ML20127M397
| ML20127M397 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello  |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1969 |
| From: | Ramey J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Macgregor C HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127M401 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9211300164 | |
| Download: ML20127M397 (1) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_. _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _- . . . _ _ _ _ _ -
, ~. ._
rib < 16 I L 7ISTRIEUI' ION:
* ' Jhaiman Seaborg (2)
Ccanissioner Ramey (2) \ Ccmnissioner Tape Ocnnissioner Johnson MAY 5 M Ccanissioner Costagliola ' General ManagerL(2) General Counsel (2) Secretary-(2)- HLPrice - HKShapar CKBeck WGDooly Honorable Clark We h ann PDR (50-263) House of LA .satives RLDoan CHenderscn GErtter(DE-2110) Nar Mr. Mw: FWesterni DR Reading l LRogerS' oCR (2) I am nicased to respond to your letter of April 2, 1069, which enclosed a letter frco Mrs. IMvid R. Carlson expmsnine concern about radicactivity mieases from the Monticello Huclear Generating Plant which is nearing ccm-nietion st 1%tieello, Minnanote. l
*ince Mrs. Carlson raised a rr.rtv=r of cuestions emcernine nuclear energy, I en enclosine pertinent ecrrvants prepend by the AEC staff. With respect to Mrs. Carlsen's crincipal concern about radioactivity in drinking water that nitt result focri pronosed cparation of the Mmticello plant, a brief l rewt on this mtter is included in the ccrrents. It describes the AEC's evaluntions which concluded "that the design arti opemtim of the radio-lo-ical unste disposal systen wcwtid nrecitde hatmful effects on the water cunplies of Mimeanolis aM St. Paul, the neemst ecrminities using the Missinsippi River for potable water."
i In Mdition to the enclosures listed in the conrents, I am enclosin- a copy of the booklet, "Ato~ic Pcmer Safety," which nay also be of intemet to Mrs. Carlson. If you need further infomation on these mtters, please let me know. Sincerely, (Signed) James T; Ramey Jszwe T. Ramy Ccrm:issioner h iosures:
- 1. AEC cor'r.ents w/enclosuma NOIE: Draft ltr and coments
,,,, m Mrs. Carlson's questions concurred in by HIPrice,
- 2. LRogers-(RPS) and OGC Booklet, " Atomic Power Safety" 4/25/69-l s
J $ b Y)4f' o,m ,, .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..ta. . . . . .. R . . . . .
. oG.C.y . . . . . . . Da-- oCR / . -
ih[ som= ,. . ...gidw; .. . . . . . . . r.asers ......... . . . . t uLPripe. om ,, y2ys.. .. . 4c . &9. ....... 4 4 { 69 .
.M{d/69 4/ /69 }/M 69,,,
Forza AEC-Sla (Rev.9,53) AECM 0240 ur sove... ant e.inviae ortsa i e e-a eir ' 9211300164 690505- . Ni PDR ADOCK 05000263 i- H- PDR
[_ / . . .. .
,?!_. 4 a.. . ..
****** M C*" M '""'C^*
.
- cm .scca C:~ .,.
, A
. - . - y . a.. . s. .
-~.- oisie ctder.cc
'9 .
t ao u.s. c .m.-a wm. c. ? .
,,r.c.. . '* u-~s.~,~~.~.
.a, c, c.. a on- g ,9 .*-n p 'b,ll.~
. .hJ.g o 4&% CJ.4C'~ t t g - Pe.oase 3344iF3 j r n$467I - J 4.8& k .) v am se == =~u~<'
%)Dild CII.12pl'25tlithti!12d .-
.. . i u . .. . o..a . . ,u
~' ;s %
l l4 ......~o.<~. Eashhig!on,ID.C. 20515
-)
l -
- April.2, 1969 ,.
, , Jq N 1 .. s, .
4 !
*i '
l I' A -
- "N. . '
- i ~
s, , (- i i . -i l Mr. James T. Ramey , Acting-Chairman l Atomic = Energy Commission, > Washington, D.C. 20545 4 i -. l
Dear Mr. Ramey:
I ! Enclosed is a letter I recently roccived from ! a constituent. l I would appreciate receiving answers to the questions asked in Mrs. Carlson's letter. ... . . - - - - - ,, n l Sincerely, l l ;l , Clark MacGregor, M.C. l - I i- t CM:cnc ! } enc. i i I i a L ,
- 1 ,
i i . I i SA 2110 Rec'd OU. it. Rep I ~ c _, DateM/ 7n ,
.Q'l))[gf$_3Y Timej:n ,
- t. . . ;f'(.,_,
,. _ _ ; _ . _ a_ _ _ _ _ __ . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . m __ . .
. s . ; ,
. . , s ., ,.
.. y
- v. ,
a . u. i 47h3 Oncthem Rond 4 Minnoopolin, Minnesota 55421 ' I.'.crch 25,1969 - l 4 v .9,-5 On3 Eonorable Clark MacGregor
- House of Representativo b'cchington, D.C.
Y Sir ^ l am very concerned by reporte I nnvo been roedind in The Min - opolan Sinr 2n rogord to the ptobablo Dollution of our drineing unterf/ . by tr.e ESP nucionr-powerod pinnt being built et Monticello, Minnocots.
- closed io a photostot copy of two of the er:61es unich cppocred re-ce nt ly. Many qocations have como to mind nr.G perhona you cro in_ o poc-l
- tion to find the ensvorn for me and toko oction, if possible, to pro-4 vect NSP from diocnarging redioactivo scotes into tne river. .
You '. vill noto in the enclocod article reforcoco is modo to n 1965 ' ot.2dy conducted in nino countion in Crecon wnich border tno Cohtmbia
.Lver dounstroom from tne Honford, becuington atomac energy plant. - Wesp
' ,this a govern .:nt study and havo there been any similar studico cud ! V vhat conclusions havo been drown from tnom? If the stetor:4nts modo 4 in tnis article in rogard to tno higner concer roto are true, it 10 j hsrd to understond how the Atomic Energy Conniasson can claim thero l 1 is no danger to the populace. l On o recent tolevlaiou progrcm entitled 'Unct ere we doing to
- our World*, the problems of disposal of redioactivo wanten from nuclear planto ves discussod. In' edditien to the westen put in the river, I cridently somu also hos to be buried and will rc=ain radiocative for l .
1,000 yearn. In lignt off tness facts, it ic nnrd to understend uny ' noro of these plents cro being planned. I realize there is a need for more electricity to 2: cot tne desond _of c. growing population. but wht.t is wrons with tne convent-ional power plents. t' hat argu:ront in tnere in d i favor of nuclear plcuto?
- l. -
l I casuto permiccion for tne'ce planto end supervision of them is , [ controlled by the Atomic Energy Cor:nissics. Doen anyone or group beve g 7 gA eny control over tne Atente Energy Co= mission? Does the Fre: 1de nt ?
~
Ta enother article-1 reed it statoc, *According to Icwyers for both the 4 I federal con:aiesion cod the stete ccency, :coccroccional action hoo -incul-eted the Atomic Energy Conv.ission frcm eny' outsido interferenco on policy. 1 i Ost tora" . . Thin. is in referenco to the Mincosoto Pollution Control Agency l 7enollen3 1 ng the AEC in rescrd to diepneal ,of radioective wastoa et Monti-l callo. Pernnpo tnoce effectod directly should be the ones to decido-uhotnne (tnoy veut -to drink radione'civo wotor or not cc I em not' convinced tno htomic Energy Com:cission is isfallible. There vero o lot of docd checp out West because correono or group mcdo cc crrcr in testing nervo coo.
~
j- DoontheAtnmicfEergyCom=icalonrecllyknowwnnteffectextraenountcg_ B of redintion, tenori in drinking unter will bove on my grandchildren?
- j. ,
- -- -m - a._ _ _. _ ,_ . _
4 s - ; ,
;* -o ,,
3 n . .. hom any reporto I h&ve[ heard on studice conducted on Jopencco who re-coivod redirition but v,ero not killod in ene initial bombins Uc clrecdy have in Werirl eno nucloer t'ar II, none tenefited fro:n extra radiction. nuts coc.3 rod 2coctivo unstos piant nt Elk River, , Mint.:cete, uhlen I etiour.3 into the river. Tbon tnoro is the one currently beiDS built et l'.7nti-callo.ond I understand NSF do plannirs tuo moro planto north of Ibd Vins // in tne 1970's. . It ne6.as the combined redionctivo wastoo fro:a tneco plants vould be bm.nd to raiso the lovel of radiation in the river conoiderably . dcumstreem /
/
In view of all tno concern in our ler.:1 todey for cleaning up 4 ,or-
- ica nnd prpeerving otr noturni rosourses. T. do not believe NSP enould ho ellowed to pollute .the Missicoippi Diver particulcrly witn rcdiosotive westes. .
f Any information you can secure for to in rossrd to ay questions would be most oppreciated. Thank you for your help in this catter. Very truly yours,
/
4W
/ ')Tp.,nn.'.k(- cv
- Mrs. David R. Carlson
/
,*/
I i . i s A % e. i e
.(
's .
- x Tw
's . .
l l l ( , ' % __._ l ; . f l t ! N I - s['N ,-
/
-- - .~-_. -. . __.
I
= . , .' .
w *
' 1S $* TAR ibinionical citeris ,of trl- ',
- r" ).-.
O, g TUC MINNE,. Itium . . ,," Hover said. .'..
, - .Thursdsy, Peb. 20, IC i .. .-
j WLm tMn . m io the body .
, ,, ;.x .
9 im su'fa ce; quantitics, as. f.,. . - ef,, ' , M'
-go ! f or emp!c, m th uskmg wa , - '
. 'Y ran p.due e a va c.vi v ' s.
-.3 Y ? m ~. m . /q Qt Ani
' I
^ .9 'l] r's pi ;. G ' '
- t i;. . 2 2 J. .O LM16 , W hidi y d d manc inclu+
' u,;: chromornmc brc.tkane, t
- p .' ,
brenr ub e ic n. mutation, canect" growth and thein. .,
.i e "
....\--- M-{'c'KT@
-* " . ]@ht@O. I d cat h of ccMs and nrf;ans, .
*a -
, '
- 4 '.,. i 4 fr', t
' ,, 'lluver maintams. p.',
7 . * . -
.. a
, . ' ' , , . . . , .#s ,* ,i p e
- 7'o Q.m @ % $ g in other words, it can ,
o4....s.i N' 9 , * , cause serious phys,ical and - .- y. - e 'a Th *T@~.' 1. "* ' s mental deformitics, Huver ' W, .', said. .. ny Jl.'.' S!!OOP
.mness us sm sistt writer i
~
He said Tsw, ne,1nu's recem-
,,r* i'! b
., . ; .. . I' . T .'. ' "
- stan<1ards, thounh . . .
%cra are no "safc" leve's'roted that James.H. Smith.:imended .,
cf human ex.r nure to radia Jr.. nuclear enginect for Gen-ltichte than the Atomic En-tien and the planned d:sJeral Electric, which is bui!d crgy Comnussion's, r.till wf;l .,,,,,,, of rmhnactive wastes ina, the Monticello . reactor.Innt be sufhcient to adequate- x . , * . ' < .* * ' , . cham in t $c Mu sisdppi Puver from!has , estima'ed t hat 30/90hy protect the total environ. x t
% nn , mi jrunes nf tritium vdll he dis ;mei,: of maa, pl.mts arid ani-
's tbc M on DecH o.
c! car c!:::ric plant should1rharged irto the M sdssippilmals. i I* , ,' o'j-, ' y j rohib.ted a University ofIdunng the plant's first year "!hs stardards are based * *, h',Eesota Mu foolo;ist s a i d lof - operation. :nn what the powcr company ' N
*' A. j "It would he irresponsibic! ,
Prof. C'.arle s W. lluver'for persons charged with cmd."thclcstimates lluver raid. "He starts that the plant wdl - i
.ude the rcenmmendatmn m! protection of public health or;from the r,ctreral Ossumpt on ,
a mec*in'; "t.th John Dada iwith provid;ng consu'tation;that the whatever air and water should the plant Uch, dirc'ctor of the Minnc 'on the safety aspects of nu , hold ,'- sot'. Pollutica Control Agen j c! car discharges,to_ ignore the, emits. , , cy and reveral state ic;isla ; . . - tors. l The Monticelb p! ant, nowl Age alto cited n 106'i study ' under ccnstmetinn by North-l which showed that the can- < em S mtes Pawcr Co.. is ' cer death rato in n!nc coun-tics in Oregon which border r j-si.'edu!cd tinn cariy to in rnyn'o 10 m. opera-.he com : the Columbia River down- . h; m - a ' pany has maintainen that the; plant will bc operated in a stream from the Unnford. Washington atornic encigy
~ } M h3Od(hyh
S % CAD c- 3 g comp'etely 5 ife manner and plant was 53 percen? higher h ,, that there wd! be no dancrr 5 bHqC0U 1 yL tyde2b9 al m' than the rest of the statcover to public health frorn radio-! ' a six ycar period. - Q[ hbhb U ' active wastes. i (The Hanford facility is !' h Imwcr plant at1 the Monticello plant is c~.2ly. . Monticello, Minn., poses the 34 miles upstream f
,iuve,,,
. san,i ,at e,, he
. Idl several times larnce and dis-the group th': neither the: charges much n o r c waste radiation control standards of ' than is contempbted at the threa; cf cancer and genetic drinkim; water intekcs :::
the U.S. Atomic Energy Com . 'Monticello plant.) ' the Minneapolis-St. Paul =.ct-mutations if its radioactive mesinn ner those recom- discharges are dumped into ropa;itan area. mended by the Pn"ution Con- } There is no practical meth-f roi Arency's consuhant, Dr. od o( removing trithim from the Mit:15;lppi Elver, a Di'L Pollution of the rivcr. n Ernest C. Tsivoglou. "are anyj thc' hquid discharges of nu- iParty task force said Satur- said* threatens all river cc:n ic clear plants. Haver said. He g.
- day- munities downstream.
. guarantee of nubhc safety." iI t -
Tsivoginu r e e o mmended The group asked .the Min- It no,ted "a draraatic in i that Minnesota set standardtl N , nesota Pollution Control crearc in the incidence of-three times more stringent A';cacy to "abco!ately and!!cukemia and other forma of than those of the Atomic En-permaner.tly deny Northern cancer for pcopic dr xa-crgy Commesion. Doth sets Statea Power Co. permission st ream" after the Manur. of standards assume that there arc icyc!s of exposure l to dump any radioactive recctor on the Coh.:=h S below which there is no harm , wastes into the river or into River began operatica tu puh!!c health and safety. * ', - the ci "' Use of d sposta, i rac0 .s The task forec, headed by approved by the Atomic Zr-Haver said there is '
- Thompson. crgy Commission, thc D" "mountin t cvidence" in hio- ', . ' D r. Phillip G.
chembt far Minnesota Min- group raid, would raise et -
~ '
lo:;ival studics over the past , at the Montlecuo pient ' 10 years that t r6 tium, the *l s, ing and Manufacturin t Co., only 25 cent per yttr foe :.:. mon p:cdominant radioactive! '. . bnd by Lawrence D. Cohen. isotone found in wastes frcm' w .c . - . 1 Paul hwver, noted that ,averano customer.
~
'?
"" IS t.
nucle't.: pcwcr plant reactors, e- - .. .
.ccu:es cancer. in animalso
*[. ,r5,/5 -fy. 4,([ . ,
*f'
..* .~ - .
..3.
. ~- w
[-'
l .(.- > d AEC RESPONSES 70 QUESTIO"S RAISED BY IGS. DAVID R. CARLSON, MDREAPOLIS, MDCESOTA, IN IATiut OF MARCH 25, 1969, TO REPRESENTATIVE CLARK PacGREGOR , Question - The principal concern expressed in Mrs. Carlson's letter in "The probable pollution of our drinking water" by the Moriticello Nuclear Generating Plant. Answer: A brief report on the status of the licensing of this plant, and our evaluation of radiological effects from its operation, is attached. As noted in the report, the AEC's evaluations concluded that the design and operation of the radiological waste disposal system of the Monticello plant would preclude hamful effects on-the water supplies of Kinneapolis and St. Paul, the nearest comunities using the Mississippi River for potable water. j' Question - Mrs. Carlson refers to a newspaper clipping attached to her letter reporting on "a 1965 study which showed that the cancer death rate*
' in nine counties in Oregon which bor:'2r the Columbia River down-stream from the Hanford, Washington atomic energy plant was 53 -
percent higher than the rest of the state over a six-year period."
) She asks if this was a government study, and whether any similar studies have been made.
(
. Answer: The assertions concerning malignancies in Oregon referred to in Mrs. Carlson's letter were published in the May, Tune,1965, issue ii '
of the Journal of Environmental Health, a private publication.
- i The claims made in that article were answered in an article in Public Health Reports, April 1966, by John C. Bailar III and John
. i- (
L. Young, Jr. , of the National Cancer Institute. A copy of this-g! ij article, " Oregon Malignancy Pattern and Radioisotope Storage.- A Reappraisal," is enclosed, y . 4; I ' i J
n .l, . :.. 4 2-
- Reporting on an independent study of cancer statistics from 1934 4
to 1963, it concludes that "no evidence was found that persons i living' downstream frca the Hanford Preserve or along the Pacific coast of Oregon have had an excess risk of death from cancer'in general or frcm leukemia in particular." j Ouestion - Mrs. Carlson refers to a television program concerning disposal of j high-level radioactive wastes, and wonders why nuclear plants are being planned in view of the waste disposal problems involved. Answer: The waste products of nuclear reactor fuel have been handled safely i and stored in such a fashion that they pose no present pollution problem. Due to the inherent restrictions of tank storage of highly radioactive liquid wastes over long periods of time, the Ccumission has supported an extensive research and developunt program for conversion of these wastes to a solid form. Substantial progress ] l has been made in solidifying high-level waste into compact form for h underground storcge over long tire periods. One such process has i been in full-scale use since 1963, and another is reaching a final I , phase of developm nt. These solids can be safely stored in
- 4 i
appropriate selected areas such as abandoned salt mines and isolated
' frcm the biosphere in perpetuity. A detailed discussion of
( ,
+
radioactive waste management and research, and radioactivity in the i environm nt, is contained in the attached copy of AEC testimony presented at 1968 hearings on 'Environr .;tal Quality" before the Subconmittee on Science, Research, and Developent of the House i
;! Conmittee on Science and Astronautics.
t . D
.- ., , , - . - , . . . ,,.---,,e
,, .,5
- j. .
~ i Question "hhat is wrong with the conventional power plants? khat argument is there in favor of nuclear plants?" Answer: The question concerning the advantages of nuclear power plants is
- best answered in " Civilian Nuclear Power," a report to the Prebident by the Atcmic Energy Comission in 1962.
W i The first,itnd most compelling reason given in this report for developing nuclear power is to conserve our natural resources. Con-- 4 cerning this reason, the report sumary says:
"Our technological society requires a:gle sources of energy.
Although large, the supplies of fossil fuels are not unlimited and, furthermore, these raterials ar2 especially valuable for many specific purposes such as transportation, small isolated
- heat and power installations, and as sources of industrial chemicals. Reasonable amounts should be preserved for future generations. '
" Comparison of estimates of fossil fuel resources with pro-4 jections of the rapidly increasirs rate of energy consumption 1
predicts that, if no additional foms of energy were utilized, we would exhaust our readily available, low-cost fossil fuels ( in a century or less and our presently visualized total supplies in about another century. In actual fact, lorg before they become exhausted we will be obliged to taper off their rate of use by supplerenting them increasingly from other sources.
"In contrast, our supplies of uranium and thorium contain almost unlimited amounts of latent energy that can be tapped pro-vided ' breeder' reactors are developed to convert the fertile materials, uranium-238 and thorium-232, to fissionable plutonium-239 and uranium-2.33, respectively, successfully done, this will render relatively unimportant the cost of nuclear raw mterials so that even very low-grade sources will become economically acceptable."
- Secondly, the nuclear c,entral, power stations can significantly reduge power costs, especially in areas where fossil fuel costs are high.
Of this, the report say.e 9 t h
i w .: , i
- q. .
3_ i i i /
, Questien "i7nat is wrorg with the conventional power plants? '1Tnat argument ,.
is there in favor of nuclear plant +0" ' f i Answer: Tne question concerning the advantages of nuclear power plants is i a best answered dn " Civilian Nuclear Power," a report to the President by the Atcmic Energy Comdssion in 1962. a Tne first, and most co: gelling reason given in this report for $ developing nuclear power *.c to conserve our natural resources. Con- ' 3 cerning this reason, the report cur ary says:
"Our technological society requires ample sources of energy.
Although large, the supplies of fossil fuels a"e not unliinited
- j and, furthermore, these raterials a"e especially valuable for rany specific purposes such as transportaticn, s~all isolated i heat and power installations, and as sources of industrial chemicals. Reasonable amounts should be preserved for future generations. -
"Co parison of estirates of fossil fuel resources with pro-
- jections of the rapidly increasing rate of energy consumption predicts that, if no additional fo"ms of energy were utilized, ,
- we would exhaust our readily available, icw-cost fossil fuels in a century or less and our presently visualized total supplies ,
i in about another century. In actual fact,.long before they become exhausted we will be obliged to taper off their rate of use by ,. l supplement 1rg them increasingly from other sources.
"In contrast, our supplies of uranium ard thorium contain almost unlimited amounts of latent energy that can be tapped pro-l vided ' breeder' reactors are developed to convert the fertile j materials, uranium-2 3 and thorium-232, to fissiorable plutonium-239 and uranium-2.33, respectively. Successfully done, this will render relatively unirportanc the cost of nuclear raw L ] raterials so that even very low-grade sources will beccme -
economically acceptable." ' i Secondly, the nuclear central power stations can significantly reduce. ; powercosts,especiallyinareaswherefossilfuelcostsarehidh. b
.Of this, the report sayst ,
1 1 w
. 4 s <
l l l i - .-
~
i i j -.
"Under conservative cost assu~.:otions, it is estimated that by the end of the century the above orojected use of nuclear power" (i.e., that it will be providing one-half of the . energy r.cnerated-by then) "would result in cumulative savirgs in generation costs of about $30 billion. The anntel savirg would be between $4 and $5 billion. High cost cower areus would no longer exist, since, in the absence of significant fuel trans-portation expenses, the cost of nuclear power is essentially the same everywhere. This would be an economic boon to areas of high cost fossil fuels and, by enabling them to compete better, should increase the industrial potential of the entire country." . Next, our progress in nuclear power development has important ,
international implications. Our advances in this area are already contributing to our technological world leadership and foreign trade. The report says:
"The United States has more than its proportionate amount of the world's resources of the fossil fuels; many parts of the world have none at all. Consequently, nuclear Dower has even greater anp11 cation in many other countries than in this; indeed, in some there is an inmediate need. Tnere are vigorous nuclear power programs in Western Europe and in Japan, which must import most of their fuel. India and other less technologically developed nations are embarkirg on imoortant programs. With a few exceptions the various countries look to us a6 'o a very few others for technological assistance and as a source of nuclear power equipment."
. Finally, we believe that the overall pollution problems associated with nuclear power plants are modest cccpared with those of conventional plants. More detailed information on this subject is m vided in the attached report, " Air Pollution in Perspective "uclear vs. Fossil-Fueled Power Plants," which was prep'. red by the AEC for the Cor p ssional Joint Cc:mtittee on Atcmic Energy in 1967. 4 a 9
}
9 d
i C.hestion - Mrs. Carlson inquires about the authority of the AEC with respect ' to nuclear plants, and asks, "Does anyone or group have any control over the Atortic Energy Comtission? Does the President?" 8 Answer: Nuclear powered plants, including the one under construction at Monticello, Finnesota, are required by the At d c Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to be licensed and regulated by the Atomic j Energy Co=dssion for the purposes of protecting the radiological ! health and safety of the public and assuring the common defense and security. The Atomic Energy Ccmnission is an independent Federal agency whose specific regulatory authority is set out in the Atomic Energy Act. Since the Comission is an independent Federal agency, the
! President does not participate in its regulatory decisions. However, the five members of the Atomic Energy Comission are appointed by 1
the Pmsident with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. Each member of the Comission has one vote and equal responsibility and authority in all decisions and actions of the Comission. 4 The Congressional Joint Comittee on Atomic Energy, comoosed of nine 4 Senators and nine Members of the House of Repmsentatives, is vested under the Atomic Energy Act with the duty of making continuing studies of all activities of the Ocmnission and nuclear activities *
'o
' \ L
.~
- b of the Ocmission and nuclear activities generally. ' All bills, resolutions, and other matters in the Congress relating primarily to the Comission er to the development, use or control of atomic energy are within the Joint Committee's jurisdiction. Tne.,
4 Comission is expressly required by statute to keep the Joint Ccmittee " fully and currently informed" with respect to all of the 4 Conmission's activities. , In addition, final decisions of the Ccmission on applications for nuclear facility construction permits and operating licenses are subject to appeal.to a United States Court of Appeals. 4 ^ Question - Mrs. Carlson assumes that the Eh River Nuclear PMnt releases scce radioactivity into the Mississippi River, reports 3r understanding that Northern States Power Company is planning to build two more plants north of Red Wing in the 1970's, and expresses concern that "the combined radioactive wastes from three plants would be bound to raise the level of radiation in the river considerably downstream." ~ ! Answer: Our infomation indicates that the radioactivity in effluent releases ! from all operating licensed power reactors, including the Elk River plant, has been kept considerably below the 11mics that would be pennissible under AEC regulations designed for protection against radiation. A survey of 1967 operations' of these plants, for exarple, i indicated that releases of radioactivity in water frcm the Elk River i plant amounted to less than 1 percent of the permissible limits applicable to the radionuclides in the effluent. The Comission is concerned with enviromental levels of radioactivity from all sources, ani' continually reviews its regulatory standa1xis and licensing 9 8 A
, '.~ -:
1 . 7 requirements for the protection of the radiological health and safety of the public. Our regulations provide that, in addition
- to limitirc concentrations of radioactivity in effluent _ from nuclear reactors, the Ca mission may further limit quantit'ies of radioactive materials released in water during a specified period of time to assure that the public is not exposed to radiation in excess of guides reccntrended by_ the Federal Radiation Council.
I For example, if multiple licensed nuclear facilities were located on a body of water, the cumulative cuantities of radioactive material in the water would be taken into consideration 1,1 limitirs the radioactivity released in the effluents discharged frcra each such facility. I i i We assurre that the two plants referred to by Mrs. Carlson as being i planned for construction in the 1970's are Units 1 and 2 of the l Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant which are now under con-struction near Red Wing, Minnesota, by the Northern States Power Ca::pany. The utility applied for construction pemits for these units in April and August, 1967, respectively. Provisional con-struction permits were issued for both units in June 1968 after the applications underwent the licensing process described in the enclosed booklet, " Licensing of Power Reactors." khen the applicant l applies for operating licenses for these units. ccmprehensive s.afety 1 . reviews will be conducted again. i
Enclosures:
- (see attached sheet) .
t a .. _
iLi .'::
- 8-i Enclocures: .
- 1. Licensing status report on Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
- 2. " Oregon Falignancy Pattern and Radioisotope.
Storage - A Reappraisal" - AEC testimony at 1968 "Enviromental 3 4 Quality" hearings 1 4. " Air Pollution in Perspective - Nuclear vs, 4 Fossil-Fueled Power Plants"
- 5. Booklet, " Licensing of Power Reactors" .
+
l 4 5 j a 4 t a 4 i i- s. d 1 . t- , e c-9r- e - - -, . .,.
-.v -.-.%.o -,y-,-, . - - . < , , ---e- r- - .,- ---er
l
~/.Z 0; JC' ZFF C S OF OPP.Pj. TING THE S3NT'C:LLO SUCL2/ < CEXEP.ATINO PLANT a
The application by Northern Sta:ea Pouer Company for a permit to construct the Monticello plant was reviewed from the standpoint of radiological safety by four bodies in the Atomic- Energy Commission's i mrocess of licensing and Ic ulation, as outlined in the enclosed
- booklet, " Licensing of ?oucr Ecactors." These review groups included the .'.EC regulatory staff, thc Commission's statutory Advisory l
Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), and an ctonic ' safety and licensing board which conductad a public hearing in the matter on i hay 25-26, 1967, at Buffalo Minnesord. The initici decision of
- aa board, granting a provisional con ,truction permit, was then i ,
revi wad by the Commission itself. The construction permit was , 4 issued on June 19, 1967. E;ch of these review bodies concluded 4 :h:t the proposed plant could be- constructed cad operated without
- undue risk to the health cnd safety t of the public.
! On ' ovamber 8,1968, the cpplicant applied for an operating license. Furticr scfety reviews arn 'now baing conducted by the AEC regulatory staff. The ACRS will also ravict this application and advise the Cormission thereon. Furthar, if an operating license is granted, l the plan wil2 be under AEC surveillance and andergo periodic acier,y inspections throughcut its lifetime. ] Small amounts of radioactive material ara permitted by AEC regulations ! to be released into the envircnm2nt ct controlled rates and in controlled amounts from a nuclear power pin".t. This requires a continuous program of monitoring and control to assure that release limits are no t c>:cceded. The release limirs in AEC regulations are based on muides developed by the Federal iadiation Council, a statutory body, cnd approved by the President for the guidance of Federal agencies, i These relense limits are such thct continuous use of' air or water j at the point of release- from the site would not result in exposures
- exceeding _ national cad international standards for radiation pro-
- tection of the public. Permissible exposure limits reflected in t> candards are well- below the level where biological damage .
_ cbserved in humans. It is believed that .any biological l effects that might be produced at such low exposures would be' too i infrequent, in comparison with. the occurrence of similar effects I from natural causes, to be observed by epidemiological cr other j techniques presently available. Thus, the risk to individuals i exposed at such levels is so low as _ to be negligible.in comparison s with observable risks from natural and other causes. l i l l t f. l
. _ _ . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . ._ _ _ _ . ~ . _ _ _ _ ._.__
=
4 4
.2 -
4 i Th2 cancentrations of liquid racicactive cifluents released from the j plant are further reduced by dilution in the body of water to which ! ' - twy ire discharged. A survey of all operating nuclear power plants has caown that the concentrctions of radioactivity in liquid releases j durin ,1967 were only a snall f raction of the release limits applicable to the radicnuclides in the effluent.
- In the case of the Monticello plant, ti.c AIC's evaluations concluded I that the design and operation of the radiological waste disposal
- , systen would preclude harmful ef fects on the water supplies of sinneapolis and St. Paul, the neccest con
- unities using the Mississippi i Rivcr for potable water. Neverthclcss, during our review of the pt.oposed Monticello plant, we considered consecuences to the Minneapolis and Lt. Paul water supplica of accidental releases of radioactive acterial to the Mississippi River even though we found no evident
- wny that such a release could occur.
t i It is cxtrc=21y unlikely that nr accidental release of lcrge quantitics 4 of radioactive material frc the Monticello plant into the river would i accur. HowcVer, if such a rele;sc were to cccur, the radioactive
- steric 1 would tiavel downstros: . tith the river current and suf ficient ti=c would be available- to clos 2 the inttkes for the~ Minneapolis and St. Paul water systens before the radioactive material rcached j
thca. If- such action were necessary, the reserve supplies of water available in the reservoirs of the two cities would be sufficient to maintain full water supplies ;o the cities until such time as tha rcdiation contamination han passed thc ' intakes. As a part of i our review for an opercting license, the procedures to be followed, and the instruments required to r.cnitor any radioactive ralease, will be reviewed in detail to further assure that the citizens of Minneapolis and St. Paul as well as other con unities which. use the Mississippi for potable water will not be adversely affected, 4 4 ) i s I1 4
)
O 4 h
~
. f g
Volume 81- Number 4
.'d ;
'[I?' \\ ,1 f, ij A2 UE U b A N (b 05
; h;I; n s[' -- -
, ,. I ,
f ,k i 1.olation of pathogenie leptospires from waters used for Par 299 recreation . . Smnley L. Diesch and William F. AleCulloch ,
.. 305 IIcalth and safety'in summer cainps. .
i Paul B. Swnitonis and Roger J. Alcycr A Oregon malignancy pattern and radioisotope storage. 311 reappraisal. coy 73ypg John C. Bailar 111 and John L. i,oung, Jr.
*m Rapid biochemical presumptive test for gonorrhea! urethri. ,,, 333 l
tis m the male. A.11. B. Pedersen and R. E. Kelly I I!calth and planning <lepartment efforts in a community re. '{
. . . . . . .. ...... . 323 l newal program.
- Loucli E. Bellin
- i
. . .. .. ...... 329 j Prevalence of amblyopia. ... ' ; 31erton C. Flom and Richard W. Neumaier '
! 343 i l Speech defects and mental retardation. Survey in Oregon, 1 l Robert W. Blakeley Mental hygiene seminars for school per6onnel. Report of a
. . . ... ... ............ 348 pilot project. ..
Ghislaine D. Cadenne Research in health services. ConferencPreport. . . ..... 351 [ l .[ 4, - Afarcus Rosenblum, . 24 g 7,
* . Condnued > !
l J J l
$ 4 # - - - - - - -
1
' 'M S
- NCd3@3CCOr -
4
. , - - . . . This pharma'cy of the 1890's is part of the permanent exhibit of medical history which opened this month in the Museum of His-i
tory and Technology, Smithsonian Institution, Washingt_on, D.C.
-Sinithsonien In#8(diefion pActograph l
f I
. 1 e 3
i . ; A Reappraisal l t I
. 1
, 1 i
?
Oregon Malignancy Pattern 7 , and Radioisotope Storage . JOHN C, BAILAR lit, M.D., and JOHN L. YOUNG, Jr., M.P.H.
. ported excess risk was present before the IIan-A N INClll?.\S10D mortality rate for cancer, ford Atomic Energy Facility started operation. <
A inchiding leukemia particularly,'among G. No study was made of cancer mortality Oreyon residents near the south bank of the rates along the north bank of the Cohunbia columbia Iliver or along the Pacific Coast was 1:iver, which is in the State of Washin;; ton. n ported recently by Fadeley (1). This would i,e an important observation if it were con-method of Analysis firmed, because there is an increase in the radio-active content of water which flows through or Total cancer mortality rates and leukemia pt the lh.aford (Washington) Atomic Stor- mortality rates for groups of counties in Ore-o from 1934 tinoud 1003 age Preserve before it as carned downstream aml bl ! pw the areas which Fadeley reported to have were adjusted by the indirect method (4-C) for high mortality rates. Because of tha followmg dihrences between counties in the age and sex features of his report, however, we have re-ex- composition of the population (table 1 and fig, amined the question. The 1050 observed mortality rates for all 1).
- 1. Severalinhmd counties were omitted w. h-forms of cancer and for leukemia in the U.S.
it t-out exphmat ton m the analysis, white population (7) were taken as standard, For the years prior to 1940, the rates inchide a ~l
.t liasic data (numbers of deaths) were not ;
reported, and random variations of rates cal- small adjustment for differences in cause-of-i l I etdated on the small numbers of deaths occur- ( death assignments in the fourth, fifth i nng m smgle counties were not considered. i l n. Ahhough the age and sex structure of the ; Diseases (8. 9), j Because tho 10G0 nonwhite populations were [ population varies from one cotmty to another' ; the rates were neither age adjusted nor sex rather small in Oregon (0.1 percent) and Wash-f adjust ed. ington (3.G percent), no adjustment was made i
- 4. The fact that throughout the United States for race.' The numbers of deaths on whicho the I and in many other countries cancer mortality rates in table 1 are based are shown in table i l
rates are higher in cities than in rural areas Tabic 3 lists the counties included in each f area, and figure 2 shows the boundaries of the (1J) was not mentioned. The river and Pacific counties and county groups. Counties in the l counties generally are more densely populated , Metropolitan Portland area were considered than the inhtud counties, and, on this basis, they l separately from the other rivex counties because might be expected to have higher rates. 5.. No study was made of cancer mortality of the ditierent cancer risk between urban* and
! rural areas in general (2,3).
data from earlier years to determine if the re-*
' The age-sex. adjusted mortality rates for all
' . The authors are with the Biometry Branch, National iorms o_f cancer and the numbers of deaths
> upon which these rates were based for Oregon Cancer Institute, Public Health Service.
j l 311 ! I - Yol. 81, No. 4, April 1966 - l
_ _ _ _ . _ _ __ . _ _ . . _ . . ~ _ and Washington are 3hown by county in tables in luah States haw increased rapidly in nece;.t 4 and T.. We did not include a similar tabula-years, the increase has been about the >ame a j~ in the rest of the l*nited States. I nt erestingly, tion of leukemia mortality in thi.s report be. cause the numbers of deaths in most, countics the excess in leukemia mortality existed before the llanford Preserve began operation in 191.~. were quite small. Second, total cancer mortality rates in the i Results Portland region of Oregon have remained ce sentially unchanged since 193.'s. Mortality in Several trends are cicar from figure 1. First, total cancer mortality rates in Oregon and the river counties has increased up to the State' Washington have been consistently lower than average, but renmins substantially helmv that the average rato for the U.S. white population. for the entire United States, and mortality in i In contrast, leukemia mortality rates in both the ocean counties has actually declined. In States have been above average for as long as Washington total cancer mortality in the river counties has been consistently lower than in data by county are available (1040 in Oregon and 1004 in Washington). . Although the rates other parts of the State. Mortality rates for i Table 1. Mortality rates 8 per 100,000 population for all forms of cancer and for leukemia in the United States, Oregon, and Washington,in various tirne periods 'i s 193S-42 1943-47 104S--52 1953-57 1958-63 I Area 1934-37
' All forms of cancer 140.G 13A 2 143.S 144. 0 8 141.9 Total U nited S tates 8. . . . . . . . . . . 145.G i
- 12N 8 12R 5 129.9 13n.5 132.5 O re g o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 12S. S 4
- 123. S 111 7 127.3 131,4 133.7 Itive r counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 111. 0
- 133.4 8124 3 113.5 121. 5 123.8 121.8 Ocenn coun ties.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . *137,8 142.3 140L9 135. I 1414 Portla nd cou nt ies. . . . .. ... . . .. . ..
- 143.01 123.S
*111 7i 8121. G 120.3 118. S 122.G 1 nland cou nties. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 130.2 135.0 139,3 13N 5 Washin g t o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144.8' 13& 7 1N9 125.4 121.5 106. 0 114.4 125. I 11iver coun ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12A 7 135.8 127.2 133.7 Ocean counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
126,3 12& 5 139.4 134.I 134.9 12S. I 137.5 Portland countics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.0 140,1 13S.8 131.0 136.d 141 0 13n 7 I nland counties. . . ... . ... . . . .. . . . . Leukemia
- 3. 4 4. 2 4. 9 6.1 6. S 87.0
'. Total United States 8......... ..
- 6. 2 7. 4 7. G 4
O reg o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (*) ' 4. 8 5. 3
- 4. 9 5. 5 7. 3 7, 9
(*) ' 4. S 1 11iver cou nties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 5. D 4. 2 &2 R1 6. 2 Ocea n counties.. . . . . .. ... . .'. . . . . . . (*) 8. 3
' 5. G &9 7. 0 7. 5 Portla nd counties. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . (*) 7. 3
' 3. 4 3. 7 5. 3 7. 0 I nland cou nties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (*) 7. 4
- 3.1 4.1 5. 4 6.1 6. D ..
i Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 4. G 7. 2 i G.1 6.1.
- 3. 3 2. 7
'I River counties . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
'3 I U7 - 41 40I 4* 8 I* I
! Ocean counties... . . . . . . . . . - r --- -- 3. 2 7. 4 7. G ' G. 7 7. 4 i Portland counties. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .
- 1. I
- 3. 2 4. 3 5. 5 6. I 7. 2 7. G
?
I nland coun ties. . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . . _ i Itates adjusted for age and sex by the indirect method itaking U.S.1950 observed rates for males and females in 10. year age groups as standard.
- Itates for whito population only, '
i 8 Itates for 195S.-02. i
- Rates for 1035 only, i t $ Itates for 1939-42.
! I
- Leukemia deaths by county not availabic for these years.
t, ' Itates for 1940-42.
- Itates based on Icukemia deaths in 1935 and 1037 only. Leukemia deaths not availabic by county for 1934-i i and 1036.
+
Public IIcalda Reports
' 312
'a..7*. 6 W" S "v1%-- . , , .
. . . .-. . .- .~ . . . . . . - . . --. -
I l 4 . Figure 1. Annual ruortality rates per 100,000 population for all forms of cancer and for
- I lenkernia, United States, Ore;;on, and Washin;; ton, 1935-60 l
Att FORE 5 Of C At4CER WASHINGTON ,
. OREGON 2O g. - _
i _ J i 150
, . . . . . ygs.. y
- * * .. .1*.;;; s . . . :". * " 8 . . .. . . . . . . . . :.......,,. 4.*
~ Q'h ;.
1
** ..,%, :, ,mfW e d.ll.%
u
-1%.__-. -
, . .--- J s %- ' = .
t
/ -
i i I ! l 3 I i i i ! t ] yno i
$ LEUKf utA 9- . ~.
o - 2 _
, c. .
- p. 6 -
.#..... 1 W.*'
o e - p - ....... .
. , i 6
o, , g_ _ _ ., ,,,
. . . . ' ' **.#/ ....g***
#- ~
. . eT*',4 ** #
l; 87 . ji r
,<r .-
~
t ,
~
[o 6 ./ .
~
\ ,E /
,. - ' .I
/ Y* . l I o V /
/
- I m n / .
l ; . s g l 1
\ / .** ' * * #
5- **
- F
- 1 I#
- e = ./
- g, . . p <
... /
l ,
..' \ ,# -
Z* ,/ y /
/l-
< / ' 4 - ,
' ~
/./
l. i . ) : River counties , 3 -
~
--- Ocean counties
' .* *.. Portiond creo counties intond counties -
= = = State total
~~
' * ' U.S. w hite
' s.
t I t i 1 i
! t t i i p !
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1935 1940- .1945 1950 1955 ' 1960 ~ i Year , Norc: Available leukemia mortality data for 1037 40 are shown in tables 1 and 2. g 4 ( t t 313 -l j Vol. 81, No. 4 April 1966 .
- t
- * . i I
a
-.,-,,.,--w---- .t-.,e-,4- -e. , , , , , . . , -..-, ,, - _ , , ,-w - ,
.-- -..--n .,v- , , . - - , , . . - ,
e i h,, i,ce.m e.nmt ;e., ha e al-o been acuerally low. l o.i in ihe most recent period (19.%-c3) : hey T r. ..d s in n.ortality rates for lenkrinia are were t he lowest. in the State, In Wa-hington lenkemia mortality rates in
-omew hat !c s clear eut th:o
- re: A Be m!
the river counties increased rapidly before W,0, , ancer beean-e of the small manhers of deaths In Oregon leukemia mortality hat they have act ually decreased since that time in some areas increased at ahont the national average in t he sch!!e rates in other Inris of the State'and in Porthmd area, slightly faster in river counties, the total United States were rising, Leukemia N"rta!ily rates in the Ocean Counties abo hnVO and eVen Id$ler in Ibe IHlahd ce lulIe. Nale3 for the ocean counties have fluctuated widely, increa-ed rapidly since 1934, but the increase Table 2. Numbers i of deaths from all forms of cancer and from leukemia in the United States, Oregon, aml Washin;.: ton, in various time periods
, i i i
! 1934-37 1935-42 ' 194:L-47' , 194S-52 '
10 *>3-57 ! 1955-G3
- .\rea ,
i Allfe .,3 of cancer i 1 Tuted United States ... 8 .. 527,Gul 733. 045 f 624. x19 l 909,037 l 1,102,279 f 81,200. 361 Ore m n . . . .....,.... .. ... ..l
- 1,22 ' i
- 5. h 15 l 5,650l 10,229 l 11, 641 ! 1 ~,, N32 SIS 44) i 1,314
- I DO t * *>21 i GN2 j 1:iver cou nt ies. . . . . . . . . . ... ....!
' 171 ' 4 754 ! 1,119 i 1,456 1,746 i 1 36%
Occ.ui c ou n t ies . . . . . . . . . . . . .....! 62,ING 4,295 ! 4,D94 5,495 7. SUN Po, tland counties. . . . . . .....l
- Gun i 4, 62.'
- 350
- 1, 7 h 4 ! 2,560 ! 2,901 I .., 4 i is i I nl.a.d cou n t ies. . . . . . . . . . ..... 5, 644 12,127 13. 6O 10,462 ! 19, lao ! 25, ,12 ,
W a -M a g t o n . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .... ST) '646 l S43 l 1,06s i 1,501 1 idr eount ies. . . . . ..... .... . 4l5 1,970 1,221 { 1,421 i 1,44s , ( V, .in emuttics. .. ..... 755 1.Os0 N57 2M 345 434 541 590 ' 1%ril.,nd counties. . . . ......... 11,357 (; 21,024 I nl:u ,d cou n ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,270 10,109 i 13.057 g 1G,024 l I i t I Leukemia I , j l 22, Os3 , 30,24Gj 51,03G j a3s,2co Total United States 8. . . . . . . .. 13,7t>6 ! 41,470l 8 7 ", e) !
' 170 i 354 i
- 484 i G4s Oro.:on... .... ...... .....
7 IG ! - Ml 54 74 1: w, c cou n t iev . . . . .. ... . .... (* > ! 30 l l'27 W l 7 30 44 i 40 121 ( kan counlics.. . . .. .. ......-
....! M 7 64 < lb9 234 l 250 ! 40s 1%c tland counties. . . . . !' 140 l 132 > 153 I 264 I,.!.el countico. . . .. ..! (*) bl 1,342
. .. . _. ....j
- Ss 3G5 573 745 { 941 Wn, .iuton. . . .
- G ,; 14 31 , 59 50 7 *>
1:n er counties. .. ....... .... .
*10' 32 39 50 52 , 99 Ocean counties.. .. .. . . .. . S> "5 32 31 45 Portland counties. . . .. ... ... *1' 1,123
'81 47S G04 SO2 bdand counties. . ......... 311 l i Numbers wh;ch were reported. Before the rates were calculated for table 1, comparability ratios were apphed to adjust for dit!crences in cause-of. death assigmnents between the 4th, 5th, and GLh revisions of the International Clawfic.. tion of Diseases.
2 White population only. 2 Data for 1b58-62.
- Data for 1915 only.
- Data for 1939-42.
6 Data not available by county. 7 Data for 1940--42.
- Total includes one with county of residence unknown.
- Data for 1935 and 1937 only. Leukemia dentrs not avadable by county for 1934 and 103G.
Sorncss: 0:egon leukemia, deaths by county for 1940-57 and der.ths due to all forms of cancer by county for 1941-44 were obti.acd from the State Registrar, Oregon State Boc.rd of IIcalth, Portland. Washington leakemia deaths by county for 1935 and 1937-57 and deaths due to all forma of cancer for 1934,193G-38, and 1941-44 were obtained from the State llegistrar Washington State Board of Health, Olympia. The remainder of the data were obtained from annual volumes of kital Statistics of the United States. Public IIcahh Reports 314
)
a
. \
u l
' Figure :2. Countic, in Oregon ami Washing.
- he been no greater than that of the State as a !
ss b..h . ton, by geographic category .) No 3ignificant, trends were oh erved in indi- lI vidual counties in eit her Wasilington or } \ j Q' u ( ( )regon. 4 - J'- Hanto,d b i 4 [ #l wor'a s 4 [ Su m m ary M?po ! c,g,,3,,h liceau.c of recent concern over possble con- R.ver [unination of the Cohunbia niverby radioactive - f 7 products froin the 11anford (Washington) {L.. , a Chs. M--Q-I[ t q[i ..j'fh.h> Table 3. Countie6 in Oregon and Wa.hing-ton, by geographic category Q:M% . t a s Portland r ! i Total [ ; Total , . l jcoun.o Arca Area - l coun. , f ; t! tics , l tien { I l ORfbON I Oregon. . . . . . 30 Washington.. 30 / L-- t llin t .. . . . . . . . . . . 8 1:iser. . . . . . . . . . . . 7 __ i 1 ; Cla t. op II"h10H i Cohunbla i" Cownts ; Gdliam Fra nkUn , j OPortland CR.ver Docaa ia:aad ' llowl Hiver ' Klickitat I f 3!orrow p bkanuu.ia i l
. su,.rman q w,ahkiakum i Aton.ic Storage Preserve, an independent s:ndy :
i, na w ana wana g ! was undertaken to determine cancer trends in !
; Oua n . . . . . . . . . . . - 7 Washington and Oregon from 1001 to 1003. ,
0 (a-------- $Ihrbor I*l"'"I For the an:dysis, the counties within the two j Curry (, JeiTeraoa States were divided into four categories: river, . d3lly"* I ! ocean. Metroixditan Portland, and inland. 1.incolu q' QlacificQ^l} ! Results of the study revealed that in both
"""*^ ! States mortality rates for all forras of cancer i
.vercopolitan d3I'//*7,'lf~*"" 3 combined have been consistently below the mor- l
! cl kI s"-- h Clark i tality rate for the U.S. white population. Both States have had a consistent, excess in }cukenua j 3I."I".tomah h 24 j w aslungton l f. /nla nd. . . . . . . Adas,ns .. !.inortality,
. but the excess was present before the ;
l
/nlund..........
Ilaker 10 h$ lj Columbia Hanford Preserve began operation. No im-portant, mortality t rends were observed in indi-l { h Vidual counties in either State. f lbchutes [ Garfield . No evidence was found that, persons living i Grant ut downstream from the Hanford Preserve or -! ek ot along the Pacific Coubt of Oregon have had an Jc!! creon I [hPy excess risk of death from cancer in general or Lewis j. Josephine Lincoln Klauwth 3fason
- from leukeinia in particular.
.1.ake . Okanogan +
i Linn ' REFERENCES
- Aialheur l Pcud Orcille
~
C
, [ gig (1) l$uleley. R. C.: Oregon malignnney pottern physi- ,
0" i i p i Snohomish , ographien!!y related to Ilanford Washingtnu ! radioisotope storage. J I:nviron IIealth _27: *
- pngon Wauowa l [ano #Y' M"T ""' IE i Th r[ ton * . -
(2) Levin. 3L L., et nL: Cancer incidence tu urinui t Wheeler ! Whitman ; Yamhill ! Yakima and rural areas of New York State. J Nat
! Cancer Inst 24 : 1243-1257, June 1000. 2 k
; Vol. 81, No. 4, April 1966 ,
315 ' t i, I k i f
,u -
he the l'alled .mitw 1!W).INO. U.S. Govern. W) llaenarel W., Ma rcaw, 8. U.. a nd/ '.inuncrer. It G. suent l'rinting Omec, Wnshington,17.C., IW7. (*ancer m..rbiilit y in urb..n und rut.1 lowa. I'll. sl'uMeation No. 400 t l'$ie 11ralth 3!.ng. (C) 81.wrima n, 3!.
- Int rtwiuction to demography.
The Society of Actuarlen. Chicago.105*.
.:ra ph No. :17 ). U.S. Governnient 1*rinting umce, Wa 1.ington. ILC. 1956. ,
(7) Gordon. T., Crittenden. M.. and llacuact. W.: Cuncer mortality trends in' the United Stated. ij) 11111. A. II. : l'rinell. led of anolital stati ths. Ihl. 7. Giford tir.sveralty l'rcu, London.1901. ' Nat Cancer In=t 31onogr G. U.S. Governmer.t l'rluting Omcc, Wahldugton, D.C.1001. G) !.imler, P., and Grove, It.1).: Yunl >tatistics rates Tal>!c 4. Lrtality rates per 100,000 population aml numbers of deaths for all forms of cancer by county,in v.trious time periods, Ore;;on i l
,11aten ! . Numbura l .
County 1945- 1953- 1058- 1935 103 % 1043- 104S- 1053- 1955-1935 1939- 1943- 52 57 63 47 52 57 03 42 47 42 .. River: 137,8 151.0 141.3 *26 125 163 225 269 315 Cla t op. . . . . . 130.5 132.9 111 0 150 230 101.0 129.I 117.5 142.S 20 SS 110 15G ' Colu mbia... . . . 119.8 112/3 17 15 2G
- 60. 3 89. I 113. I 118. I 102. I 144.G 2 10 1G G ilham . . . . . . . . . 129.7 139.2 9 45 SS 5" 02 131 11ood Iliver... .. 101 6 111 5 99. S 6& S 39 149.0 121 8 11R 4 ,3 20 31 37 32 M or row . . . . . . . . 124.3 113.8 133.1 15 10 19 127.8 121.3 2 S S S L. rm an. .. . . . . . Si G 77. O G4.S 121 3 291 384 127. 5 127.G 12G 3 24 143 109 255 F m at illa. . . . . . . . 100.0 108. I 11 G. 9 07 115 127 170 143.7 123.G 129.3 12G 5 12G.7 12 70 h co .... .... 101.2 >
l Ocean: 133.S 147.5 j 121.0 32 1G2 200 25G 325 364 Cow . . . . . . . . . . 130.6 139. G 119.5 46 43 62 87.2 13R G 01 4 S7.1 5 14 24 Cu rr y . . . . . . . . . . 143.3 St. 0 270 334 431 97.S 110. 0 117.8 125. 8 l1 110. 2 31 117 209 t hmias . . . . . . . 121.S 123.5 70 32S 4S5 GG5 776 1,122 1.a nc . . . . . . . . . . 142. 0 121 2 111.G 120. 2 l 124. s 155 228
,103.7 112.0 121. 0 12 GG 10S 124 1.incoln .. . . . . . . . 10G 7 '112. 5 112.G 129. S 111.0 120.5 1 131.8 14 67 03 05' 113 161 T4 thmook. . . . . . 143.0 143.2 Pordand: 121 4 120.5 131.S 67 274 465 557 G42 005 CLc k am as .. . . . . 127.4 108. 5 121.3 140. 7 140.2 143.I 147.S 403 .2, 302 ,3, 549 4,047 4,3G7 5.006 E.h noma h. . . . . 147. I 144. 1 121.5 123.4 117.4 4G 210 284 390 4SG G57 h hington. . . . . 128 1 121 3 10G. 0 InL,nd:
k 12141 107,5 21 94 119 113 126 13S 11.. L e r . . . . . . . . . 131.3 127.4 12S. 5 120.G 225 91 2 101.0 115. G 20 92 118 120 ' 150 Iten t on. . . . . . . . . 125. 2 121. 9 107.G 56 57 140. I 100. 6 4 1S 38 2S-Croo k . . . . . . . . . . 111 9 101 6 141 0 - SS 3 113 12S 195 129.G 117.4 111. 8 121 6 13 72 110 Desc hutes . . . . . . los. 9 -121. 0 30 48 43 G1 12i 4 91.7 134.2 111 7 125. S 9 30 G ra nt . . . . . . . . . 167.5 124.G 128, 1 2 14 31 29 37 49 IIarney.... .... 4R 3 73. S 121. G 105.6 501 G30 133.0 120.4 3G 211 313 379 Jnckson........ 101.8 127.8 120.3 119.S 19 21 3G 121.1 44.2 105.3 Di G 111 8 1 0 G J & r. on .. .. . . . 59. I 113.4 138.7 25 54 12S 187 192 <320 J ceptine._ . . . . . 15& 7 104.5 10n.3 127. 9 184 210 336 118.8 12G 3 113.0 11& 9,l 1314 21 125 185 1{ 1.. math. . . . . . OS. 3 25 33
- 42 59
- 07. I 91.3 111 7 131.1 : 141. 3 2 20 Lake........... 46.3 36 173 23G 296 330 431
Li nn' . . . . . . . . . . 127. I 131 0 117.5 123.4 1211 l 110. 7 109 132 IS7 131. S 10 47 84 M all. cur. .. . . . . . 94.4 Si G 103.7 115.7 124. 2 503 G56 780 1,131. 131.5 122.4 11& G 110.3 12G.0 79 433 Nr.rion......... 113.S 113.3 17 95 134 138 152 205 101.G 121 1 121 0 111.8 110.S 1%1k........... 78 120 140 148 157 Unio n. . . . . . . . . . 112.G 114.5 127.9 131 5 13E G 115.6 17 44 65 115.2 135.1 6 37 37 43 ' Wauow a... . . . . . 97. 3 132.2 1G4.3 11S.7 16 to 10 18 150.S 121 0 2 10 W heeler........ 89. 7 100.I 120.7 147.5 20 143 237 247 2SS 322 110.3 IIS. 0 141.I 131 S 143.5 124.8 Ya mhill. . . . . . . . Satmcr.s: Oregon deaths due to all forms of cancer for the years 1941-44 by county were obtained from the State Registrar,l Statistics of the United States. Oregon State Board of IIcalth, Portland. T volumes of Vita Public Health Reports 316 :v i . t . t 6
e t
* (0) Fannt, M. M., amt Indman. .\. R. Compara141ity (8) Ibu.n !!. l n nd .%aeldey, W,
- C.,mpirlann of rettion bawd on mtartality *:ati*tica for the fifth can-e of deat h n -itunienta by the 1920 nud 12 reviabin of the interm tional li=t: death
- und whth revi* loss. United States P50.
Vital Statistien--Special Reports .*,1, February ; in the United 8 tater.. ING. Vital Stati= tic- 1064.16 3, 8p'elal llepirta 19. June 1044,16 14. 1 i f Table 5. Mortality rates iner 100,000 population and nurnber6 of deaths for all forms of ' cancer by county,in various tijne periods, Washington Numbers Rates 1 i , County 1949- 1953- 195S- 1034- 1938 1943- 1948- 1953- 1054- i, 1934- 1933- 104'l- 42 47 52 57 03 , 47 52 57 03 37 37 42 f
' I --f .
I t i Rh < r. 34 G7 G7 ! 153 20S 328 101.7 113.4 12G.4 lienum . . . . . . . 79.2 11a O G3. 7
.140. 0 ' 131 175 197 l 274 32G 4sG 137. 0 110.3 109. 2 127.7 129. J 9G 129 Cow h t f. . . . . . . . . . 14 !. G 125.5 21 30 51 s 71 100. 4 101.5 128.9 141 5 89 110 i Fra:Mn... . . . . 95.I 123. 0 1h 1 127.0 3G SG 54 i 75 K hekitat.. . . . . .i 99. 9 10G.3 Ni 2 101 4 1ha 7 07, 1 15 21 20 ' 27 2S 34 44 i
skamania.. .. . ' 114. 2 101.8 103, 0 12 21 10 13 20 lis. 8 94. 5 00. 4 91.I 370 W;.i.k iak um . . . . . 93. 3 223 240 230 301 l 14a 5 129.3 108. 0 125.2 12a 4 1GG W.W. Walla. . . . 150.2 I h Ocean:
'{ SD 112 11S 140 152 j OG5 I 121.I 10s 4 118.7 ' 104.0 134.G chm am . . . . . . . . 130. 0 139. 1 151.9 229 34G I 44S 444[ 02I l Grays Ifgrbor... 133,0 141.3 IX 5 150.7 375l 04 X3 124 161.3 117,2 124. 1 37 48 ;
131.3 111 8 97.4 47 49 60 l 58 86 7G 1 A nd.-....... 13& 7 111 3 129,5 114. G i 159. G 110.9 41 14G 135 ? Jc:Ter3on.... . . . 1212 l 14u 3 107.7 61 S4 117 1 116 ! l'acine . . . . . . . . 117.3 109.7 13a S 21 20 25 29 35 91 2 113.0 120.2 111.0 17 714 f 8w Juan... ... IIS. 5 104.G 133.5 119.4 131.G 281 422 452 531 SOS Whateorn.. ... J 11S. 3 125.9 131.7 \ I 345 434 541 500 657 i, 134.1 134.0 12s.I 137.5 204 Portland: Clark... 121 0 130.4 40 ! IrJand: 31 35 2S 47 10s.5 111.4 11 *,. S Si 7 121 3 96.5 23 91 129 l
.\ da m s . . . . . . . . . 53 73 81 119, 4 121 0 114.1 114.3 121, 0 32 37G
. bot in . .. . . . . . . 100.I 124.2 133,4 125 ISS 179 240 2G7 l lui 5 ' 12E 4 104.4 123.4 32 49 38 41 ,
Cheta n . . . . . . . . 159.G 119. 0 104.2 34 25 --- - Cohnnbin... . . . . 100.2 St. S 101 0 4G 39 45 53 N3
- 89. S 04. 0 91 6 1031. 0 21 Ibuglas.. . ... 77.3 117.0 25 2G 25 27 25 }
81 4 114.G 121.7 110.5 134. 5 los G 12 25 24 35 : Ferry...... .. 124. 0 150.7 9 IS 25 U arheld. . , . 1 71 0 101.73 13S.3 131.'3 40 79 122 177 i 103.4 111.1 103. 0 24 52 j 110.O G5. 0 S,833 14S.7 2,02G 3,007 4.G77 ,5,809 '6, TS4 G rant. . . . . . . . . . ! NG. G Kinn ... . . . . . .! 1G4. I 14& 5 ; 142.3 140.S i 153.G 144 0 ; 131 2 129.4 20S 31~ 392 511 { 548 714 : Kivap. . . . . . . . l 145. G 143.0 137.8 94 1 01 130! 141 ! 13G 196 ! 117.0 127.7 124.9 ~ 117. 2 .137. 4 398 449 - Kit titas.. . . . .! 154. 0 129. 0 144.4 140.3 010 305 205 33S j I.ewis...... . ~ 144.0 144. G l 1214 120,7 135. 0 100.3 110.2 12E 5 5G 73 SO G2 75 102 - 1.incoln... . . . 133.0 154.S 12S. 4 97. 1 ILE 5 l 133. 3 52 81 S1 72 132 151 E son........, 150.7 52 105 127 140 151 22G 121 8 104.0 117.7 117.0 111.4 1 131.3 Gs 57 i Okanogan..... 167. 0 ' 112.4 32 45 40 41 127.3 1b7.7 104.9 2,507 1%nd Orcille. . . . 130.2 134.8 130. 9 , 140. 4 142.8 90G 1, 307 1, 5M 1,7G0 2,00G l Pwrec.......... 14G.I 141 6 171 208 303 203 328 415 j 118.3 140.1 '12R 4 100. 6 i 111 9 11L 3 850 1,038 1,457
- N a : tit. . . . . . . . . 134. O i 133. 2 14R 0 455 G10 70S snohomish. . . . . . 141 5 12R 0 127.0 955 - 1,271 1,3GS 1,055 1,000 2, 506 137.3 121 3 131. 3 l 135,2 131 G 15A Spokanc........ 151.G OG 144 130 1 143.4 128.1 03. 7 13G. 5 1 120. 0 12a 5 .101 2 27 318 372 533 141 231 2S2 Mcvens.... . . . .
Thurston, . . . . . . 114.S 12G.2 134. 0 133.5 137.3 14G.5 171 105 227 161 /177 IG7 136. 7 121 0 118.3 131.0 123.6 1,235 Whitman. . . . . . . 170.2 124.8 130. 0 133.8 380 , 560. 028 771 044 Yakima. . . . . . . . 13G S 131.2 120.5 Sorncas: Washington deaths due to all forms of canen for the years 1934,1036-33, The remai'.9r and 1041-41 of the h county were obtained from the State Registrar, Washington State Board of !!calth, Olympia. data were obtained from respective volumes of V. ital Statist.ics of the United. S.. tat.es.. 317 Vol. 81, No. 4, April 1966 4
* .w
*}}