello Oyster Creek Vermont Yankee 27 Table 3.12 BWR Liquid Releases Tritium, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Activity BWR Facility H-3 (Ci) BWR Facility H-3 (Ci) Brunswick 1 1.06E+02 BWR Median Release 2.05E+00 Brunswick 2 1.06E+02 Limerick 1 2.05E+00 Grand Gulf 8.54E+01 Limerick 2 2.05E+00 Hope Creek 6.29E+01 Oyster Creek 2.82E-01 River Bend 4.10E+01 Quad Cities 1 1.50E-01 Susquehanna 1 4.06E+01 Quad Cities 2 1.50E-01 Susquehanna 2 4.06E+01 FitzPatrick 1.07E-01 Perry 3.94E+01 Cooper 1.06E-01 Hatch 1 3.29E+01 Vermont Yankee 6.40E-02 Browns Ferry 1 2.93E+01 Nine Mile Point 1 2.33E-02 Browns Ferry 2 2.93E+01 Monticello 2.08E-03 Browns Ferry 3 2.93E+01 Dresden 2 2.00E-03 Hatch 2 2.35E+01 Dresden 3 2.00E-03 Pilgrim 6.22E+00 Clinton Peach Bottom 2 3.81E+00 Columbia Peach Bottom 3 3.81E+00 Duane Arnold Fermi 2 LaSalle 1 LaSalle 2 Nine Mile Point 2 28 Table 3.13 PWR Liquid Releases Fission and Activation Products, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Total Activity PWR Facility Co-58 (Ci) Co-60 (Ci) Cs-134 (Ci) Cs-137 (Ci) Fe-55 (Ci) I-131 (Ci) Total (Ci) Arkansas 2 2.59E-01 2.55E-02 2.33E-04 1.38E-03 1.08E-02 2.97E-01 Millstone 3 9.32E-03 1.92E-02 5.84E-05 3.66E-04 4.21E-02 7.10E-02 Vogtle 1 1.08E-02 3.41E-03 1.08E-04 1.13E-03 4.13E-02 9.94E-05 5.68E-02 Beaver Valley 1 2.65E-02 5.69E-03 3.63E-05 9.30E-04 2.06E-02 5.37E-02 Beaver Valley 2 2.65E-02 5.69E-03 3.63E-05 9.30E-04 2.06E-02 5.37E-02 Braidwood 1 1.02E-02 1.73E-02 6.65E-06 9.41E-03 3.69E-02 Braidwood 2 1.02E-02 1.73E-02 6.65E-06 9.41E-03 3.69E-02 Callaway 1.78E-03 3.31E-02 5.90E-04 3.55E-02 Indian Point 2 1.09E-03 5.41E-04 3.07E-02 8.70E-04 3.32E-02 San Onofre 2 1.36E-03 1.63E-02 4.91E-05 5.01E-04 1.16E-02 2.98E-02 San Onofre 3 1.36E-03 1.63E-02 4.91E-05 5.01E-04 1.16E-02 2.98E-02 Harris 2.13E-02 3.17E-03 5.34E-06 1.24E-03 2.58E-02 Watts Bar 1 1.92E-03 2.54E-03 2.33E-05 1.73E-02 2.17E-02 Arkansas 1 7.10E-03 6.62E-03 1.44E-04 2.60E-03 1.06E-03 4.34E-05 1.76E-02 Turkey Point 3 8.39E-03 7.64E-04 4.10E-04 4.54E-03 3.35E-03 1.85E-05 1.75E-02 Turkey Point 4 8.39E-03 7.64E-04 4.10E-04 4.54E-03 3.35E-03 1.85E-05 1.75E-02 Sequoyah 1 6.58E-03 9.03E-04 5.81E-06 5.27E-03 9.02E-06 1.28E-02 Sequoyah 2 6.58E-03 9.03E-04 5.81E-06 5.27E-03 9.02E-06 1.28E-02 Waterford 3 5.21E-03 2.20E-03 2.19E-05 1.12E-04 4.53E-03 8.23E-06 1.21E-02 Salem 1 8.86E-03 1.17E-03 1.73E-04 4.59E-05 1.03E-02 North Anna 1 6.03E-03 3.39E-03 1.92E-05 6.50E-05 9.51E-03 North Anna 2 6.03E-03 3.39E-03 1.92E-05 6.50E-05 9.51E-03 Kewaunee 4.50E-04 3.47E-03 5.08E-03 9.00E-03 Indian Point 3 6.01E-03 2.13E-03 1.87E-04 6.68E-04 8.99E-03 Vogtle 2 3.23E-03 1.32E-03 2.54E-04 1.07E-03 2.77E-03 1.65E-05 8.65E-03 Farley 1 4.37E-03 2.72E-03 1.55E-04 1.29E-03 6.81E-07 8.54E-03 McGuire 1 1.38E-03 2.37E-03 2.24E-05 4.47E-03 8.23E-03 McGuire 2 1.38E-03 2.37E-03 2.24E-05 4.47E-03 8.23E-03 Farley 2 3.99E-03 3.49E-03 4.28E-05 6.06E-04 3.25E-06 8.13E-03 Catawba 1 1.61E-03 2.65E-03 2.40E-05 2.86E-03 7.14E-03 Catawba 2 1.61E-03 2.65E-03 2.40E-05 2.86E-03 7.14E-03 Wolf Creek 5.61E-03 1.85E-04 2.33E-04 6.03E-03 Crystal River 3 2.84E-03 3.74E-06 2.18E-04 2.80E-03 5.87E-03 Robinson 2 3.92E-03 1.23E-03 2.90E-06 5.14E-04 5.33E-07 5.67E-03 29 Table 3.13 PWR Liquid Releases Fission and Activation Products, 2013 (continued) Shown in Descending Order of Total Activity PWR Facility Co-58 (Ci) Co-60 (Ci) Cs-134 (Ci) Cs-137 (Ci) Fe-55 (Ci) I-131 (Ci) Total (Ci) PWR Median Release 1.74E-03 1.27E-03 3.74E-05 1.06E-03 5.63E-03 South Texas 1 2.23E-04 4.31E-03 1.15E-04 9.84E-04 5.63E-03 South Texas 2 1.25E-03 1.97E-03 2.96E-05 1.42E-04 2.09E-03 5.48E-03 Byron 1 4.05E-03 9.30E-04 4.98E-03 Byron 2 4.05E-03 9.30E-04 4.98E-03 Prairie Island 1 1.80E-03 3.96E-04 9.70E-07 2.76E-03 4.95E-03 Prairie Island 2 1.80E-03 3.96E-04 9.70E-07 2.76E-03 4.95E-03 Diablo Canyon 1 5.51E-04 2.32E-03 1.14E-05 1.79E-03 4.67E-03 Diablo Canyon 2 5.51E-04 2.32E-03 1.14E-05 1.79E-03 4.67E-03 Calvert Cliffs 1 1.74E-03 3.37E-04 1.83E-04 1.55E-03 7.60E-04 4.58E-03 Calvert Cliffs 2 1.74E-03 3.37E-04 1.83E-04 1.55E-03 7.60E-04 4.58E-03 Palisades 8.05E-04 2.45E-03 1.25E-06 1.33E-03 4.58E-03 Oconee 1 3.66E-03 5.32E-04 3.74E-05 3.03E-04 4.70E-07 4.53E-03 Oconee 2 3.66E-03 5.32E-04 3.74E-05 3.03E-04 4.70E-07 4.53E-03 Oconee 3 3.66E-03 5.32E-04 3.74E-05 3.03E-04 4.70E-07 4.53E-03 Millstone 2 1.24E-03 1.27E-03 5.05E-06 1.95E-04 1.58E-03 7.50E-06 4.30E-03 Salem 2 3.65E-03 4.12E-04 4.21E-06 4.07E-03 St. Lucie 1 1.37E-03 1.30E-03 1.28E-05 1.35E-03 1.40E-05 4.05E-03 St. Lucie 2 1.37E-03 1.30E-03 1.28E-05 1.35E-03 1.40E-05 4.05E-03 Davis-Besse 9.92E-04 1.05E-04 6.61E-06 2.32E-03 3.43E-03 Summer 3.21E-04 2.55E-03 6.17E-05 2.93E-03 Surry 1 8.10E-04 5.15E-04 1.26E-03 1.45E-06 2.58E-03 Surry 2 8.10E-04 5.15E-04 1.26E-03 1.45E-06 2.58E-03 Three Mile Island 1 5.43E-04 3.62E-04 7.52E-05 5.84E-04 1.56E-03 Point Beach 1 8.20E-04 3.39E-04 2.67E-06 1.16E-03 Point Beach 2 8.20E-04 3.39E-04 2.67E-06 1.16E-03 Ft. Calhoun 8.72E-05 1.41E-05 1.05E-03 1.15E-03 Comanche Peak 1 7.71E-04 2.08E-05 1.84E-04 9.75E-04 Comanche Peak 2 7.71E-04 2.08E-05 1.84E-04 9.75E-04 Seabrook 6.94E-04 6.59E-05 6.08E-06 7.66E-04 Cook 1 3.54E-04 1.92E-04 1.27E-05 1.97E-05 6.05E-05 6.39E-04 Cook 2 3.54E-04 1.92E-04 1.27E-05 1.97E-05 6.05E-05 6.39E-04 Ginna 2.34E-04 4.16E-06 2.38E-04 Palo Verde 1 Palo Verde 2 Palo Verde 3 30 Table 3.14 PWR Liquid Releases Tritium, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Activity PWR Facility H-3 (Ci)PWR Facility H-3 (Ci)Braidwood 1 2.04E+03 PWR Median Release 4.99E+02 Braidwood 2 2.04E+03 Calvert Cliffs 1 4.99E+02 Vogtle 1 1.68E+03 Calvert Cliffs 2 4.99E+02 Indian Point 2 1.31E+03 Comanche Peak 1 4.60E+02 South Texas 2 1.29E+03 Comanche Peak 2 4.60E+02 Callaway 1.23E+03 Farley 1 4.39E+02 Cook 1 1.14E+03 Palisades 4.36E+02 Cook 2 1.14E+03 Farley 2 4.23E+02 Diablo Canyon 1 1.02E+03 Point Beach 1 3.68E+02 Diablo Canyon 2 1.02E+03 Point Beach 2 3.68E+02 South Texas 1 9.83E+02 Salem 1 3.65E+02 Millstone 3 8.14E+02 Seabrook 3.63E+02 Harris 8.06E+02 Oconee 1 3.56E+02 Byron 1 7.99E+02 Oconee 2 3.56E+02 Byron 2 7.99E+02 Oconee 3 3.56E+02 Sequoyah 1 7.86E+02 Summer 3.50E+02 Sequoyah 2 7.86E+02 San Onofre 2 3.35E+02 Wolf Creek 7.63E+02 San Onofre 3 3.35E+02 Beaver Valley 1 7.51E+02 Arkansas 1 2.86E+02 Beaver Valley 2 7.51E+02 Kewaunee 2.82E+02 Indian Point 3 7.35E+02 Salem 2 2.77E+02 Davis-Besse 6.99E+02 St. Lucie 1 2.72E+02 McGuire 1 6.41E+02 St. Lucie 2 2.72E+02 McGuire 2 6.41E+02 Vogtle 2 2.22E+02 North Anna 1 6.40E+02 Millstone 2 2.20E+02 North Anna 2 6.40E+02 Turkey Point 3 2.10E+02 Watts Bar 1 6.37E+02 Turkey Point 4 2.10E+02 Three Mile Island 1 6.04E+02 Prairie Island 1 1.83E+02 Robinson 2 5.98E+02 Prairie Island 2 1.83E+02 Arkansas 2 5.68E+02 Ginna 1.09E+02 Catawba 1 5.18E+02 Waterford 3 1.06E+02 Catawba 2 5.18E+02 Crystal River 3 1.91E+01 Surry 1 5.09E+02 Ft. Calhoun 3.50E+00 Surry 2 5.09E+02 Palo Verde 1 Palo Verde 2 Palo Verde 3

31

  • BWR average radionuclide mix and median activity released. Figure 3.1 BWR Gaseous Releases Fission and Activation Gases 32 Figure 3.2 BWR Gaseous Releases Iodine 33
  • BWR average radionuclide mix and median activity released. Figure 3.3 BWR Gaseous Releases Particulates 34 Figure 3.4 BWR Gaseous Releases Tritium 35 Figure 3.5 BWR Gaseous Releases Carbon-14 36
  • PWR average radionuclide mix and median activity released. Figure 3.6 PWR Gaseous Releases Fission and Activation Gases 37
  • PWR average radionuclide mix and median activity released. Figure 3.6 PWR Gaseous Releases Fission and Activation Gases (continued) 38 Note: See Table 3.7 for list of nuclear power plants with no releases of iodine reported. Figure 3.7 PWR Gaseous Releases Iodine 39 Note: See Table 3.8 for list of nuclear power plants with no releases of selected particulates reported.
  • PWR average radionuclide mix and median activity released. Figure 3.8 PWR Gaseous Releases Particulates 40 Figure 3.9 PWR Gaseous Releases Tritium 41 Figure 3.9 PWR Gaseous Releases Tritium (continued) 42 Figure 3.10 PWR Gaseous Releases Carbon-14 43 Figure 3.10 PWR Gaseous Releases Carbon-14 (continued) 44 *BWR average radionuclide mix and median activity released.Figure 3.11 BWR Liquid Releases Fission and Activation Products 45 Figure 3.12 BWR Liquid Releases Tritium 46
  • PWR average radionuclide mix and median activity released. Figure 3.13 PWR Liquid Releases Fission and Activation Products 47
  • PWR average radionuclide mix and median activity released. Figure 3.13 PWR Liquid Releases Fission and Activation Products (continued) 48 Figure 3.14 PWR Liquid Releases Tritium 49 Figure 3.14 PWR Liquid Releases Tritium (continued) 50 3.2 Short-Term Trend in Gaseous Effluents In the previous section, only the significant radionuclides from each of the categories in Table 2.1 were shown in the tables and figures. Although particular focus on the significant radionuclides yields useful information, many less-significant radionuclides are typically present in radioactive gaseous effluents. This section provides the reader with information to gain a better understanding of the total releases of gaseous effluents from a facility. A long-on the activities of noble gases discharged in gaseous effluents. This category of radionuclidesnoble gasesis described in Table 2.1. The noble gases category includes all radionuclides in gaseous effluents except iodines, particulates, carbon-14 (C-14), and tritium.

Although the doses from noble gases are generally small, the activity and doses from other radionuclides (such as iodines and mixed fission and activation products) will generally only be otal noble gas release is radiological effluent control program. The amount of C-14 released as a gaseous effluent is directly related to the amount of power producontrol program. Tables 3.15 and 3.16 show the short-term trend in the total activity of all noble gases in gaseous effluents for the last 5 years for BWRs and PWRs, respectively. The facilities are listed in alphabetical order for ease of reference when searching for a site. Table 3.15 shows that the discharges of noble gases from all BWRs in 2013 ranged from a low of 0 curies to a maximum of 1,920.2 curies, with a median value of 27.5 curies. Table 3.1 6 shows that the discharge of noble gases from all PWRs in 2013 ranged from a low of 0 curies to a maximum of 40.0 curies, with a median value of 1.0 curies. Fluctuations in the short-term data are within the range of expected values, based on power production and the increasing sensitivity of measurement techniques. For example, a plant that has an extremely sensitive measurement capability is capable of detecting extremely low concentrations of noble gas. Due to the amount of air discharged from the ventilation system, the plant is likely to report a certain amount of noble gas released. Meanwhile, a plant with a slightly less sensitive measurement capability may not be detecting the same extremely low concentration of noble gas and thus may report a low or zero amount of noble gas discharged. Overall, the nuclear power industry has steadily reduced the amount of radioactivity discharged into the environment (see Section 3.3 for the long-term trend in gaseous effluents).

51 Table 3.15 Short-Term Trend in Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents, BWRs, Curies (Ci) Shown in Alphabetical Order Facility 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Browns Ferry 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 231.0 0.0 Browns Ferry 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 231.0 0.0 Browns Ferry 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 231.0 0.0 Brunswick 1 348.5 224.5 139.7 88.3 55.6 Brunswick 2 348.5 224.5 139.7 88.3 55.6 Clinton 0.0 1.1 6.8 0.8 7.6 Columbia 90.0 186.3 75.2 67.3 43.9 Cooper 54.8 1.5 2.7 41.4 7.0 Dresden 2 30.7 25.3 15.9 34.5 27.5 Dresden 3 30.7 25.3 15.9 34.5 27.5 Duane Arnold 11.4 2.5 5.5 12.8 2.1 Fermi 2 14.4 17.5 3.2 4.8 12.3 FitzPatrick 53.0 101.8 43.1 61.2 61.1 Grand Gulf 182.0 518.9 446.4 452.5 1,920.2 Hatch 1 2.9 45.9 28.1 42.8 8.4 Hatch 2 2.9 75.2 23.4 42.9 15.7 Hope Creek 22.8 41.1 0.4 262.5 0.1 LaSalle 1 2,003.0 957.5 1,205.5 1,840.5 777.0 LaSalle 2 2,003.0 957.5 1,205.5 1,840.5 777.0 Limerick 1 14.1 27.1 93.3 35.8 56.5 Limerick 2 14.1 27.1 93.3 35.8 56.5 Monticello 1,503.0 1,484.0 958.0 797.0 504.0 Nine Mile Point 1 9.8 0.0 0.8 2.7 0.0 Nine Mile Point 2 447.7 406.3 339.2 104.2 50.2 Oyster Creek 15.4 398.9 226.3 209.1 49.7 Peach Bottom 2 511.0 386.5 288.0 259.5 233.3 Peach Bottom 3 511.0 386.5 288.0 259.5 233.3 Perry 1.2 2.6 0.2 103.0 76.1 Pilgrim 115.1 27.7 11.6 0.7 0.3 Quad Cities 1 85.8 200.8 139.9 61.5 36.4 Quad Cities 2 85.8 200.8 139.9 61.5 36.4 River Bend 99.2 120.5 83.4 34.4 17.8 Susquehanna 1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 Susquehanna 2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 7.1 Vermont Yankee 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 MEDIAN 30.7 41.1 28.1 61.5 27.5 52 Table 3.16 Short-Term Trend in Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents, PWRs, Curies (Ci) Shown in Alphabetical Order Facility 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Arkansas 1 8.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 15.5 Arkansas 2 320.7 30.1 9.1 52.5 0.0 Beaver Valley 1 7.4 0.4 6.2 0.1 16.1 Beaver Valley 2 0.1 0.7 6.2 0.1 16.1 Braidwood 1 5.2 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.6 Braidwood 2 6.0 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.6 Byron 1 11.5 0.4 0.3 197.8 0.3 Byron 2 0.6 0.4 1.1 0.8 0.3 Callaway 209.6 165.6 19.6 4.5 2.6 Calvert Cliffs 1 134.4 101.7 47.3 53.3 40.0 Calvert Cliffs 2 134.4 101.7 47.3 53.3 40.0 Catawba 1 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.8 Catawba 2 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.8 Comanche Peak 1 2.5 1.9 18.7 0.7 0.5 Comanche Peak 2 2.5 1.9 18.7 0.7 0.5 Cook 1 2.7 3.2 1.3 1.6 1.7 Cook 2 2.7 3.2 1.3 1.6 1.7 Crystal River 3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Davis-Besse 178.3 112.2 1.4 0.8 0.4 Diablo Canyon 1 1.4 0.6 5.1 0.7 0.5 Diablo Canyon 2 1.4 0.6 5.1 0.7 0.5 Farley 1 17.8 42.3 3.4 5.1 5.1 Farley 2 16.4 8.6 3.1 1.2 1.8 Ft. Calhoun 3.5 2.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 Ginna 3.5 1.2 2.4 2.5 3.2 Harris 2.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Indian Point 2 1.8 1.7 0.3 2.9 0.5 Indian Point 3 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.4 Kewaunee 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 McGuire 1 1.6 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.0 McGuire 2 1.6 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.0 Millstone 2 36.6 2.3 9.2 1.3 0.4 Millstone 3 9.4 28.2 4.2 1.0 0.8 North Anna 1 27.4 44.2 2.6 0.3 11.6 North Anna 2 27.4 44.2 2.6 0.3 11.6 53 Table 3.16 Short-Term Trend in Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents, PWRs, Curies (Ci) (continued) Shown in Alphabetical Order Facility 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Oconee 1 6.9 15.8 9.9 6.3 5.3 Oconee 2 6.9 15.8 9.9 6.3 5.3 Oconee 3 6.9 15.8 9.9 6.3 5.3 Palisades 34.3 62.1 10.4 13.8 3.0 Palo Verde 1 9.9 0.8 1.1 0.2 2.8 Palo Verde 2 1.7 1.1 3.8 4.8 9.9 Palo Verde 3 23.5 0.7 4.2 15.5 24.9 Point Beach 1 0.5 0.7 3.1 0.5 0.5 Point Beach 2 0.5 0.7 3.1 0.5 0.5 Prairie Island 1 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 Prairie Island 2 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 Robinson 2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.8 2.9 Salem 1 28.2 0.3 0.2 49.2 14.0 Salem 2 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.2 San Onofre 2 52.9 63.2 51.4 56.4 0.1 San Onofre 3 52.9 63.2 51.4 56.4 0.1 Seabrook 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.1 0.1 Sequoyah 1 2.4 2.5 1.6 2.0 26.9 Sequoyah 2 2.4 2.5 1.6 2.0 26.9 South Texas 1 3.9 2.7 6.5 2.5 1.7 South Texas 2 2.6 30.5 7.1 2.0 5.4 St. Lucie 1 1.7 22.3 29.5 3.3 3.8 St. Lucie 2 5.8 30.2 18.5 4.7 3.4 Summer 1.7 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.9 Surry 1 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.3 Surry 2 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.3 Three Mile Island 1 2.2 6.1 115.7 0.7 0.4 Turkey Point 3 162.2 0.7 0.6 1.8 0.1 Turkey Point 4 126.2 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.1 Vogtle 1 270.0 1.0 2.8 0.7 11.6 Vogtle 2 760.1 216.6 56.5 22.8 6.6 Waterford 3 3560.2 0.0 7.4 3.6 0.4 Watts Bar 1 5.4 7.4 5.6 50.6 3.8 Wolf Creek 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 MEDIAN 3.5 1.2 2.6 1.1 1.0 54 3.3 Long-Term Trend in Gaseous Effluents This section discusses the long-term trend of noble gases in gaseous effluents from nuclear power plants in the United States. NRC regulations require radioactive effluents to be ALARA. As a result of improved radioactive effluent control programs, the amount of activity of radioactive effluents has steadily decreased over time. The trend in the median noble gas activity of gaseous effluents since 1975 is shown in Figure 3.15. All power reactors that have operated in the United States are included, some of which are now shut down. Figure 3.15 Long-Term Trend in Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents Figure 3.15 indicates a long-term, downward trend in the amount of noble gases in gaseous effluents from both BWRs and PWRs. The magnitude of the reduction is significant. For example, in 1975, the median release for BWRs was greater than 40,000 curies; however, in 2013, the median was 27.5 curies. That change corresponds to a 99.9 percent reduction in noble gas effluents over the last 38 years. One of the primary contributors to the reduction in noble gas effluents is improved fuel integrity in both BWRs and PWRs. The use of advanced off-gas systems in BWRs is also responsible for reductions in the BWR industry averages. Lastly, contributions from the operations, maintenance, chemistry, and health physics departments at the various facilities have improved the handling and processing of gaseous waste to further improve and optimize effluent performance.

55 3.4 Short-Term Trend in Liquid Effluents In Section 3.1, only the significant radionuclides discharged in liquid and gaseous effluents were shown in the tables and figures. Although particular focus on the significant radionuclides yields useful information, many other radionuclides are typically present in radioactive liquid effluents. This section provides the reader with a tool to gain a better understanding of the total releases of liquid effluents from a facility. quid effluents is based on the activity of the mixed fission and activation products (MFAPs) discharged in liquid effluents. This category of radionuclidesMFAPsis described in Table 2.2. It includes all radionuclides in liquid effluents except tritium, C-14, noble gases, and gross alpha activity. MFAPs can be effectively reduced by liquid radioactive waste treatment systems installed in each NPP. As a result, MFAPs are sometimes used as a primary indicator of the overall control and handling of radioactive liquid effluents at a site. Tables 3.17 and 3.18 show the short-term trend in MFAPs in liquid effluents for BWRs and PWRs, respectively. In these tables, no MFAP radionuclides are left out. For each reactor unit, the activities of all MFAPs are added together. In this way, the yearly total of all MFAPs in liquid effluents from a reactor are represented by a single number. That number gives the total activity (as millicuries) of MFAPs discharged in liquid effluents at each reactor for each of the years listed. The facilities are listed in alphabetical order for ease of reference when searching for a site. Fluctuations in these short-term data are within the range of expected values, based on power production and the increasing sensitivity of measurement techniques. Overall, the nuclear power industry has steadily reduced the amount of radioactivity discharged into the environment (see Section 3.5 for the long-term trend in liquid effluents).

56 Table 3.17 Short-Term Trend in Mixed Fission and Activation Products in Liquid Effluents, BWRs, millicuries (mCi) Shown in Alphabetical Order Facility 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Browns Ferry 1 17.0 6.1 4.9 26.0 421.2 Browns Ferry 2 203.0 6.1 4.9 26.0 421.2 Browns Ferry 3 34,600.0 1 3,810.0 1 4.9 26.0 421.2 Brunswick 1 5.8 2.2 2.2 1.3 1.0 Brunswick 2 5.8 2.2 2.2 1.3 1.0 Clinton 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Columbia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cooper 0.4 3.6 7.9 0.0 6.9 Dresden 2 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dresden 3 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Duane Arnold 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fermi 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 FitzPatrick 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Grand Gulf 62.0 15.2 26.6 83.8 51.4 Hatch 1 2.8 1.4 1.3 2.6 5.2 Hatch 2 3.1 4.2 1.3 0.4 14.1 Hope Creek 57.5 70.3 31.0 31.9 15.0 LaSalle 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LaSalle 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Limerick 1 2.0 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.2 Limerick 2 2.0 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.2 Monticello 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nine Mile Point 1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Nine Mile Point 2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Oyster Creek 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Peach Bottom 2 63.8 35.1 0.1 2.8 0.1 Peach Bottom 3 63.8 35.1 0.1 2.8 0.1 Perry 23.7 9.6 37.4 32.9 95.3 Pilgrim 1.4 36.9 3.8 0.0 18.9 Quad Cities 1 4.2 10.8 4.3 3.6 6.1 Quad Cities 2 4.2 10.8 4.3 3.6 6.1 River Bend 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.9 Susquehanna 1 4.4 55.8 11.4 1.8 37.3 Susquehanna 2 4.4 55.8 11.4 1.8 37.3 Vermont Yankee 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MEDIAN 2.8 1.4 0.7 0.4 0.2 1 Browns Ferry had a condensate leak which resulted in a discharge of a short-lived (less than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />) radionuclide Fluorine-18, causing minor amounts of public dose.

57 Table 3.18 Short-Term Trend in Mixed Fission and Activation Products in Liquid Effluents, PWRs, millicuries (mCi) Shown in Alphabetical Order Facility 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Arkansas 1 21.2 60.4 59.6 11.3 29.2 Arkansas 2 50.2 13.1 38.2 24.4 320.2 Beaver Valley 1 110.2 57.5 50.9 26.1 96.7 Beaver Valley 2 110.2 57.5 50.9 26.1 96.7 Braidwood 1 136.0 13.5 67.2 541.7 79.8 Braidwood 2 136.0 13.5 67.2 541.7 79.8 Byron 1 11.1 5.5 12.6 9.0 8.9 Byron 2 11.1 5.5 12.6 9.0 8.9 Callaway 70.2 209.8 138.0 90.2 103.7 Calvert Cliffs 1 13.1 71.6 5.9 1.7 7.4 Calvert Cliffs 2 13.1 71.6 5.9 1.7 7.4 Catawba 1 34.4 19.6 34.0 13.9 10.7 Catawba 2 34.4 19.6 34.0 13.9 10.7 Comanche Peak 1 1.9 8.2 3.3 6.9 1.7 Comanche Peak 2 1.9 8.2 3.3 6.9 1.7 Cook 1 1.7 2.7 0.3 0.7 0.8 Cook 2 1.7 2.7 0.3 0.7 0.8 Crystal River 3 30.5 14.2 3.1 0.3 6.8 Davis-Besse 12.7 39.9 11.4 15.4 7.2 Diablo Canyon 1 21.6 24.3 16.8 16.4 10.7 Diablo Canyon 2 21.6 24.3 16.8 16.4 10.7 Farley 1 10.9 44.4 54.3 87.9 77.2 Farley 2 19.2 53.5 126.8 76.1 112.5 Ft. Calhoun 2.7 2.0 2.0 1.1 1.2 Ginna 4.7 1.3 6.0 9.2 0.4 Harris 15.7 12.9 12.9 32.0 49.9 Indian Point 2 37.3 56.2 16.4 26.5 52.1 Indian Point 3 25.3 10.6 23.3 20.8 24.1 Kewaunee 11.4 13.8 27.5 69.3 15.9 McGuire 1 17.4 22.4 45.0 11.0 13.3 McGuire 2 17.4 22.4 45.0 11.0 13.3 Millstone 2 84.2 17.3 130.2 112.1 11.3 Millstone 3 33.7 76.8 76.5 52.6 159.9 North Anna 1 12.2 3.7 5.7 8.0 10.4 North Anna 2 12.2 3.7 5.7 8.0 10.4 58 Table 3.18 Short-Term Trend in Mixed Fission and Activation Products in Liquid Effluents, PWRs, millicuries (mCi) (continued) Shown in Alphabetical Order Facility 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Oconee 1 8.5 15.1 15.3 8.6 5.2 Oconee 2 8.5 15.1 15.3 8.6 5.2 Oconee 3 8.5 15.1 15.3 8.6 5.2 Palisades 217.3 61.5 20.7 11.3 6.3 Palo Verde 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Palo Verde 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Palo Verde 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Point Beach 1 48.3 38.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Point Beach 2 48.3 38.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Prairie Island 1 203.6 137.8 31.8 17.0 8.5 Prairie Island 2 203.6 137.8 31.8 17.0 8.5 Robinson 2 2.9 13.8 2.9 4.6 8.9 Salem 1 18.1 41.3 21.7 9.9 11.3 Salem 2 5.9 18.9 13.9 13.5 6.4 San Onofre 2 8.9 15.8 6.2 57.3 37.9 San Onofre 3 8.9 15.8 6.2 57.3 37.9 Seabrook 10.9 15.4 16.5 7.3 2.6 Sequoyah 1 10.2 12.8 7.6 58.4 13.8 Sequoyah 2 10.2 12.8 7.6 58.4 13.8 South Texas 1 14.8 11.9 15.3 8.9 16.5 South Texas 2 8.1 14.6 16.0 2.8 12.8 St. Lucie 1 66.9 67.6 87.0 37.4 20.6 St. Lucie 2 66.9 67.6 87.0 37.4 20.6 Summer 14.6 14.2 11.7 14.6 5.0 Surry 1 11.0 5.1 9.8 2.9 3.1 Surry 2 11.0 5.1 9.8 2.9 3.1 Three Mile Island 1 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.4 1.6 Turkey Point 3 82.0 32.2 25.8 75.2 34.8 Turkey Point 4 82.0 32.2 25.8 75.2 34.8 Vogtle 1 9.9 37.7 101.3 106.6 133.4 Vogtle 2 37.7 14.1 6.6 29.9 24.9 Waterford 3 32.3 6.6 17.4 10.8 13.5 Watts Bar 1 88.8 48.0 267.5 38.6 23.1 Wolf Creek 46.8 11.3 4.5 9.0 17.4 MEDIAN 14.8 15.1 15.3 11.3 10.7 59 3.5 Long-Term Trend in Liquid Effluents This section discusses the long-term trend of MFAPs in liquid effluents from nuclear power plants in the United States. NRC regulations require radioactive effluents to be ALARA. As a result of improved radioactive effluent control programs, the amount of activity of radioactive effluents has steadily decreased over time. The trend in the median MFAP activity of liquid effluents since 1975 is shown in Figure 3.16. All power reactors that have operated in the United States are included, some of which are now shut down. Figure 3.16 Long-Term Trend in MFAPs in Liquid Effluents Figure 3.16 indicates a long-term, downward trend in the amounts of MFAPs in liquid effluents from both BWRs and PWRs. The magnitude of the reduction is significant. For example, in 1975, the median activity of liquid effluents from BWRs was greater than 1,100 millicuries; however, in 2013, the median was 0.2 millicuries. That corresponds to a 99.9 percent reduction in MFAPs in liquid effluents over the last 38 years. One of the primary contributors to the reduction in liquid effluents is improved fuel integrity in both BWRs and PWRs. Additionally, many BWRs recycle (or re-use) some or all of the reactor water. The recycling of reactor water at BWRs is one reason why effluents from BWRs are generally lower than from PWRs. The PWR design requires the use of boron in the reactor water, which makes water reuse impractical, whereas BWRs do not use boron in reactor water. The lack of boron in BWR reactor water allows the BWRs to recycle (or re-use) reactor water which contributes to lower liquid releases in BWRs, particularly for tritium. The use of advanced liquid radioactive waste processing systems has also significantly lowered liquid effluents. Lastly, improvements in the handling and processing of liquid waste made by the operations, maintenance, chemistry, and health physics departments at the various facilities have further reduced the amount of effluent releases and public dose.

60 Figure 3.16 shows that from 2005 to 2009, there was a small increase in the median liquid effluents from BWRs. An analysis of this increase in median MFAP activity of liquid effluents from BWRs indicates a small change in the control of liquid effluents at some BWRs. For many decades, some BWRs have embraced a zero-release strategy for radioactive liquid effluents. Such a strategy has cost advantages, because it is expensive to discharge very hi gh-quality water that could be reused in plant systems. Additionally, a zero-release strategy conserves the natural resources and virtually eliminates radioactive liquid effluents in those BWRs that adopt this strategy. The zero-release strategy is partly responsible for the decreases in the median MFAP liquid activity releases during the 1980s, 1990s, and beyond 2000, which can be seen in Figure 3.16. This strategy can be very effective in reducing the amount of liquid activity. However, within the last 10 years, it was recognized that at some sites using a zero-release strategy, releasing tritium as a gaseous release (rather than as a liquid effluent release) has the potential to increase doses to members of the public. This relative increase in public exposure, due to release of tritium as a gaseous release instead of as a liquid release, can be attributed to four factors: Waste water in some plants has been recycled (instead of discharged as a liquid effluent).As waste water is recycled, the tritium concentration in the water increases over time.When all radioactive liquid releases are eliminated, tritium is released through thegaseous release points.The dose due to tritium discharged from a gaseous release point can, depending on plant design and site characteristics, be higher than the dose from the same amount oftritium discharged from a liquid release point.However, a plant that allows some liquid effluent releases can shift the release of tritium from a gaseous release point to a liquid release point, thereby lowering public doses. This strategy can cause a slight increase in the amount of activity of MFAPs in liquid effluents and a small decrease in total public dose. 3.6 Radiation Doses from Gaseous and Liquid Effluents The maximum annual organ doses for 2013 from gaseous and liquid effluents are shown in Tables 3.19 through 3.22. The data from these tables are illustrated graphically in Figures 3.17 through 3.20. These tables and figures contain annual organ doses (for gaseous and liquid effluents) and annual total body doses (for liquid effluents). In accordance with regulatory requirements and the calculation methodologies of RG 1.109 (Ref. [33] ), the doses are calculated for the individuals receiving the highest total body and organ doses. As a result, these doses are often referred to as the maximum total body and the maximum organ doses. Additionally, licensees are required to calculate the organ doses for six separate organs in the human body: bone, liver, thyroid, kidney, lung, and intestines. Only the highest of the organ doses is shown in this report. Because these doses are calculated for the individual receiving the highest dose from liquid and gaseous effluents, these individuals are typically located in close proximity to the facility. As a result, doses to other individuals, especially those located farther away from the facility, are expected to be significantly lower than those shown in this report.

61 The doses shown in the tables and graphs of this section include contributions from all radionuclides in the type of effluent shown (i.e., gaseous or liquid). The NRC ALARA criteria, discussed in Section 2.4, are included in the tables and figures for purposes of comparison. Since many plants have more than one operating reactor, the ALARA criteria are shown on a per reactor basis. If the licensee does not report a dose, a blank entry is used to indicate that either (1) no releases occurred (e.g., the NPP is a zero-discharge plant) or (2) no exposure pathway exists. Also, blanks in data fields are generally used instead of zeros in order to make it easier for the reader to quickly identify the positive values. Historically, C-14 has not been considered a principal radionuclide, since the amount of activity in gaseous effluents was dominated by the xenon and krypton radionuclides. As a result, C-14 has not been reported as a radioactive effluent. In addition, the release of C-14 from NPPs has been insignificant compared to the natural production and world inventory of C-14 (Ref. [36] ). Although the amount of C-14 released from NPPs has not increased, steady improvements in nuclear power plant effluent management practices have resulted in a 99.9 percent decrease in the amount of activity from noble gas effluents released to the environment (see Figure 3.15, -Term Trend in Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluen However, a recent NRC review of the significance of C-14 releases on public dose has resulted in the NRC reclassifying C-14 as a principal radionuclide. Releases of C-14 have now been included beginning with the 2010 report. For comparison purposes, median dose values are included in the tables and figures. The median is the midpoint of the data. Approximately half of the power plants will report doses greater than the median and approximately half will report doses lower than the median. The median is a method of estimating a central or typical value while avoiding bias caused by extremely high or low values in the data set. All sites are included when calculating the medians, even those sites for which no dose is reported. For example, in Table 3.19, the BWR median annual organ dose due to gaseous effluents is highlighted in bold in the center of the table. In this case, the median dose is 0.184 mrem. This represents the typical annual organ dose, due to all gaseous effluents, from all BWRs operating in the United States in 2013. Figures 3.21 and 3.22 show the 5-year trend in the median maximum annual organ doses in gaseous and liquid effluents, respectively. The sharp increase in the dose from gaseous effluents is the result of inclusion of C-14 in the gaseous effluent data beginning in 2010. The median organ doses for liquid effluents from BWRs and PWRs have remained consistently low between 2009 and 2013 as seen in Figure 3.22. A comparison between doses from gaseous effluents and liquid effluents can be made by examining Figures 3.21 and 3.22; and shows, in general, most of the dose from NPP effluents comes from the gaseous effluents. As a result, licensees wanting to lower doses may choose to focus additional efforts on reducing the radionuclides in gaseous effluents. The evaluation of effluent data can be a key factor in understanding radioactive effluents. By gaining a better understanding of radioactive effluents, it is possible to exercise more control in reducing doses from such effluents. This helps to ensure radioactive effluents are ALARA.

62 The tables in this section indicate that the highest total body dose from all of the facilities was 0.227 mrem (Table 3.22), and the highest organ dose from all of the facilities was 12.8 mrem (Table 3.19). For purposes of comparison, 1 mrem is less than the radiation dose from any one of the following: the dose received in 1 week from skiing in the Rocky Mountains; the dose received in 8 weeks by a homeowner with a brick or stone house. The basis for each of these three natural background dose values is based on information from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Ref. [37] ). Radiation exposure to cosmic rays at the high altitudes of Colorado would result in a dose of about 70 mrem per year. Additionally, the dose from rocks and soil in the mountains of Colorado would be about 40 mrem per year. The total of these two values is about 110 mrem per year for a person in the high elevations of Colorado. A person in Florida, who is typically at sea level and surrounded by the native Florida terrain, would receive about 40 mrem per year from rocks, soil, and cosmic radiation. As a result, people living at the high altitudes of Colorado receive about 70 mrem per year more radiation dose than a person living in Florida. People from Florida skiing in the Rocky Mountains for a week would be expected to receive an additional doseabove what they might normally have received if they had stayed in Floridaof about 1.3 mrem. According to a DOE report prepared by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Ref. [38] ), the average 150-pound individual receives about 1.1 mrem per month or 14 mrem per year from the natural potassium-40 that is incorporated into the human body. NCRP Report No. 95 (Ref. [39] ) indicates that the radiation exposure from living in a brick, stone, adobe, or concrete home is about 7 mrem per year. At this annual dose rate, the exposure received in 8 weeks would be about 1.1 mrem. NPPs in the United States discharge small but measurable amounts of radioactive materials in radioactive effluents. All of these radioactive releases must comply with NRC requirements. These requirements are in place to ensure (1) the radwaste processing systems at NPPs are operating properly, (2) the doses to members of the public are within the public dose limits, and (3) the doses to members of the public are ALARA.

63 Table 3.19 BWR Gaseous Effluents Maximum Annual Organ Dose, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Organ Dose BWR Facility Annual Organ Dose (mrem) Grand Gulf 1.28E+01 River Bend 4.70E+00 Cooper 1.52E+00 Vermont Yankee 9.64E-01 Brunswick 1 8.20E-01 Brunswick 2 8.20E-01 Limerick 1 7.75E-01 Limerick 2 7.75E-01 Oyster Creek 4.94E-01 Susquehanna 1 3.26E-01 Susquehanna 2 3.26E-01 Peach Bottom 2 2.75E-01 Peach Bottom 3 2.75E-01 Fermi 2 2.20E-01 Nine Mile Point 1 2.14E-01 Nine Mile Point 2 2.14E-01 Perry 2.14E-01 BWR Median Dose 1.84E-01 FitzPatrick 1.84E-01 Hatch 1 1.59E-01 Hatch 2 1.59E-01 LaSalle 1 1.55E-01 LaSalle 2 1.55E-01 Quad Cities 1 1.34E-01 Quad Cities 2 1.34E-01 Hope Creek 1.27E-01 Duane Arnold 1.10E-01 Pilgrim 6.60E-02 Monticello 4.91E-02 Dresden 2 4.61E-02 Dresden 3 4.61E-02 Browns Ferry 1 3.40E-02 Browns Ferry 2 3.40E-02 Browns Ferry 3 3.40E-02 Clinton 2.65E-02 Columbia 2.13E-02 ALARA Criteria 15 64 Table 3.20 PWR Gaseous Effluents Maximum Annual Organ Dose, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Organ Dose PWR Facility Annual Organ Dose (mrem)

PWR Facility Annual Organ Dose (mrem)

Watts Bar 1 3.23E+00 PWR Median Dose 1.81E-01 Waterford 3 3.15E+00 Diablo Canyon 1 1.81E-01 Catawba 1 2.41E+00 Diablo Canyon 2 1.81E-01 Catawba 2 2.41E+00 Three Mile Island 1 1.81E-01 Wolf Creek 1.30E+00 Palisades 1.73E-01 Braidwood 2 1.15E+00 Surry 1 1.71E-01 Braidwood 1 1.12E+00 Surry 2 1.71E-01 Beaver Valley 1 1.10E+00 Calvert Cliffs 1 1.53E-01 Davis-Besse 9.86E-01 Calvert Cliffs 2 1.53E-01 Harris 9.25E-01 Millstone 2 1.29E-01 Cook 1 8.70E-01 Point Beach 1 1.21E-01 Cook 2 8.70E-01 Point Beach 2 1.21E-01 Summer 8.06E-01 Salem 2 1.13E-01 Sequoyah 1 8.04E-01 Oconee 1 1.12E-01 Sequoyah 2 8.04E-01 Oconee 2 1.12E-01 North Anna 1 6.00E-01 Oconee 3 1.12E-01 North Anna 2 6.00E-01 Comanche Peak 1 1.09E-01 Robinson 2 5.19E-01 Comanche Peak 2 1.09E-01 McGuire 1 4.60E-01 Salem 1 9.97E-02 McGuire 2 4.60E-01 Vogtle 1 8.46E-02 Farley 1 4.11E-01 Vogtle 2 8.46E-02 Farley 2 4.11E-01 South Texas 1 7.76E-02 Byron 1 3.91E-01 South Texas 2 7.71E-02 Byron 2 3.91E-01 Kewaunee 7.44E-02 St. Lucie 2 3.81E-01 Beaver Valley 2 6.23E-02 Indian Point 2 3.39E-01 Prairie Island 1 3.52E-02 Palo Verde 3 3.36E-01 Prairie Island 2 3.52E-02 St. Lucie 1 3.14E-01 Millstone 3 2.26E-02 Indian Point 3 3.06E-01 Ft. Calhoun 2.01E-02 Arkansas 2 3.02E-01 Turkey Point 3 1.99E-02 Palo Verde 1 2.94E-01 Ginna 1.94E-02 Palo Verde 2 2.94E-01 Callaway 1.09E-02 Arkansas 1 2.41E-01 San Onofre 2 7.58E-03 Seabrook 2.39E-01 San Onofre 3 7.58E-03 Crystal River 3 9.09E-04 Turkey Point 4 4.80E-05 ALARA Criteria 15 65 Table 3.21 BWR Liquid Effluents Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Organ Dose BWR Facility Total Body Dose (mrem) Organ Dose (mrem) Cooper 1.28E-01 2.39E-01 Grand Gulf 9.71E-02 1.57E-01 Browns Ferry 1 2.14E-02 3.03E-02 Browns Ferry 2 2.14E-02 3.03E-02 Browns Ferry 3 2.14E-02 3.03E-02 Perry 7.13E-03 1.11E-02 Pilgrim 2.70E-03 9.60E-03 River Bend 1.92E-03 9.09E-03 Susquehanna 1 2.74E-03 8.60E-03 Susquehanna 2 2.74E-03 8.60E-03 Hatch 2 1.83E-03 3.15E-03 Hatch 1 1.61E-03 2.24E-03 Quad Cities 1 3.91E-04 9.05E-04 Quad Cities 2 3.91E-04 9.05E-04 Brunswick 1 7.90E-04 8.00E-04 Brunswick 2 7.90E-04 8.00E-04 BWR Median Dose 8.95E-05 8.95E-05 Limerick 1 8.95E-05 8.95E-05 Limerick 2 8.95E-05 8.95E-05 Hope Creek 2.39E-05 8.72E-05 Peach Bottom 2 4.15E-05 4.36E-05 Peach Bottom 3 4.15E-05 4.36E-05 FitzPatrick 1.79E-05 1.79E-05 Vermont Yankee 4.92E-06 4.92E-06 Oyster Creek 1.37E-06 1.37E-06 Monticello 1.28E-07 1.28E-07 Dresden 2 6.10E-09 6.10E-09 Dresden 3 6.10E-09 6.10E-09 Clinton Columbia Duane Arnold Fermi 2 LaSalle 1 LaSalle 2 Nine Mile Point 1 Nine Mile Point 2 ALARA Criteria 3 10 66 Table 3.22 PWR Liquid Effluents Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose, 2013 Shown in Descending Order of Organ Dose PWR Facility Total Body Dose (mrem) Organ Dose (mrem) PWR Facility Total Body Dose (mrem) Organ Dose (mrem) North Anna 1 2.27E-01 2.28E-01 PWR Median Dose 3.96E-03 7.42E-03 North Anna 2 2.27E-01 2.28E-01 South Texas 2 7.39E-03 7.42E-03 Wolf Creek 1.61E-01 1.65E-01 Kewaunee 2.22E-03 5.78E-03 Farley 2 1.14E-02 1.53E-01 South Texas 1 5.71E-03 5.77E-03 Farley 1 1.07E-02 1.06E-01 Palisades 3.96E-03 5.44E-03 Oconee 1 5.13E-02 1.00E-01 Callaway 3.93E-03 5.40E-03 Oconee 2 5.13E-02 1.00E-01 Summer 4.02E-03 4.21E-03 Oconee 3 5.13E-02 1.00E-01 Davis-Besse 3.74E-03 3.83E-03 Comanche Peak 1 8.78E-02 8.78E-02 Point Beach 1 3.53E-03 3.53E-03 Comanche Peak 2 8.78E-02 8.78E-02 Point Beach 2 3.53E-03 3.53E-03 Vogtle 1 4.53E-02 8.64E-02 Sequoyah 1 3.21E-03 3.21E-03 Braidwood 1 2.96E-02 8.04E-02 Sequoyah 2 3.21E-03 3.21E-03 Braidwood 2 2.96E-02 8.04E-02 Millstone 2 1.39E-04 3.15E-03 Byron 1 6.70E-02 7.65E-02 Watts Bar 1 2.32E-03 2.39E-03 Byron 2 6.70E-02 7.65E-02 Indian Point 2 1.17E-03 1.90E-03 Beaver Valley 1 6.26E-02 7.52E-02 Prairie Island 1 8.30E-04 1.65E-03 Beaver Valley 2 6.26E-02 7.52E-02 Prairie Island 2 8.30E-04 1.65E-03 McGuire 1 7.71E-02 7.35E-02 Crystal River 3 2.07E-04 1.51E-03 McGuire 2 7.71E-02 7.35E-02 Waterford 3 3.97E-04 5.36E-04 Ft. Calhoun 4.26E-02 6.63E-02 Calvert Cliffs 1 5.00E-04 5.00E-04 Catawba 1 5.65E-02 5.70E-02 Calvert Cliffs 2 5.00E-04 5.00E-04 Catawba 2 5.65E-02 5.70E-02 Indian Point 3 2.05E-04 4.45E-04 Harris 2.86E-02 5.67E-02 Ginna 4.36E-04 4.24E-04 Three Mile Island 1 2.48E-02 2.59E-02 Robinson 2 2.09E-04 3.28E-04 St. Lucie 1 5.44E-03 2.31E-02 Diablo Canyon 1 1.15E-04 2.05E-04 St. Lucie 2 5.44E-03 2.31E-02 Diablo Canyon 2 1.15E-04 2.05E-04 Cook 1 3.33E-02 2.13E-02 Turkey Point 3 1.58E-04 1.84E-04 Cook 2 3.33E-02 2.13E-02 Turkey Point 4 1.58E-04 1.84E-04 Vogtle 2 1.64E-02 2.13E-02 Seabrook 1.05E-04 1.18E-04 San Onofre 2 3.95E-03 1.80E-02 Surry 1 1.04E-04 1.15E-04 San Onofre 3 3.95E-03 1.80E-02 Surry 2 1.04E-04 1.15E-04 Arkansas 2 5.80E-03 9.10E-03 Salem 1 2.91E-05 8.16E-05 Millstone 3 1.30E-03 8.64E-03 Salem 2 1.56E-05 3.01E-05 Arkansas 1 5.70E-03 8.10E-03 Palo Verde 1 Palo Verde 2 Palo Verde 3 ALARA Criteria 3 10 67 Figure 3.17 BWR Gaseous Effluents Maximum Annual Organ Dose 68 Figure 3.18 PWR Gaseous Effluents Maximum Annual Organ Dose 69 Figure 3.18 PWR Gaseous Effluents Maximum Annual Organ Dose (continued) 70 Figure 3.19 BWR Liquid Effluents Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose 71 Figure 3.20 PWR Liquid Effluents Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose 72 Figure 3.20 PWR Liquid Effluents Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose (continued) 73 Note: The increase in reported organ dose beginning in 2010 is due largely to the addition of a radionuclide category for C-14 in Table 2.1. See text at the beginning of Section 3.6 for more information on the addition of C-

14. Figure 3.21 Median Maximum Annual Organ Dose, Gaseous Effluents 5-Year Trend, 2009-2013 Figure 3.22 Median Maximum Annual Dose, Liquid Effluents 5-Year Trend, 2009-2013

75 4

SUMMARY

The information contained in this report summarizes the liquid and gaseous effluents and public doses from all United States nuclear power plants (NPPs) in commercial operation for calendar year 2013. Although all NPPs released radioactive materials in 2013, none of the effluents from any NPP resulted in an exceedance of any NRC or EPA public dose limit, or any NRC ALARA criteria. The radionuclides selected for inclusion in this report are either the most common radionuclides or the most significant radioactive effluents and are particularly useful indicators of overall releases. The radionuclides selected also provide additional information about operational practices at a site. Nuclear power plants have reduced their radioactive effluents by more than 99 percent in a long-term decreasing trend in radioactive effluents (i.e., mixed fission and activation products in liquid effluents and noble gases in gaseous effluents) since the mid-1970s. For additional context, the median dose resulting from radioactive effluents are provided for comparison to the ALARA criteria, to the natural background sources of radiation, and other sources of radiation exposure to the U.S. population. Comparisons of the radioactive effluents between NPPs may indicate differences in fuel conditions, fuel cycle length, radioactive waste processing equipment, reactor types, reactor ages, electrical outputs, and operating conditions. Each of these factors can have an effect on radioactive effluents. More complete and detailed infothe public on the NRC Web site.

77 5 REFERENCES [1] ions, August 1973. [2] NUREG-75/001, January 1975. [3] -0077, June 1976. [4] -0218, March 1977. [5] -0367, March 1978. [6] -0521, January 1979. [7] -1497, BNL-NUREG-51192, March 1981. [8] -2227, BNL-NUREG-51416, November 1981. [9] -2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 1, January 1983. [10] -2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 2, June 1984. [11] UREG/CR-2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 3, February 1986. [12] -2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 4, August 1986. [13] -2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 5, August 1987. [14] -2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 6, January 1988. [15] -2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 7, November 1988. [16] -2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 8, October 1989. [17] -2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 9, July 1991. [18] -2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 10, September 1992. [19] -2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 11, October 1993. [20] -2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 12, May 1994. [21] -2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 13, August 1995.

78 [22]-2907, BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 14, August 1995.[23]SECY-06-0212, Preparation of Annual Reports on Radioactive Materials Released inGaseous and Liquid Effluents and in Solid Wastes Shipped for Disposal by CommercialNuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC,October 17, 2006.[24] Nuclear Reactor Regulation, ADAMS Accession Number ML103620453, December 201 0.[25] Nuclear Reactor Regulation, ADAMS Accession Number ML103620452,December 2010.[26], Annual Report NUREG/CR-2907,ADAMS Accession Number ML13218A300, Vol. 15, August 2013.[27], Annual Report 2010 NUREG/CR-2907,ADAMS Accession Number ML18151A529, Vol. 16, M ay 2018.[28], Annual Report 2011 NUREG/CR-2907,ADAMS Accession Number ML18234A088, Vol. 17, September 2018.[29], Annual Report 2012 NUREG/CR-2907,ADAMS Accession Number ML18234A103, Vol. 18, September 2018.[30] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.[31]

Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC, June 2009.[32]

Commission, Washington, DC.[33]Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Demonstrating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50,[34]National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, March 3, 2009.[35]

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, September 1987.[36]-Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, May 1985.[37]and Gamma-ray Exposure in the United States and Canada: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-online only.[38]PNNL-18240- Strom, D.J., Lynch, T. P., and Weier, D. R., Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, February 2009.

79 [39] Bethesda, MD, 1987.

81 6 GLOSSARY Activity or radioactivity: The rate of radioactive transformations of a radionuclide, measured in the traditional unit of the curie (Ci) or the international standard unit of the becquerel (Bq). Background (radiation): Radiation from cosmic sources; naturally occurring radioactive material, including radon (except as a decay product of source or special nuclear material); and global fallout as it exists in the environment from the testing of nuclear explosive devices and from past nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl that contribute to background radiation and are not under the control of the licensee. Background radiation does not include radiation from source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Effluent discharge, radioactive discharge: The portion of an effluent release that reaches an unrestricted area. Effluent release, radioactive release: The emission of an effluent from a plant structure into the site environment. Exposure pathway: A mechanism by which radioactive material is transferred from the (local) environment to humans. There are three commonly recognized exposure pathways: inhalation, ingestion, and direct radiation. Fission and activation gases: The noble (chemically non-reactive) gases formed from the splitting (fission) of the uranium-235 isotope in a nuclear reactor or the creation of radioactive atoms from non-radioactive atoms (activation) by the capture of neutrons or gamma rays that are released during the fission process. Gaseous effluents: Airborne effluents. Iodines: The measured radioactive isotopes of iodine or of other non-metal elements in group 17 of the Periodic Table of Elements. Licensees might report any combination of the iodine isotopes, I-131, I-132, I-133, I-134, and I-135. Maximum exposed individuals: Individuals characterized as maximum with regard to food consumption, occupancy, and other usage of the region in the vicinity of the plant site. As such, they represent individuals with habits that are considered to be maximum reasonable deviations from the average for the population in general. Additionally, in physiological or metabolic respects, the maximum exposure individuals are assumed to have those characteristics that represent the averages for their corresponding age group in the general population. Member of the public (10 CFR Part 20): Any individual except when that individual is receiving an occupational dose. Monitoring: The measurement of radiation levels, concentrations, surface area concentrations, or quantities of radioactive material and the use of results of these measurements to evaluate potential exposures and doses. Noble gas: One of six noble gases (helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon) with an oxidation number of 0 that prevents it from forming compounds readily. All noble gases have the 82 maximum number of electrons possible in their outer shell (two for helium, eight for all others), making them unreactive. Occupational dose: as defined in 10 CFR 20.1003, means the dose received by an individual in or to radioactive material from licensed and unlicensed sources of radiation, whether in the possession of the licensee or other person. Occupational dose does not include doses received from background radiation, from any medical administration the individual has received, from exposure to individuals administered radioactive material and released under [10 CFR] 35.75, from voluntary participation in medical research programs, or as a member of the public.

NUREG: A publication by or for the NRC containing non-mission that does not contain regulatory requirements and is published in a formal agency publication bears an agency designator (e.g., NUREG-number-year). Particulates: Radioactive materials that are entrained in the gaseous effluents and are not included in any other effluent category.

Site boundary: That line beyond which the land or property is not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the licensee. Tritium: The radioactive isotope of hydrogen (H-3).

NUREG/CR-2907, Vol. 19 Jason Davis, PhD., CHP Health Physicist - ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities 1299 Bethel Valley Road, SC-200, MS-21 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Division of Risk Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 There are 104 commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) licensed to operate on 65 sites in the United States (U.S.) regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Each year, each power reactor sends a report to the NRC that identifies the radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents discharged from the facility. This report summarizes that information and presents the information in a format intended for both nuclear professionals and the general public. The reader can use this report to quickly characterize the radioactive discharges from any U.S. NPP in 2013. The radioactive effluents from one reactor can be compared with other reactors. The results can also be compared with typical (or median) effluents for the industry, including short-term trends and long-term trends. Although all operating NPPs released some radioactive materials in 2013, all effluents discharged natural radiation that are commonly considered safe. This indicates radioactive effluents from NPPs in 2013 had no significant impact on the health and safety of the public or the environment. Effluents Radioactive materials ALARA Dose September 2018 Technical Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants Annual Report 2013

NUREG/CR-2907, Vol. 19 Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants Annual Report 2013 September 2018

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML18234A117&oldid=1162591"