Radioactive Effluents 

from Nuclear Power Plants

Annual Report 2009

Final Report

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NUREG/CR-2907, Vol. 15
NRC Reference Material 

As of November 1999, you may electronically access 

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at 

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at 

http://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. 

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office Mail Stop SSOP 

Washington, DC 20402–0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250 

2. The National Technical Information Service 

Springfield, VA 22161–0002

www.ntis.gov

1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000 

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is 

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written 

request as follows:

Address: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Office of Administration 

Publications Branch

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION.RESOURCE@NRC.GOV

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address 

http://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 Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, 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 

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated 

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including 

technical specifications; or orders, not in NUREGseries publications. The views expressed in 

contractor-prepared publications in this series are 

not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and 

administrative 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.
p 

Radioactive Effluents from 

Nuclear Power Plants

Annual Report 2009

Final Report

Manuscript Completed: May 2013

Date Published: August 2013

Prepared by

R. Conatser1

N. Daugherty2

1U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

2Oak Ridge Associated Universities

100 ORAU Way

Oak Ridge, TN 37830

R. Conatser, NRC Project Manager

Prepared for

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

NUREG/CR-2907, Vol. 15

2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 iii

Abstract

There are 104 commercial nuclear power plants on 65 sites in the United States. Each year, 

each power reactor sends a report to the NRC that identifies the radioactive liquid and gaseous 

effluents discharged from the facility. In 2009, 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 it 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 

nuclear power plant in the United States in 2009. The 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 3-year trends and long-term 34-year trends.

Reference information is included so the reader can compare the doses from nuclear power 

plant 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 NPPs released some radioactive materials in 2009, all effluents were within the 

NRC safety limits, NRC design objectives, and the licensees’ system operating limits for 

radioactive effluents. Additionally, 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 2009 had no significant impact on the health and 

safety of the public or the environment.
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

iv NUREG/CR-2907

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement

This NUREG contains and references information collection requirements that are subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0014 and 3150-0011.

Public Protection Notification

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for 

information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a 

currently valid OMB control number.
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 v

Table of Contents

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................iii

Table of Contents..................................................................................................................... v

List of Figures .........................................................................................................................vii

List of Tables............................................................................................................................ix

Abbreviations...........................................................................................................................xi

1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Scope....................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Source of Data ......................................................................................................... 1-6

1.4 Limitations of the Data.............................................................................................. 1-7

2 Description of the Data ................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Measuring Activity in Radioactive Effluents .............................................................. 2-2

2.3 Dose Units and Limits............................................................................................... 2-4

2.4 Radiation Dose to the Public .................................................................................... 2-4

2.5 Other Sources of Radiation Dose to the U.S. Population.......................................... 2-5

3 Effluent Data.................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents ............................................ 3-1

3.2 Three-Year Trends in Gaseous Effluents................................................................ 3-36

3.3 Long-Term Trend in Gaseous Effluents.................................................................. 3-43

3.4 Three-Year Trends in Liquid Effluents .................................................................... 3-44

3.5 Long-Term Trend in Liquid Effluents....................................................................... 3-51

3.6 Radiation Doses from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents .............................................. 3-53

4 Summary.......................................................................................................................... 4-1

5 References....................................................................................................................... 5-1

6 Glossary........................................................................................................................... 6-1

2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 vii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Sources of Radiation Exposure to the U.S. Population .................................... 2-7

Figure 3.1 BWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Gases.............. 3-18

Figure 3.2 BWR Gaseous Releases — Iodine ................................................................ 3-19

Figure 3.3 BWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Particulates......................................... 3-20

Figure 3.4 BWR Gaseous Releases — Tritium ............................................................... 3-21

Figure 3.5 PWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Gases.............. 3-22

Figure 3.6 PWR Gaseous Releases — Iodine ................................................................ 3-24

Figure 3.7 PWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Particulates......................................... 3-26

Figure 3.8 PWR Gaseous Releases — Tritium ............................................................... 3-28

Figure 3.9 BWR Liquid Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Products............... 3-30

Figure 3.10 BWR Liquid Releases — Tritium.................................................................... 3-31

Figure 3.11 PWR Liquid Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Products............... 3-32

Figure 3.12 PWR Liquid Releases — Tritium.................................................................... 3-34

Figure 3.13 Gaseous Effluent Activity from BWRs 3-Year Trend of Industry Quartiles, 

2007-2009...................................................................................................... 3-42

Figure 3.14 Gaseous Effluent Activity from PWRs 3-Year Trend of Industry Quartiles, 

2007-2009...................................................................................................... 3-42

Figure 3.15 Long-term Trend in Gaseous Effluents Noble Gases ..................................... 3-43

Figure 3.16 Liquid Effluent Activity from BWRs 3-Year Trend of Industry Quartiles, 

2007-2009...................................................................................................... 3-50

Figure 3.17 Liquid Effluent Activity from PWRs 3-Year Trend of Industry Quartiles, 

2007-2009...................................................................................................... 3-50

Figure 3.18 Long-term Trend in Liquid Effluents Mixed Fission and Activation Products... 3-51

Figure 3.19 BWR Gaseous Effluents — Maximum Annual Organ Dose............................ 3-60

Figure 3.20 PWR Gaseous Effluents — Maximum Annual Organ Dose............................ 3-61

Figure 3.21 BWR Liquid Effluents — Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose........ 3-63

Figure 3.22 PWR Liquid Effluents — Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose........ 3-64

Figure 3.23 Median Maximum Annual Organ Dose, Gaseous Effluents 3-Year Trend, 

2007-2009...................................................................................................... 3-66

Figure 3.24 Median Maximum Annual Dose, Liquid Effluents 3-Year Trend, 2007-2009... 3-66

2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 ix

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Nuclear Power Plants, 2009............................................................................. 1-2

Table 1.2 Reactors for Which the NRC Has Normalized Data on a Unit-Specific Basis ... 1-8

Table 2.1 Radionuclides in Gaseous Effluents................................................................. 2-2

Table 2.2 Radionuclides in Liquid Effluents ..................................................................... 2-3

Table 3.1 BWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Gases, 2009...... 3-2

Table 3.2 BWR Gaseous Releases — Iodine, 2009 ........................................................ 3-3

Table 3.3 BWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Particulates, 2009................................. 3-4

Table 3.4 BWR Gaseous Releases — Tritium, 2009 ....................................................... 3-6

Table 3.5 PWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Gases, 2009...... 3-7

Table 3.6 PWR Gaseous Releases — Iodine, 2009 ........................................................ 3-9

Table 3.7 PWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Particulates, 2009............................... 3-10

Table 3.8 PWR Gaseous Releases — Tritium, 2009 ..................................................... 3-12

Table 3.9 BWR Liquid Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Products, 2009..... 3-13

Table 3.10 BWR Liquid Releases — Tritium, 2009.......................................................... 3-14

Table 3.11 PWR Liquid Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Products, 2009..... 3-15

Table 3.12 PWR Liquid Releases — Tritium, 2009.......................................................... 3-17

Table 3.13 Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents, BWRs 3-Year Trend, Quartile Rankings. 3-39

Table 3.14 Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents, PWRs 3-Year Trend, Quartile Rankings. 3-40

Table 3.15 Mixed Fission and Activation Products In Liquid Effluents, BWRs 3-Year 

Trend, Quartile Rankings ............................................................................... 3-47

Table 3.16 Mixed Fission and Activation Products In Liquid Effluents, PWRs 3-Year 

Trend, Quartile Rankings ............................................................................... 3-48

Table 3.17 BWR Gaseous Effluents — Maximum Annual Organ Dose, 2009.................. 3-56

Table 3.18 PWR Gaseous Effluents — Maximum Annual Organ Dose, 2009.................. 3-57

Table 3.19 BWR Liquid Effluents — Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ 

Dose, 2009 .................................................................................................... 3-58

Table 3.20 PWR Liquid Effluents — Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ 

Dose, 2009 .................................................................................................... 3-59

2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 xi

Abbreviations

ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable

ARERR Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report

Bq becquerel

BWR boiling water reactor

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

Ci curie

GBq gigabecquerels

mCi millicurie

MFAP mixed fission and activation products

mrem millirem

mSv millisievert

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

NPP nuclear power plant

NUREG A nuclear regulatory document prepared by or for the NRC, which includes 

reports or brochures on regulatory decisions, results of research, results of 

incident investigations, and other technical and administrative information

(See Glossary)

ODCM Offsite Dose Calculation Manual

PWR pressurized water reactor

RG Regulatory Guide 

SI International System of Units (abbreviation is from the French: Le Système 

International d’Unités)

Sv sievert

USGS United States Geological Survey

(U.S.) NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 1-1

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose

This report describes radioactive effluents from commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs) in the 

United States during calendar year 2009. 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 (http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation.html). 

For the years between 1972 and 1993, this type of annual information was condensed in a 

tabular format and published as a large volume of raw information (Refs. 1-22). 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 report was created. This report joins a series of previous reports on radioactive 

effluents presented in the new graphical format (Refs. 24, 25).

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, 2009

and December 31, 2009. The list of NPPs included in this report is provided in Table 1.1. The 

NPP type—boiling water reactor (BWR) or pressurized water reactor (PWR)—is indicated in the 

table.

Some of the shutdown reactors were totally dismantled during the decommissioning process. 

As a result, for some shutdown reactors, no visible structures or facilities may be present at the 

locations listed in Table 1.1.
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

1-2 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 1.1

Nuclear Power Plants, 2009

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
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 1-3

Table 1.1 (continued)

Nuclear Power Plants, 2009

Plant Name Type Full Plant Name Location

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 1 Ontario, 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

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
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

1-4 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 1.1 (continued)

Nuclear Power Plants, 2009

Plant Name Type Full Plant Name Location

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
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 1-5

Table 1.1 (continued)

Nuclear Power Plants, 2009

Plant Name Type Full Plant Name Location

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

Waterford 3 PWR Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 

3

Killona, LA

Watts Bar 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

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
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

1-6 NUREG/CR-2907

This report contains information about all routine and abnormal releases from these facilities. 

Since 2006, there has been increased interest in radionuclides entering the groundwater due to 

spills and leaks at nuclear power plants. A spill or a leak is considered an abnormal release, 

and that information is included in this report. 

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 

effluents as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). For this summary report, only 

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 nonradioactive waste is not included in this report.

Some reactors are no longer operating. For the 2009 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 1, and Zion 2 

reactor sites are shutdown and are not collocated with an operating reactor. The data from 

these shutdown reactors are not included in this report. The Millstone 1 and Three Mile Island 2 

reactors are shutdown 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. For the 

Dresden 1, Indian Point 1, and San Onofre 1 reactor sites, which are shutdown 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.

The historical data from all reactors, including the reactors that are no longer operating, are 

included in Figures 3.15 and 3.18, which depict long-term trends 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 Title10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Part 50.36 and 10 CFR 50, Appendix I, Section IV.B) and to report these effluents in an 

Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report (per 10 CFR 50.36a) (Ref. 26). In accordance with 

the regulatory framework, licensees submit their reports to the NRC in a format outlined by

Regulatory Guide 1.21 (Ref. 27), or an equivalent format.

The information included in this document was obtained from the licensees’ ARERRs. 

Individual 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 
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 1-7

or 301-415-4737 and directly from the NRC’s public Web site at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-info.html. 

The data from these reports are 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 are entered into the database as they are reported by each site.

1.4 Limitations of the 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 reflected in this report as reported by the 

licensee. Because some licensees are allowed to operate multi-unit sites with a common 

radioactive waste processing system, the NRC allows these licensees to 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 presentation in this report, the data are normalized 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 in operation during that year. For example, Calvert Cliffs 

has two units (1 and 2) with a common radioactive waste processing system. For this report, 

the total effluents for Calvert Cliffs were split equally between Unit 1 and Unit 2. For other multiunit sites, the effluent activity is not divided equally between the units. For example, in the case 

of Beaver Valley, the licensee reports gaseous effluents from 4 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 normalizing effluent data (e.g., on the basis of thermal or 

electrical power generation), the unit-based method selected for this report (1) is most intuitive, 

(2) is most directly comparable with the NRC required design objectives, and (3) is easily 

derived from the effluent data supplied by the licensee. This approach satisfies a primary 

objective for this report: to allow the reader to quickly formulate reasonable comparisons 

between reactors and with 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.
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

1-8 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 1.2

Reactors for Which the NRC Has Normalized Data on a Unit-Specific Basis

Boiling Water 

Reactors (BWRs)

Pressurized Water 

Reactors (PWRs)

Browns Ferry 

1, 2, 3 (R, D)

Beaver Valley 

1, 2 (R)

Brunswick 

1, 2 (R, D)

Calvert Cliffs 

1, 2 (R, D)

Dresden 

1, 2, 3 (R)

Catawba 

1, 2 (R, D)

LaSalle 

1, 2 (R, D)

Comanche Peak 

1, 2 (R, D)

Limerick 

1, 2 (R, D)

Cook

1, 2 (R, D)

Nine Mile Point 

1, 2 (D)

Diablo Canyon 

1, 2 (R, D)

Peach Bottom

2, 3 (R, D)

Indian Point 

1, 2 (R, D)

Quad Cities 

1, 2 (R, D)

McGuire 

1, 2 (R, D)

Susquehanna 

1, 2 (R)

North Anna 

1, 2 (R, D)

Oconee 

1, 2, 3 (R, D)

Point Beach 

1, 2 (R, D)

Prairie Island 

1, 2 (R, D)

San Onofre 

1, 2, 3 (R, D)

Sequoyah 

1, 2 (R, D)

Surry 

1, 2 (R, D)

Notes: 

R = Radionuclide Data, D = Dose Data

Care has been taken to assure the information contained in this report accurately reflects the 

information provided by the licensees. The report may include licensees’ corrections submitted 

to the NRC up to the time of publication. If a licensee submits amended data in accordance 
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 1-9

with NRC regulatory guidance, the NRC reserves the right to update the data in future reports. 

For the most current data, the reader should use the NPPs’ ARERRs and this NUREG, all of 

which are available on the NRC Web site.

2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 2-1

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. 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 activity and radiation dose.

Radiation dose will simply be referred to in this document as dose.

Activity is a term used to describe how often a substance emits radiation. The activity of any 

given radionuclide increases in direct proportion to the amount of the radionuclide present. This 

report lists the amounts of various radionuclides present in radioactive effluents. For this report, 

activity can be thought of as the amount of radioactive material present in radioactive effluents. 

The units for measuring activity are described in more detail in Section 2.2. The actual activities 

of various radionuclides in radioactive effluents from NPPs are presented in Sections 3.1 

through 3.5.

Although radionuclide activity is an important, inherent characteristic that helps to describe 

radioactive effluents, it is not—by itself—a good indicator of the potential health effects from 

exposure to 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 measure that accounts for all of these differences is 

needed.

Dose is a measure of how much radiation energy is absorbed by organs or tissues of the body. 

Dose is a good indicator of the potential health effects from exposure to radiation. The units for 

measuring dose are described in more detail in Section 2.3. The dose from radioactive effluents 

is discussed in Section 2.4. The actual doses due to radioactive effluents from NPPs are 

presented in Section 3.6.

Radiation is around us all of the time. The human body—each of us—contains some natural 

radioactive materials such as radioactive carbon and radioactive potassium. Natural radioactive 

materials are 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 
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

2-2 NUREG/CR-2907

received by the average member of the U.S. population each year from all sources of radiation,

including commercial NPPs.

2.2 Measuring Activity in Radioactive Effluents

Activity is reported in various units. In the United States, the traditional unit for reporting activity 

is the curie (Ci). One curie is equal to 37,000,000,000 (37 billion) radioactive atoms decaying 

(disintegrating) 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 decay (or disintegration) 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.

Activity is the number of atoms that decay in a given period of time. One curie of cobalt-60 and 

one curie of hydrogen-3 have the same activity; however, when an atom of cobalt-60 decays, 

the atomic transformations that occur typically produce one moderately energetic beta particle 

and two highly energetic gamma rays. By contrast, when an atom of hydrogen-3 decays, it 

emits a single, low-energy beta particle. Sensitive instruments can detect and measure the 

decay products, which 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.

Table 2.1

Radionuclides in Gaseous Effluents

Gaseous Effluent 

Category

Some Common Radionuclides in 

this Category

Radionuclides Included

in this Report

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/Halogens Iodine (131, 132, 133, 134, 

135)

Bromine (82)

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

Gross Alpha Total alpha activity from all 

alpha emitters

Not Presented in this Report
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 2-3

Radioactive waste contains at least one radionuclide. The radionuclides in liquid and gaseous 

wastes are sometimes grouped into categories (Ref. 27). Each category contains one or more 

radionuclides. These categories are described in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.

In order to present the liquid and airborne (gaseous) effluent data in a manner that is both useful 

and concise, only selected radionuclides are included in some of the tables and figures in this 

report. The radionuclides chosen for inclusion in this report are shown in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.

The radionuclides highlighted in this report are good indicators of total radioactive releases from 

the site, and they can provide additional information about operational practices at the site. For 

example, although Table 2.1 lists 11 radionuclides in the category called “fission and activation 

gases,” only 3 radionuclides (Kr-85, Xe-133, and Xe-135) were selected for inclusion in section 

3.1 of this report. These 3 were chosen because as their activities increase, the activities of 

other fission and activation gases typically increase as well. Conversely, if the activities of these 

3 radionuclides are very low, the activities of other fission and activation gases tend to be low 

also. All noble gas radionuclides are included in sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.6 of this report.

Table 2.2

Radionuclides in Liquid Effluents

Liquid Effluent 

Category

Some Common Radionuclides in 

this Category

Radionuclides Included

in this Report

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
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

2-4 NUREG/CR-2907

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 selected radionuclides 

can provide insights into fuel integrity, radioactive waste system operation, and general 

radioactive waste handling practices at a site. The interested reader wanting to see the 

activities of all radionuclides released from NPPs is encouraged to review the detailed, sitespecific ARERRs on the NRC Web site.

Laboratory instruments can identify which radionuclides are present in radioactive effluents. 

They 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 disintegrations, it does not provide a direct 

measure of the health effects from exposure to radionuclides. When discussing health effects 

or 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 from NPPs are controlled by regulations. NRC regulations (10 CFR 

20.1301) specify that the dose to any member of the public from all liquid and gaseous effluents 

discharged in a year shall be limited to 100 mrem (1 millisievert) (Ref. 28). Typically, the dose 

from radioactive effluents is so low (usually less than 1 mrem in a year) that the dose cannot be 

measured directly. As a result, doses are typically calculated based on the activities of the 

radionuclides contained in radioactive effluents.

2.4 Radiation Dose to the Public

Each licensee calculates the dose from radioactive effluents to ensure compliance with the

requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix I (Ref. 26). The dose calculations are based on the 

measurements and models listed below.

• actual measurements of the radioactive materials released to the environment, 

• models of how radionuclides are dispersed and diluted in the environment, 

• models of how radionuclides are incorporated into animals, plants, and soil, and

• biokinetic models of human uptake and metabolism of radioactive materials. 
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 2-5

The models are designed to calculate the dose to a real (or hypothetical) individual closest to 

the NPP or to an individual who may be exposed to the highest concentrations of radioactive 

materials from radioactive effluents. This person is often referred to as the maximum exposed 

individual. The parameters and assumptions used in these dose calculations typically include 

conservative assumptions that tend to overestimate the calculated exposures. As a result, the 

actual doses received by real individuals are often much less than those calculated. Guidance 

for these calculations is provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 (RG 1.109), and licensees 

have incorporated this guidance into their Offsite Dose Calculation Manuals (ODCM) (Ref. 28). 

ODCMs are available through the NRC Public Document Room. The interested reader may 

refer to these documents for additional information about dose calculations performed at each 

reactor site. 

Once the doses are calculated, they are compared with the system operating limits for the NPP. 

Licensees have established operating limits for plant systems to control the amounts of 

radioactive materials released from NPPs. The NRC requires these system operating limits to 

be established in accordance with the design objectives in 10 CFR 50, Appendix I (Ref. 26). 

These system operating limits are designed to ensure radioactive effluents from NPPs are kept 

ALARA. It should be understood that system operating limits are design objectives for plant 

systems, not safety limits. If a system operating limit is exceeded, the licensee is required to 

take corrective actions to ensure the plant systems are functioning as designed. Maintaining 

the design functions of plant systems is critical to ensure radioactive releases do not exceed the 

dose limits in 10 CFR 20, which are federal safety limits (Ref. 28). For purposes of comparison, 

the system operating limits are set to a small fraction (typically about 3%) of the federal safety 

limits. Licensees have incorporated several different system operating limits into their ODCMs,

as required by their Technical Specifications, to satisfy NRC regulatory requirements. The 

system operating limits have been included in the applicable tables and figures in this report.

Annual organ doses and annual total body doses are included in this report, but other doses are 

also calculated by each facility. If you wish to see all the doses calculated by a licensee, they 

are in the NPPs ARERRs, available on the NRC Web site.

2.5 Other Sources of Radiation Dose to the U.S. Population

Doses from NPP 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.
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

2-6 NUREG/CR-2907

In March 2009, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) 

published Report No. 160 as an update to the 1987 NCRP Report No. 93, Ionizing Radiation 

Exposure of the Population of the United States (Refs. 30, 31). 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. 

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. 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; 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% (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% of the average dose to a member of the public from all sources. 
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 2-7

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

effective dose and the total effective 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.

2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-1

3 Effluent Data

3.1 Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents

The activities of selected radionuclides in liquid and gaseous effluents for 2009 are shown in 

Tables 3.1 through 3.12. The data from these tables are illustrated graphically in Figures 3.1

through 3.12. 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 listed in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. These tables and 

figures allow a detailed comparison of one reactor’s effluents with another.

As described in Section 2.2, only selected radionuclides are included in the tables and graphs of 

Section 3.1. Nuclides not included in the tables and graphs of Section 3.1, like strontium-90, 

are included in other sections of this report, most notably Section 3.6, “Doses.”

For comparison purposes, median values are included on some tables and figures. The median 

is a statistical estimate of the midpoint of the data. Releases from half of the power plants will 

be greater than the median and half will be 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 measurable release of a particular radionuclide is reported. If the majority of reactors did not 

detect a radionuclide, the median will be zero (and the corresponding table entry will be blank).

If no value is listed for a particular radionuclide in a table, it is because the licensee indicated 

the radionuclide was not detected at that NPP. In those cases, the corresponding graph will not 

contain information on that radionuclide at that NPP. 

On the following pages, the tables are presented first. In general, on each table, the information 

is organized in order of increasing activity. The facilities discharging the least activity are shown 

near the top of each table, while the facilities discharging the most activity are shown toward the 

bottom of each table. The median is shown in the middle of each data set. 

The figures are shown following the tables. In general, on each figure, the information is 

organized in order of decreasing 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 selected 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 contain two graphs, shown side by side 

on a single page. Such a figure is referred to as a dual graph in this report. For example, 

Figure 3.1 is a dual graph. In figures with dual graphs, the total activity of the selected 

radionuclides is shown on one graph, while the relative contribution of each radionuclide to the 

total activity is shown on the other graph. The relative contributions of each nuclide are 

shown—in multiple colors—as a percent of the total activity. A dual graph allows the reader to 
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-2 NUREG/CR-2907

compare not only the activity but also the distribution of selected radionuclides released by the 

various facilities. Dual graphs contain two separate scales. The total activity is shown on a 

logarithmic scale, while the radionuclide distributions are shown on a linear scale.

Table 3.1

BWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Gases, 2009

BWR Facility Kr-85 

(Ci)

Xe-133

(Ci)

Xe-135

(Ci) BWR Facility Kr-85 (Ci)

Xe-133

(Ci)

Xe-135

(Ci)

Browns 

Ferry 1 Limerick 2 4.76E-01 2.80E+00 3.18E+00

Browns 

Ferry 2

BWR Median 

Release 1.31E+00 3.79E+00

Browns 

Ferry 3 Columbia 7.69E+00

Clinton Pilgrim 1.28E+00 7.01E+00

Susquehanna 

1

Nine Mile 

Point 1 6.07E+00 3.17E+00

Susquehanna 

2 Oyster Creek 1.54E+01

Vermont 

Yankee FitzPatrick 1.59E+01 2.20E-01

Fermi 2 1.72E-01 7.18E-02 Grand Gulf 7.60E+00 2.02E+01

Perry 1.61E-02 3.20E-01 Cooper 8.97E-01 1.70E+01 1.32E+01

Hatch 1 9.72E-01 9.86E-01 River Bend 5.24E+00 4.65E+01

Hatch 2 9.72E-01 9.86E-01 Brunswick 1 1.37E+01 4.34E+01

Quad Cities 1 1.31E+00 2.10E+00 Brunswick 2 1.37E+01 4.34E+01

Quad Cities 2 1.31E+00 2.10E+00 Nine Mile 

Point 2 1.01E+02 9.19E+00

Duane Arnold 3.79E+00 Peach Bottom 

2 1.12E+02 1.17E+01

Hope Creek 1.59E-01 8.06E-01 4.56E+00 Peach Bottom 

3 1.12E+02 1.17E+01

Dresden 2 1.79E+00 4.36E+00 Monticello 2.88E+02 9.46E+01

Dresden 3 1.79E+00 4.36E+00 LaSalle 1 6.77E+02 1.76E+02

Limerick 1 4.76E-01 2.80E+00 3.18E+00 LaSalle 2 6.77E+02 1.76E+02
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-3

Table 3.2

BWR Gaseous Releases — Iodine, 2009

BWR Facility I-131 (Ci) BWR Facility I-131 (Ci)

Susquehanna 1 BWR Median Release 4.50E-04

Susquehanna 2 Dresden 2 4.75E-04

Limerick 1 4.39E-05 Dresden 3 4.75E-04

Limerick 2 4.39E-05 Nine Mile Point 1 6.00E-04

Vermont Yankee 5.38E-05 Quad Cities 1 1.67E-03

Duane Arnold 5.97E-05 Quad Cities 2 1.67E-03

Columbia 9.42E-05 Fermi 2 1.69E-03

Clinton 1.29E-04 Peach Bottom 2 2.06E-03

Hatch 2 1.39E-04 Peach Bottom 3 2.06E-03

Hatch 1 1.51E-04 Pilgrim 4.23E-03

Oyster Creek 1.61E-04 Nine Mile Point 2 5.11E-03

Perry 1.98E-04 Hope Creek 7.06E-03

FitzPatrick 2.12E-04 River Bend 7.68E-03

Grand Gulf 2.58E-04 Monticello 1.35E-02

Cooper 3.17E-04 Brunswick 1 2.14E-02

Browns Ferry 1 4.50E-04 Brunswick 2 2.14E-02

Browns Ferry 2 4.50E-04 LaSalle 1 2.64E-02

Browns Ferry 3 4.50E-04 LaSalle 2 2.64E-02
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-4 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 3.3

BWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Particulates, 2009

BWR Facility Co-58 (Ci) Co-60 (Ci) Cs-134 (Ci) Cs-137 (Ci)

FitzPatrick

Perry

Vermont Yankee

Hatch 2 1.15E-07

Clinton 4.94E-06

Grand Gulf 5.45E-06 5.34E-06 3.62E-07

Limerick 1 1.19E-05

Limerick 2 1.19E-05

Peach Bottom 2 3.33E-07 3.13E-05 9.33E-07

Peach Bottom 3 3.33E-07 3.13E-05 9.33E-07

Browns Ferry 1 5.66E-06 3.08E-05 3.40E-06

Browns Ferry 2 5.66E-06 3.08E-05 3.40E-06

Browns Ferry 3 5.66E-06 3.08E-05 3.40E-06

Susquehanna 1 7.91E-05

Susquehanna 2 7.91E-05

River Bend 9.21E-05

Pilgrim 6.01E-06 7.36E-05 1.82E-05

Hatch 1 4.08E-05 6.17E-05 1.15E-07

BWR Median Release 5.45E-06 9.21E-05 3.62E-07
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-5

Table 3.3 (continued)

BWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Particulates, 2009

BWR Facility Co-58 (Ci) Co-60 (Ci) Cs-134 (Ci) Cs-137 (Ci)

Oyster Creek 1.27E-04

Hope Creek 1.63E-04

Duane Arnold 4.27E-05 1.36E-04 3.70E-07

Dresden 2 4.05E-06 1.83E-04 1.31E-06

Dresden 3 4.05E-06 1.83E-04 1.31E-06

Columbia 1.98E-05 1.99E-04 2.60E-06

Brunswick 1 3.47E-05 1.98E-04 1.60E-06

Brunswick 2 3.47E-05 1.98E-04 1.60E-06

Cooper 6.06E-06 2.50E-04 2.58E-07

Quad Cities 1 7.45E-06 4.23E-04 4.26E-06

Quad Cities 2 7.45E-06 4.23E-04 4.26E-06

Fermi 2 2.93E-04 2.87E-04

Monticello 2.72E-06 3.86E-04 2.52E-04

LaSalle 1 6.80E-05 1.11E-03

LaSalle 2 6.80E-05 1.11E-03

Nine Mile Point 1 1.61E-04 2.98E-03 1.03E-04

Nine Mile Point 2 3.96E-04 3.09E-03 8.21E-07 9.27E-06
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-6 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 3.4

BWR Gaseous Releases — Tritium, 2009

BWR Facility H-3 (Ci) BWR Facility H-3 (Ci)

Perry BWR Median Release 1.96E+01

Vermont Yankee 1.75E+00 Columbia 2.01E+01

Oyster Creek 5.48E+00 Hatch 1 2.94E+01

Dresden 2 6.74E+00 LaSalle 1 2.95E+01

Dresden 3 6.74E+00 LaSalle 2 2.95E+01

Cooper 1.14E+01 Browns Ferry 1 3.18E+01

Grand Gulf 1.16E+01 Browns Ferry 2 3.18E+01

Monticello 1.51E+01 Browns Ferry 3 3.18E+01

Hope Creek 1.64E+01 Duane Arnold 3.61E+01

Limerick 1 1.67E+01 Nine Mile Point 1 3.63E+01

Limerick 2 1.67E+01 Clinton 4.94E+01

Peach Bottom 2 1.68E+01 Quad Cities 1 6.04E+01

Peach Bottom 3 1.68E+01 Quad Cities 2 6.04E+01

River Bend 1.74E+01 Pilgrim 6.77E+01

FitzPatrick 1.79E+01 Fermi 2 7.36E+01

Susquehanna 1 1.88E+01 Nine Mile Point 2 1.06E+02

Susquehanna 2 1.88E+01 Brunswick 1 1.19E+02

Hatch 2 1.96E+01 Brunswick 2 1.19E+02
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-7

Table 3.5

PWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Gases, 2009

PWR Facility Kr-85 (Ci) Xe-133 (Ci) Xe-135 (Ci)

Farley 2 3.52E-04 2.35E-04

Seabrook 3.21E-02 4.34E-03

Beaver Valley 2 4.71E-02 4.44E-03

Point Beach 1 4.33E-03 2.72E-02 2.15E-02

Point Beach 2 4.33E-03 2.72E-02 2.15E-02

Beaver Valley 1 7.14E-02 3.11E-03

McGuire 1 1.47E-02 5.15E-02 1.65E-02

McGuire 2 1.47E-02 5.15E-02 1.65E-02

Crystal River 3 9.13E-02

Kewaunee 1.12E-01 6.32E-03

Robinson 2 3.06E-02 9.53E-02 6.99E-05

St. Lucie 1 2.53E-03 3.27E-01

Wolf Creek 1.94E-02 2.70E-01 4.83E-02

Diablo Canyon 1 2.02E-01 1.52E-01 2.37E-05

Diablo Canyon 2 2.02E-01 1.52E-01 2.37E-05

Catawba 1 4.05E-03 3.77E-01 3.32E-02

Catawba 2 4.05E-03 3.77E-01 3.32E-02

Summer 1.13E-01 3.56E-02 2.72E-01

Indian Point 3 8.06E-03 3.64E-01 1.79E-01

Prairie Island 1 5.50E-01 9.74E-04 1.12E-05

Prairie Island 2 5.50E-01 9.74E-04 1.12E-05

Byron 2 5.56E-01 2.52E-02

Salem 2 5.96E-01 1.94E-03

Farley 1 6.17E-01 3.79E-02

Surry 1 6.19E-01 4.07E-02

Surry 2 6.19E-01 4.07E-02

Palo Verde 2 1.68E-01 6.07E-01

Sequoyah 1 2.23E-02 7.89E-01 4.11E-02

Sequoyah 2 2.23E-02 7.89E-01 4.11E-02

Palo Verde 1 2.18E-01 7.23E-01

Arkansas 1 9.45E-01 2.16E-04

South Texas 2 1.48E+00

Indian Point 2 1.51E+00 1.26E-01

Three Mile Island 1 1.37E-01 1.94E+00 9.41E-03

Comanche Peak 1 2.24E+00 4.44E-02 1.31E-02

Comanche Peak 2 2.24E+00 4.44E-02 1.31E-02
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-8 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 3.5 (continued)

PWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Gases, 2009

PWR Facility Kr-85 (Ci) Xe-133 (Ci) Xe-135 (Ci)

PWR Median Release 2.23E-02 7.89E-01 3.79E-02

Cook 1 2.18E+00 1.81E-01 3.92E-03

Cook 2 2.18E+00 1.81E-01 3.92E-03

Harris 1.18E-03 2.65E+00

St. Lucie 2 2.64E+00 6.58E-02

Ginna 2.64E+00 1.32E-01

South Texas 1 2.96E+00 1.63E-03

Ft. Calhoun 1.75E-03 3.19E+00 5.82E-02

Braidwood 1 2.21E-01 3.79E+00 4.72E-01

Watts Bar 4.92E-03 3.62E+00 1.13E+00

Braidwood 2 2.21E-01 5.18E+00 4.72E-01

Oconee 1 1.73E+00 4.98E+00 8.57E-02

Oconee 2 1.73E+00 4.98E+00 8.57E-02

Oconee 3 1.73E+00 4.98E+00 8.57E-02

Millstone 3 4.15E+00 4.51E+00 1.93E-02

Byron 1 1.05E+01 8.90E-01 2.56E-02

Palo Verde 3 1.64E+01 5.87E+00

North Anna 1 9.57E+00 1.63E+01 1.06E-01

North Anna 2 9.57E+00 1.63E+01 1.06E-01

Salem 1 2.79E+01

Palisades 1.89E-03 3.31E+01 6.03E-01

Millstone 2 2.60E+01 9.80E+00 1.57E-01

San Onofre 2 8.38E-01 5.10E+01 1.76E-03

San Onofre 3 8.38E-01 5.10E+01 1.76E-03

Calvert Cliffs 1 3.42E+01 8.27E+01 1.20E+00

Calvert Cliffs 2 3.42E+01 8.27E+01 1.20E+00

Turkey Point 4 1.13E+00 1.24E+02 2.40E-01

Turkey Point 3 2.10E+00 1.58E+02 2.86E-01

Davis-Besse 1.01E+02 7.43E+01 9.86E-02

Callaway 3.72E-01 1.95E+02 4.97E+00

Vogtle 1 2.53E+02 6.22E+00

Arkansas 2 1.16E+01 2.86E+02 1.19E+01

Vogtle 2 6.36E-01 7.31E+02 1.53E+01

Waterford 3 4.19E+01 3.41E+03 8.38E+01
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-9

Table 3.6

PWR Gaseous Releases — Iodine, 2009

PWR Facility I-131 (Ci) PWR Facility I-131 (Ci)

Catawba 1 PWR Median Release 5.20E-06

Catawba 2 Farley 1 6.48E-06

Comanche Peak 1 Sequoyah 1 6.88E-06

Comanche Peak 2 Sequoyah 2 6.88E-06

Farley 2 Crystal River 3 7.83E-06

Harris Millstone 3 1.11E-05

Indian Point 2 Seabrook 1.18E-05

Indian Point 3 Byron 1 1.30E-05

Kewaunee Summer 2.07E-05

Palo Verde 1 Palo Verde 2 2.10E-05

Prairie Island 1 Braidwood 2 2.73E-05

Prairie Island 2 Palo Verde 3 2.95E-05

South Texas 1 Diablo Canyon 1 4.62E-05

Wolf Creek Diablo Canyon 2 4.62E-05

Salem 1 5.68E-14 St. Lucie 2 6.29E-05

Surry 1 1.18E-08 Millstone 2 6.47E-05

Surry 2 1.18E-08 Byron 2 8.85E-05

Point Beach 1 2.97E-08 Braidwood 1 9.93E-05

Point Beach 2 2.97E-08 Davis-Besse 1.20E-04

South Texas 2 3.11E-08 Oconee 1 1.25E-04

Cook 1 1.34E-07 Oconee 2 1.25E-04

Cook 2 1.34E-07 Oconee 3 1.25E-04

Beaver Valley 1 1.77E-07 San Onofre 2 1.49E-04

Vogtle 2 3.35E-07 San Onofre 3 1.49E-04

St. Lucie 1 7.34E-07 Watts Bar 1.88E-04

Beaver Valley 2 8.29E-07 Vogtle 1 4.33E-04

Three Mile Island 1 1.21E-06 Palisades 4.77E-04

Callaway 1.97E-06 North Anna 1 4.95E-04

Robinson 2 2.34E-06 North Anna 2 4.95E-04

Salem 2 2.53E-06 Arkansas 2 6.62E-04

Ginna 4.05E-06 Waterford 3 9.15E-04

Ft. Calhoun 4.16E-06 Calvert Cliffs 1 2.21E-03

McGuire 1 4.21E-06 Calvert Cliffs 2 2.21E-03

McGuire 2 4.21E-06 Turkey Point 4 2.24E-02

Arkansas 1 5.20E-06 Turkey Point 3 2.39E-02
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-10 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 3.7

PWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Particulates, 2009

PWR Facility Co-58 (Ci) Co-60 (Ci) Cs-134 (Ci) Cs-137 (Ci)

Arkansas 1

Arkansas 2

Braidwood 1

Byron 1

Callaway

Catawba 1

Catawba 2

Comanche Peak 1

Comanche Peak 2

Cook 1

Cook 2

Davis-Besse

Farley 2

Ginna

Indian Point 3

Kewaunee

Palo Verde 1

Summer

Turkey Point 4

Vogtle 2

Wolf Creek

Calvert Cliffs 1 4.88E-09

Calvert Cliffs 2 4.88E-09

Robinson 2 1.08E-07

Millstone 3 1.86E-07

Millstone 2 2.70E-07 9.50E-08

Palisades 2.38E-07 1.54E-07 1.31E-08

Farley 1 1.09E-07 2.74E-07 2.41E-08

Oconee 1 4.38E-07

Oconee 2 4.38E-07

Oconee 3 4.38E-07

Ft. Calhoun 6.43E-07

Byron 2 8.68E-07

Point Beach 1 2.79E-07 7.35E-07 1.13E-08

Point Beach 2 2.79E-07 7.35E-07 1.13E-08

PWR Median Release 2.70E-07
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-11

Table 3.7 (continued)

PWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Particulates, 2009

PWR Facility Co-58 (Ci) Co-60 (Ci) Cs-134 (Ci) Cs-137 (Ci)

Prairie Island 1 3.36E-06

Prairie Island 2 3.36E-06

South Texas 2 3.39E-06

Salem 1 2.27E-13 1.14E-13 3.57E-06

St. Lucie 2 7.08E-07 2.52E-07 3.78E-06

McGuire 1 6.26E-06

McGuire 2 6.26E-06

Braidwood 2 7.20E-06

North Anna 1 3.56E-06 3.89E-06 6.39E-07

North Anna 2 3.56E-06 3.89E-06 6.39E-07

Indian Point 2 9.32E-06

Crystal River 3 4.91E-06 2.73E-06 2.51E-06

Salem 2 4.11E-06 3.28E-06 4.89E-06

Turkey Point 3 1.12E-05 3.69E-06

St. Lucie 1 1.71E-05 3.77E-06

Surry 1 2.51E-05 4.95E-06

Surry 2 2.51E-05 4.95E-06

Waterford 3 1.56E-05 3.86E-06 6.83E-06 8.75E-06

South Texas 1 4.77E-05 6.20E-06

Palo Verde 2 6.64E-05 3.86E-06

Watts Bar 8.41E-06 6.94E-05

Beaver Valley 2 7.08E-05 9.84E-06 6.11E-07

Vogtle 1 7.71E-05 8.81E-06

Palo Verde 3 8.28E-05 6.95E-06 1.13E-06

Sequoyah 1 9.85E-05 3.57E-06

Sequoyah 2 9.85E-05 3.57E-06

Diablo Canyon 1 9.23E-05 1.88E-05

Diablo Canyon 2 9.23E-05 1.88E-05

San Onofre 2 6.88E-05 3.15E-05 1.73E-06 1.28E-05

San Onofre 3 6.88E-05 3.15E-05 1.73E-06 1.28E-05

Harris 4.53E-06 1.34E-04

Beaver Valley 1 2.11E-04 1.31E-05 6.11E-07

Seabrook 7.79E-04

Three Mile Island 1 7.73E-03 5.25E-04 9.67E-05
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-12 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 3.8

PWR Gaseous Releases — Tritium, 2009

PWR Facility H-3 (Ci) PWR Facility H-3 (Ci)

Summer 1.39E+00 Point Beach 2 4.08E+01

Turkey Point 4 1.87E+00 PWR Median Release 4.08E+01

Calvert Cliffs 1 2.33E+00 Palisades 4.11E+01

Calvert Cliffs 2 2.33E+00 San Onofre 2 4.28E+01

St. Lucie 1 2.48E+00 San Onofre 3 4.28E+01

St. Lucie 2 3.89E+00 Wolf Creek 4.40E+01

Prairie Island 1 5.20E+00 Kewaunee 4.59E+01

Prairie Island 2 5.20E+00 Millstone 3 4.67E+01

Beaver Valley 1 6.12E+00 Davis-Besse 4.90E+01

Beaver Valley 2 6.12E+00 Byron 2 5.17E+01

Robinson 2 6.27E+00 Byron 1 5.30E+01

Ft. Calhoun 6.53E+00 Vogtle 1 5.33E+01

North Anna 1 8.56E+00 Watts Bar 5.36E+01

North Anna 2 8.56E+00 Ginna 6.13E+01

Turkey Point 3 8.78E+00 South Texas 2 6.28E+01

Crystal River 3 1.10E+01 South Texas 1 6.65E+01

Indian Point 2 1.21E+01 Waterford 3 6.74E+01

Vogtle 2 1.64E+01 Three Mile Island 1 7.13E+01

Oconee 1 1.89E+01 McGuire 1 8.32E+01

Oconee 2 1.89E+01 McGuire 2 8.32E+01

Oconee 3 1.89E+01 Braidwood 2 8.75E+01

Farley 2 1.91E+01 Cook 1 9.06E+01

Arkansas 1 1.92E+01 Cook 2 9.06E+01

Indian Point 3 1.93E+01 Diablo Canyon 1 9.84E+01

Surry 1 2.02E+01 Diablo Canyon 2 9.84E+01

Surry 2 2.02E+01 Salem 2 1.09E+02

Sequoyah 1 2.27E+01 Seabrook 1.37E+02

Sequoyah 2 2.27E+01 Catawba 1 1.62E+02

Farley 1 2.34E+01 Catawba 2 1.62E+02

Comanche Peak 1 2.81E+01 Harris 2.12E+02

Comanche Peak 2 2.81E+01 Salem 1 2.36E+02

Millstone 2 3.13E+01 Braidwood 1 2.44E+02

Callaway 3.49E+01 Palo Verde 1 3.11E+02

Arkansas 2 3.58E+01 Palo Verde 3 5.35E+02

Point Beach 1 4.08E+01 Palo Verde 2 7.44E+02
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-13

Table 3.9

BWR Liquid Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Products, 2009

BWR Facility Co-58 (Ci) Co-60 (Ci) Cs-134 (Ci) Cs-137 (Ci) Fe-55 (Ci) I-131 (Ci)

Clinton

Columbia

Duane Arnold

Fermi 2

FitzPatrick

LaSalle 1

LaSalle 2

Monticello

Nine Mile Point 2

Oyster Creek

Vermont Yankee

Cooper 3.37E-05 1.93E-04

Pilgrim 1.96E-05 1.95E-04 2.26E-06 2.33E-05

Nine Mile Point 1 3.45E-04 1.83E-05

River Bend 9.34E-04

Limerick 1 2.69E-05 1.21E-03 1.13E-06 1.24E-05 1.13E-06

Limerick 2 2.69E-05 1.21E-03 1.13E-06 1.24E-05 1.13E-06

Dresden 2 9.80E-06 5.65E-04 3.14E-05 1.41E-03

Dresden 3 9.80E-06 5.65E-04 3.14E-05 1.41E-03

BWR Median Release 1.19E-05 6.59E-04 1.24E-05

Hatch 1 3.08E-05 6.59E-04 2.02E-04 1.17E-03

Hatch 2 8.13E-06 1.07E-04 2.97E-05 2.29E-03

Quad Cities 1 1.19E-05 8.53E-04 5.58E-04 2.74E-03

Quad Cities 2 1.19E-05 8.53E-04 5.58E-04 2.74E-03

Susquehanna 1 5.28E-04 3.69E-03

Susquehanna 2 5.28E-04 3.69E-03

Brunswick 1 1.26E-04 4.50E-03 8.48E-06 1.37E-04 3.58E-04

Brunswick 2 1.26E-04 4.50E-03 8.48E-06 1.37E-04 3.58E-04

Browns Ferry 1 3.50E-05 1.73E-03 3.12E-04 3.20E-03 1.91E-04

Browns Ferry 2 3.50E-05 1.73E-03 3.12E-04 3.20E-03 1.91E-04

Browns Ferry 3 3.50E-05 1.73E-03 3.12E-04 3.20E-03 1.91E-04

Perry 2.59E-04 1.06E-02 1.80E-04 1.96E-04

Grand Gulf 1.22E-05 6.43E-03 8.42E-05 1.61E-02 1.52E-04

Hope Creek 3.88E-03 1.81E-02 2.83E-03 4.76E-03 8.51E-03 7.82E-08

Peach Bottom 2 5.37E-04 4.65E-02 1.57E-04 3.46E-04 1.02E-03

Peach Bottom 3 5.37E-04 4.65E-02 1.57E-04 3.46E-04 1.02E-03
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-14 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 3.10

BWR Liquid Releases — Tritium, 2009

BWR Facility H-3 (Ci) BWR Facility H-3 (Ci)

Clinton BWR Median Release 9.28E+00

Columbia Limerick 1 1.12E+01

Fermi 2 Limerick 2 1.12E+01

LaSalle 1 Susquehanna 1 1.14E+01

LaSalle 2 Susquehanna 2 1.14E+01

Nine Mile Point 2 Hatch 2 1.15E+01

Monticello 1.21E-05 Hatch 1 1.55E+01

Duane Arnold 1.98E-04 Peach Bottom 2 1.90E+01

FitzPatrick 2.64E-02 Peach Bottom 3 1.90E+01

Nine Mile Point 1 4.69E-02 Browns Ferry 1 2.81E+01

Vermont Yankee 4.00E-01 Browns Ferry 2 2.81E+01

Pilgrim 1.98E+00 Browns Ferry 3 2.81E+01

Cooper 3.32E+00 Perry 3.86E+01

Quad Cities 1 6.12E+00 River Bend 4.91E+01

Quad Cities 2 6.12E+00 Oyster Creek 6.81E+01

Dresden 2 6.53E+00 Grand Gulf 7.46E+01

Dresden 3 6.53E+00 Brunswick 1 1.05E+02

Hope Creek 9.28E+00 Brunswick 2 1.05E+02
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-15

Table 3.11

PWR Liquid Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Products, 2009

PWR Facility Co-58 (Ci) Co-60 (Ci) Cs-134 (Ci) Cs-137 (Ci) Fe-55 (Ci) I-131 (Ci)

Palo Verde 1

Palo Verde 2

Palo Verde 3

Three Mile Island 1 9.36E-06 7.46E-05 1.29E-04

Cook 1 5.74E-04 5.50E-04 1.33E-06 1.07E-05

Cook 2 5.74E-04 5.50E-04 1.33E-06 1.07E-05

Crystal River 3 3.85E-04 2.96E-04 2.12E-07 3.86E-04 2.33E-04

Comanche Peak 1 1.10E-03 2.07E-04

Comanche Peak 2 1.10E-03 2.07E-04

Ft. Calhoun 8.86E-04 2.38E-04 2.18E-05 5.08E-04 4.91E-04

Robinson 2 5.53E-04 1.36E-03 6.77E-07 1.76E-05 4.59E-04

South Texas 2 4.38E-04 1.57E-03 1.53E-04 2.49E-04 1.72E-03

Ginna 4.32E-03 1.82E-04 1.05E-06 2.25E-04

Oconee 1 5.15E-03 1.60E-04 3.87E-05 2.53E-05 4.33E-05

Oconee 2 5.15E-03 1.60E-04 3.87E-05 2.53E-05 4.33E-05

Oconee 3 5.15E-03 1.60E-04 3.87E-05 2.53E-05 4.33E-05

Summer 3.75E-04 3.80E-03 2.11E-04 5.39E-04 7.45E-04 9.26E-05

Indian Point 3 1.15E-03 3.97E-03 8.50E-05 7.26E-04

San Onofre 2 2.45E-03 9.85E-04 2.79E-05 2.77E-03 4.56E-06

San Onofre 3 2.45E-03 9.85E-04 2.79E-05 2.77E-03 4.56E-06

Davis-Besse 1.33E-03 5.61E-04 2.06E-04 4.00E-04 4.45E-03 3.54E-06

Vogtle 1 1.88E-03 8.93E-04 9.74E-06 2.66E-04 3.82E-03 9.03E-05

Sequoyah 1 4.48E-03 2.08E-03 3.71E-07 8.78E-05 1.43E-03 5.86E-05

Sequoyah 2 4.48E-03 2.08E-03 3.71E-07 8.78E-05 1.43E-03 5.86E-05

Farley 1 3.86E-03 2.85E-03 8.96E-05 1.39E-03 7.02E-06

Surry 1 3.00E-03 3.63E-03 1.68E-03 5.11E-06

Surry 2 3.00E-03 3.63E-03 1.68E-03 5.11E-06

Kewaunee 1.47E-03 1.13E-03 5.81E-03

Byron 1 7.28E-03 1.50E-03 2.52E-06 1.34E-06

Byron 2 7.28E-03 1.50E-03 2.52E-06 1.34E-06

South Texas 1 1.30E-03 4.06E-03 7.97E-06 3.16E-04 3.72E-03

Farley 2 3.41E-03 4.24E-03 8.34E-04 1.17E-03 1.16E-05

Harris 6.27E-03 2.67E-03 4.00E-05 1.05E-03

Seabrook 5.51E-03 4.09E-04 1.58E-05 4.24E-03 2.57E-05

McGuire 1 5.81E-03 4.27E-03 4.08E-05 2.28E-04

McGuire 2 5.81E-03 4.27E-03 4.08E-05 2.28E-04
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-16 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 3.11 (continued)

PWR Liquid Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Products, 2009

PWR Facility Co-58 (Ci) Co-60 (Ci) Cs-134 (Ci) Cs-137 (Ci) Fe-55 (Ci) I-131 (Ci)

PWR Median Release 5.14E-03 2.08E-03 1.58E-06 2.10E-04 1.39E-03 1.34E-06

Calvert Cliffs 1 4.18E-03 6.57E-04 1.28E-04 2.10E-04 5.66E-03 6.11E-05

Calvert Cliffs 2 4.18E-03 6.57E-04 1.28E-04 2.10E-04 5.66E-03 6.11E-05

Diablo Canyon 1 5.14E-03 2.74E-03 5.30E-06 3.75E-03 4.76E-08

Diablo Canyon 2 5.14E-03 2.74E-03 5.30E-06 3.75E-03 4.76E-08

North Anna 1 8.98E-03 2.15E-03 9.50E-05 5.86E-04

North Anna 2 8.98E-03 2.15E-03 9.50E-05 5.86E-04

St. Lucie 1 5.31E-03 1.51E-03 2.95E-06 5.58E-05 5.18E-03 2.31E-06

St. Lucie 2 5.31E-03 1.51E-03 2.95E-06 5.58E-05 5.18E-03 2.31E-06

Palisades 3.49E-03 9.04E-03 4.95E-05 9.27E-06 2.67E-06

Salem 2 9.09E-03 3.42E-03 2.41E-04 2.83E-03

Arkansas 1 7.34E-03 1.51E-03 7.86E-04 3.18E-03 3.48E-03 3.39E-05

Millstone 3 1.44E-03 7.73E-03 3.85E-04 3.78E-04 6.43E-03

Salem 1 8.91E-03 5.57E-03 1.02E-04 2.16E-03

Vogtle 2 5.06E-03 3.09E-03 6.68E-05 1.19E-03 7.94E-03

Waterford 3 1.21E-02 2.43E-03 4.37E-04 3.28E-04 2.87E-03 1.13E-03

Indian Point 2 6.62E-05 2.50E-04 3.69E-04 1.95E-02

Point Beach 1 6.78E-03 1.08E-02 1.22E-03 2.31E-03

Point Beach 2 6.78E-03 1.08E-02 1.22E-03 2.31E-03

Catawba 1 1.58E-02 8.82E-03 9.60E-07 1.22E-04

Catawba 2 1.58E-02 8.82E-03 9.60E-07 1.22E-04

Arkansas 2 7.87E-03 5.68E-04 1.00E-03 1.25E-03 2.20E-02 3.83E-04

Turkey Point 3 1.07E-02 5.27E-03 3.82E-03 4.38E-03 8.78E-03 4.13E-04

Turkey Point 4 1.07E-02 5.27E-03 3.82E-03 4.38E-03 8.78E-03 4.13E-04

Wolf Creek 2.07E-02 7.82E-04 2.24E-05 1.57E-03 1.21E-02

Callaway 2.27E-02 1.32E-02 2.71E-04 1.20E-03 2.97E-06

Millstone 2 1.18E-02 9.83E-03 7.51E-05 4.74E-04 3.15E-02 2.11E-05

Beaver Valley 1 5.19E-02 1.00E-02 1.01E-03 1.22E-02 3.08E-05

Beaver Valley 2 5.19E-02 1.00E-02 1.01E-03 1.22E-02 3.08E-05

Watts Bar 1.75E-02 1.99E-03 1.58E-06 2.06E-05 5.95E-02 1.67E-06

Prairie Island 1 5.57E-02 9.75E-03 3.59E-06 2.13E-05 5.49E-02 7.06E-06

Prairie Island 2 5.57E-02 9.75E-03 3.59E-06 2.13E-05 5.49E-02 7.06E-06

Braidwood 1 1.10E-01 1.09E-02 9.35E-04 1.07E-03 6.82E-03

Braidwood 2 1.10E-01 1.09E-02 9.35E-04 1.07E-03 6.82E-03
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-17

Table 3.12

PWR Liquid Releases — Tritium, 2009

PWR Facility H-3 (Ci) PWR Facility H-3 (Ci)

Palo Verde 1 PWR Median Release 5.56E+02

Palo Verde 2 Cook 1 5.75E+02

Palo Verde 3 Cook 2 5.75E+02

Kewaunee 9.63E+01 Salem 1 6.24E+02

Vogtle 1 1.07E+02 Calvert Cliffs 1 6.33E+02

St. Lucie 1 1.80E+02 Calvert Cliffs 2 6.33E+02

St. Lucie 2 1.80E+02 Davis-Besse 6.52E+02

Ft. Calhoun 2.21E+02 Surry 1 6.95E+02

Robinson 2 2.30E+02 Surry 2 6.95E+02

Catawba 1 2.41E+02 Callaway 7.08E+02

Catawba 2 2.41E+02 Crystal River 3 7.15E+02

Oconee 1 2.42E+02 McGuire 1 7.48E+02

Oconee 2 2.42E+02 McGuire 2 7.48E+02

Oconee 3 2.42E+02 Arkansas 2 7.56E+02

Prairie Island 1 2.59E+02 Waterford 3 7.69E+02

Prairie Island 2 2.59E+02 Three Mile Island 1 7.87E+02

Harris 2.70E+02 Beaver Valley 1 7.94E+02

Palisades 2.97E+02 Beaver Valley 2 7.94E+02

Arkansas 1 3.13E+02 Comanche Peak 1 8.11E+02

Point Beach 1 3.19E+02 Comanche Peak 2 8.11E+02

Point Beach 2 3.19E+02 Summer 8.56E+02

Farley 1 3.33E+02 Indian Point 2 8.85E+02

Ginna 3.34E+02 Byron 1 9.07E+02

North Anna 1 3.88E+02 Byron 2 9.07E+02

North Anna 2 3.88E+02 Sequoyah 1 9.07E+02

Turkey Point 3 4.28E+02 Sequoyah 2 9.07E+02

Turkey Point 4 4.28E+02 South Texas 2 9.17E+02

Salem 2 4.92E+02 Indian Point 3 9.74E+02

Farley 2 5.09E+02 Diablo Canyon 1 1.05E+03

Millstone 3 5.26E+02 Diablo Canyon 2 1.05E+03

San Onofre 2 5.29E+02 Vogtle 2 1.12E+03

San Onofre 3 5.29E+02 Seabrook 1.38E+03

Braidwood 1 5.29E+02 Wolf Creek 1.40E+03

Braidwood 2 5.29E+02 South Texas 1 1.43E+03

Millstone 2 5.56E+02 Watts Bar 2.07E+03
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-18 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.1

BWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Gases

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Browns Ferry 1

Browns Ferry 2

Browns Ferry 3

Clinton

Susquehanna 1

Susquehanna 2

Vermont Yankee

Fermi 2

Perry

Hatch 1

Hatch 2

Quad Cities 1

Quad Cities 2

Duane Arnold

Hope Creek

Dresden 2

Dresden 3

Limerick 1

Limerick 2

BWR Median Release

Columbia

Pilgrim

Nine Mile Point 1

Oyster Creek

FitzPatrick

Grand Gulf

Cooper

River Bend

Brunswick 1

Brunswick 2

Nine Mile Point 2

Peach Bottom 2

Peach Bottom 3

Monticello

LaSalle 1

LaSalle 2

Radionuclide Distribution

0 0 1 10 100 1,000

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

Kr-85

Xe-133

Xe-135

Total Activity 

Released

0.01 0.1
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-19

Figure 3.2

BWR Gaseous Releases — Iodine

1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1

Susquehanna 1

Susquehanna 2

Limerick 1

Limerick 2

Vermont Yankee

Duane Arnold

Columbia

Clinton

Hatch 2

Hatch 1

Oyster Creek

Perry

FitzPatrick

Grand Gulf

Cooper

Browns Ferry 1

Browns Ferry 2

Browns Ferry 3

BWR Median Release

Dresden 2

Dresden 3

Nine Mile Point 1

Quad Cities 1

Quad Cities 2

Fermi 2

Peach Bottom 2

Peach Bottom 3

Pilgrim

Nine Mile Point 2

Hope Creek

River Bend

Monticello

Brunswick 1

Brunswick 2

LaSalle 1

LaSalle 2

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

I-131
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-20 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.3

BWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Particulates

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

FitzPatrick

Perry

Vermont Yankee

Hatch 2

Clinton

Grand Gulf

Limerick 1

Limerick 2

Peach Bottom 2

Peach Bottom 3

Browns Ferry 1

Browns Ferry 2

Browns Ferry 3

Susquehanna 1

Susquehanna 2

River Bend

Pilgrim

Hatch 1

BWR Median Release

Oyster Creek

Hope Creek

Duane Arnold

Dresden 2

Dresden 3

Columbia

Brunswick 1

Brunswick 2

Cooper

Quad Cities 1

Quad Cities 2

Fermi 2

Monticello

LaSalle 1

LaSalle 2

Nine Mile Point 1

Nine Mile Point 2

Radionuclide Distribution

1E-9 1E-8 1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

Co-58

Co-60

Cs-134

Cs-137

Total Activity 

Released
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-21

Figure 3.4

BWR Gaseous Releases — Tritium

1 10 100 1,000

Perry

Vermont Yankee

Oyster Creek

Dresden 2

Dresden 3

Cooper

Grand Gulf

Monticello

Hope Creek

Limerick 1

Limerick 2

Peach Bottom 2

Peach Bottom 3

River Bend

FitzPatrick

Susquehanna 1

Susquehanna 2

Hatch 2

BWR Median Release

Columbia

Hatch 1

LaSalle 1

LaSalle 2

Browns Ferry 1

Browns Ferry 2

Browns Ferry 3

Duane Arnold

Nine Mile Point 1

Clinton

Quad Cities 1

Quad Cities 2

Pilgrim

Fermi 2

Nine Mile Point 2

Brunswick 1

Brunswick 2

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

H-3
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-22 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.5

PWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Gases

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

PWR Median Release

Cook 1

Cook 2

Harris

St. Lucie 2

Ginna

South Texas 1

Ft. Calhoun

Braidwood 1

Watts Bar

Braidwood 2

Oconee 1

Oconee 2

Oconee 3

Millstone 3

Byron 1

Palo Verde 3

North Anna 1

North Anna 2

Salem 1

Palisades

Millstone 2

San Onofre 2

San Onofre 3

Calvert Cliffs 1

Calvert Cliffs 2

Turkey Point 4

Turkey Point 3

Davis-Besse

Callaway

Vogtle 1

Arkansas 2

Vogtle 2

Waterford 3

Radionuclide Distribution

1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

Kr-85

Xe-133

Xe-135

Total Activity 

Released
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-23

Figure 3.5 (continued)

PWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Gases

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Farley 2

Seabrook

Beaver Valley 2

Point Beach 1

Point Beach 2

Beaver Valley 1

McGuire 1

McGuire 2

Crystal River 3

Kewaunee

Robinson 2

St. Lucie 1

Wolf Creek

Diablo Canyon 1

Diablo Canyon 2

Catawba 1

Catawba 2

Summer

Indian Point 3

Prairie Island 1

Prairie Island 2

Byron 2

Salem 2

Farley 1

Surry 1

Surry 2

Palo Verde 2

Sequoyah 1

Sequoyah 2

Palo Verde 1

Arkansas 1

South Texas 2

Indian Point 2

Three Mile Island 1

Comanche Peak 1

Comanche Peak 2

PWR Median Release

Radionuclide Distribution

1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

Kr-85

Xe-133

Xe-135

Total Activity 

Released
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-24 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.6

PWR Gaseous Releases — Iodine

1E-14 1E-13 1E-12 1E-11 1E-10 1E-9 1E-8 1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1

PWR Median Release

Farley 1

Sequoyah 1

Sequoyah 2

Crystal River 3

Millstone 3

Seabrook

Byron 1

Summer

Palo Verde 2

Braidwood 2

Palo Verde 3

Diablo Canyon 1

Diablo Canyon 2

St. Lucie 2

Millstone 2

Byron 2

Braidwood 1

Davis-Besse

Oconee 1

Oconee 2

Oconee 3

San Onofre 2

San Onofre 3

Watts Bar

Vogtle 1

Palisades

North Anna 1

North Anna 2

Arkansas 2

Waterford 3

Calvert Cliffs 1

Calvert Cliffs 2

Turkey Point 4

Turkey Point 3

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

I-131
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-25

Figure 3.6 (continued)

PWR Gaseous Releases — Iodine

1E-14 1E-13 1E-12 1E-11 1E-10 1E-9 1E-8 1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1

Catawba 1

Catawba 2

Comanche Peak 1

Comanche Peak 2

Farley 2

Harris

Indian Point 2

Indian Point 3

Kewaunee

Palo Verde 1

Prairie Island 1

Prairie Island 2

South Texas 1

Wolf Creek

Salem 1

Surry 1

Surry 2

Point Beach 1

Point Beach 2

South Texas 2

Cook 1

Cook 2

Beaver Valley 1

Vogtle 2

St. Lucie 1

Beaver Valley 2

Three Mile Island 1

Callaway

Robinson 2

Salem 2

Ginna

Ft. Calhoun

McGuire 1

McGuire 2

Arkansas 1

PWR Median Release

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

I-131
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-26 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.7

PWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Particulates

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

PWR Median Release

Prairie Island 1

Prairie Island 2

South Texas 2

Salem 1

St. Lucie 2

McGuire 1

McGuire 2

Braidwood 2

North Anna 1

North Anna 2

Indian Point 2

Crystal River 3

Salem 2

Turkey Point 3

St. Lucie 1

Surry 1

Surry 2

Waterford 3

South Texas 1

Palo Verde 2

Watts Bar

Beaver Valley 2

Vogtle 1

Palo Verde 3

Sequoyah 1

Sequoyah 2

Diablo Canyon 1

Diablo Canyon 2

San Onofre 2

San Onofre 3

Harris

Beaver Valley 1

Seabrook

Three Mile Island 1

Radionuclide Distribution

1E-9 1E-8 1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

Co-60

Co-58

Cs-134

Cs-137

Total Activity 

Released
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-27

Figure 3.7 (continued)

PWR Gaseous Releases — Selected Particulates

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Arkansas 1

Arkansas 2

Braidwood 1

Byron 1

Callaway

Catawba 1

Catawba 2

Comanche Peak 1

Comanche Peak 2

Cook 1

Cook 2

Davis-Besse

Farley 2

Ginna

Indian Point 3

Kewaunee

Palo Verde 1

Summer

Turkey Point 4

Vogtle 2

Wolf Creek

Calvert Cliffs 1

Calvert Cliffs 2

Robinson 2

Millstone 3

Millstone 2

Palisades

Farley 1

Oconee 1

Oconee 2

Oconee 3

Ft. Calhoun

Byron 2

Point Beach 1

Point Beach 2

PWR Median Release

Radionuclide Distribution

1E-9 1E-8 1E-7 1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

Co-60

Co-58

Cs-134

Cs-137

Total Activity 

Released
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-28 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.8

PWR Gaseous Releases — Tritium

1 10 100 1,000

PWR Median Release

Palisades

San Onofre 2

San Onofre 3

Wolf Creek

Kewaunee

Millstone 3

Davis-Besse

Byron 2

Byron 1

Vogtle 1

Watts Bar

Ginna 1

South Texas 2

South Texas 1

Waterford 3

Three Mile Island 1

McGuire 1

McGuire 2

Braidwood 2

Cook 1

Cook 2

Diablo Canyon 1

Diablo Canyon 2

Salem 2

Seabrook 1

Catawba 1

Catawba 2

Harris 1

Salem 1

Braidwood 1

Palo Verde 1

Palo Verde 3

Palo Verde 2

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

H-3
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-29

Figure 3.8 (continued)

PWR Gaseous Releases — Tritium

1 10 100 1,000

Summer

Turkey Point 4

Calvert Cliffs 1

Calvert Cliffs 2

St. Lucie 1

St. Lucie 2

Prairie Island 1

Prairie Island 2

Beaver Valley 1

Beaver Valley 2

Robinson 2

Ft. Calhoun

North Anna 1

North Anna 2

Turkey Point 3

Crystal River 3

Indian Point 2

Vogtle 2

Oconee 1

Oconee 2

Oconee 3

Farley 2

Arkansas 1

Indian Point 3

Surry 1

Surry 2

Sequoyah 1

Sequoyah 2

Farley 1

Comanche Peak 1

Comanche Peak 2

Millstone 2

Callaway

Arkansas 2

Point Beach 1

Point Beach 2

PWR Median Release

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

H-3
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-30 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.9

BWR Liquid Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Products

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Clinton

Columbia

Duane Arnold

Fermi 2

FitzPatrick

LaSalle 1

LaSalle 2

Monticello

Nine Mile Point 2

Oyster Creek

Vermont Yankee

Cooper

Pilgrim

Nine Mile Point 1

River Bend

Limerick 1

Limerick 2

Dresden 2

Dresden 3

BWR Median Release

Hatch 1

Hatch 2

Quad Cities 1

Quad Cities 2

Susquehanna 1

Susquehanna 2

Brunswick 1

Brunswick 2

Browns Ferry 1

Browns Ferry 2

Browns Ferry 3

Perry

Grand Gulf

Hope Creek

Peach Bottom 2

Peach Bottom 3

Radionuclide Distribution

1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

Co-58

Co-60

Cs-134

Cs-137

Fe-55

I-131

Total Activity 

Released
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-31

Figure 3.10

BWR Liquid Releases — Tritium

1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2 1E+3 1E+4

Clinton

Columbia

Fermi 2

LaSalle 1

LaSalle 2

Nine Mile Point 2

Monticello

Duane Arnold

FitzPatrick

Nine Mile Point 1

Vermont Yankee

Pilgrim

Cooper

Quad Cities 1

Quad Cities 2

Dresden 2

Dresden 3

Hope Creek

BWR Median Release

Limerick 1

Limerick 2

Susquehanna 1

Susquehanna 2

Hatch 2

Hatch 1

Peach Bottom 2

Peach Bottom 3

Browns Ferry 1

Browns Ferry 2

Browns Ferry 3

Perry

River Bend

Oyster Creek

Grand Gulf

Brunswick 1

Brunswick 2

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

H-3
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-32 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.11

PWR Liquid Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Products

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

PWR Median Release

Calvert Cliffs 1

Calvert Cliffs 2

Diablo Canyon 1

Diablo Canyon 2

North Anna 1

North Anna 2

St. Lucie 1

St. Lucie 2

Palisades

Salem 2

Arkansas 1

Millstone 3

Salem 1

Vogtle 2

Waterford 3

Indian Point 2

Point Beach 1

Point Beach 2

Catawba 1

Catawba 2

Arkansas 2

Turkey Point 3

Turkey Point 4

Wolf Creek

Callaway

Millstone 2

Beaver Valley 1

Beaver Valley 2

Watts Bar

Prairie Island 1

Prairie Island 2

Braidwood 1

Braidwood 2

Radionuclide Distribution

1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

Co-58

Co-60

Cs-134

Cs-137

Fe-55

I-131

Total Activity 

Released
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-33

Figure 3.11 (continued)

PWR Liquid Releases — Selected Fission and Activation Products

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Palo Verde 1

Palo Verde 2

Palo Verde 3

Three Mile Island 1

Cook 1

Cook 2

Crystal River 3

Comanche Peak 1

Comanche Peak 2

Ft. Calhoun

Robinson 2

South Texas 2

Ginna

Oconee 1

Oconee 2

Oconee 3

Summer

Indian Point 3

San Onofre 2

San Onofre 3

Davis-Besse

Vogtle 1

Sequoyah 1

Sequoyah 2

Farley 1

Surry 1

Surry 2

Kewaunee

Byron 1

Byron 2

South Texas 1

Farley 2

Harris

Seabrook

McGuire 1

McGuire 2

PWR Median Release

Radionuclide Distribution

1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

Co-58

Co-60

Cs-134

Cs-137

Fe-55

I-131

Total Activity 

Released
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-34 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.12

PWR Liquid Releases — Tritium

10 100 1,000 10,000

PWR Median Release

Cook 1

Cook 2

Salem 1

Calvert Cliffs 1

Calvert Cliffs 2

Davis-Besse

Surry 1

Surry 2

Callaway 1

Crystal River 3

McGuire 1

McGuire 2

Arkansas 2

Waterford 3

Three Mile Island 1

Beaver Valley 1

Beaver Valley 2

Comanche Peak 1

Comanche Peak 2

Summer

Indian Point 2

Byron 1

Byron 2

Sequoyah 1

Sequoyah 2

South Texas 2

Indian Point 3

Diablo Canyon 1

Diablo Canyon 2

Vogtle 2

Seabrook

Wolf Creek

South Texas 1

Watt Bar

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

H-3
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-35

Figure 3.12 (continued)

PWR Liquid Releases — Tritium

10 100 1,000 10,000

Palo Verde 1

Palo Verde 2

Palo Verde 3

Kewaunee

Vogtle 1

St. Lucie 1

St. Lucie 2

Ft. Calhoun 1

Robinson 2

Catawba 1

Catawba 2

Oconee 1

Oconee 2

Oconee 3

Prairie Island 1

Prairie Island 2

Harris

Palisades

Arkansas 1

Point Beach 1

Point Beach 2

Farley 1

Ginna

North Anna 1

North Anna 2

Turkey Point 3

Turkey Point 4

Salem 2

Farley 2

Millstone 3

San Onofre 2

San Onofre 3

Braidwood 1

Braidwood 2

Millstone 2

PWR Median Release

Activity Released in 2009 (Ci)

H-3
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-36 NUREG/CR-2907

3.2 Three-Year Trends in Gaseous Effluents

In the previous section, only a few radionuclides from each of the categories in Table 2.1 were 

shown in the tables and figures. Although particular focus on a few selected radionuclides 

yields useful information, many radionuclides other than those shown in the previous section are 

typically present in radioactive gaseous effluents. This section provides the reader with a tool to 

gain a better understanding of the total releases of gaseous effluents from a facility.

A long-standing, historical measure of the licensee’s ability to control gaseous effluents is based

on the activities of noble gases discharged in gaseous effluents. This category of 

radionuclides—noble gases—is described in Table 2.1. The noble gases category includes all 

radionuclides in gaseous effluents except iodines, particulates, tritium, and radionuclides 

emitting alpha radiation. Noble gases provide a wealth of information about gaseous waste. 

Although the doses from noble gases are generally small, other radionuclides (such as iodines 

and alpha emitters) will generally only be elevated if noble gases are elevated. As a result, 

noble gases are sometimes used as a primary indicator of the overall control and handling of 

radioactive gaseous effluents at a site.

Tables 3.13 and 3.14 list the total activities for the last 3 years of all noble gases in gaseous 

effluents for BWRs and PWRs, respectively. In these tables, no noble gas radionuclides are left 

out. For each reactor unit, the activities of all noble gases are added together. In this way, the 

yearly total of all noble gases in gaseous effluents from a reactor is represented by a single 

number. That number gives the total activity (as curies) of noble gases discharged in gaseous 

effluents at each reactor for each of the years listed.

Table 3.13, for example, lists a separate column for each year from 2007 to 2009. Within each 

of these columns are the names of the facilities and the corresponding total activities of noble 

gases released during each of these 3 years. In each year, the facilities are ranked in order, 

with the facility discharging the least amount of activity at the top of each column, and the facility 

discharging the most activity at the bottom of each column. Additionally, within each column,

the facilities are organized into four groups, called quartiles. Each group, or quartile, contains 

about 25% (or one-fourth) of the total number of reactors. For example in 2009, the facilities at 

the top of the table (highlighted in green on Table 3.13) represent those reactors that 

discharged the least amount of noble gas activity in that year. The reactors highlighted in green 

in 2009 are in the first quartile for that year. Similarly, those facilities in the fourth quartile 

(shown in light blue), represent the 25% of reactors that discharged the most noble gases in 

each of the years listed. 

This ranking of nuclear facilities into four groups is referred to as quartile rankings. These 

quartile rankings, particularly the second quartile (or median), have historically been used in the 

United States as one general measure of effluent control for the entire fleet of power plants. 
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-37

These rankings should be viewed in the proper context. For example, it should be emphasized 

that the effluents from those facilities in the fourth quartile do not represent any challenge to the 

federal safety limits for radioactive effluents. As a result, these quartile rankings are not 

necessarily linked to potential health effects. Instead, they are more closely linked to the 

concepts of configuration, operation, control, optimization, and implementation. When viewed in 

the proper context, the quartile rankings of activities may, among other things, provide insights 

regarding one or more of the following:

• configuration of plant systems,

• operation of plant systems,

• control of plant processes,

• optimization of plant procedures, and 

• implementation of operating practices.

As a result, quartile rankings, while not particularly useful for predicting potential health effects 

from radioactive effluents, can provide some insights that may be useful when evaluating a 

number of operational and design issues. Some of these insights may include the impact of 2-

year fuel cycles, the condition of the fuel cladding, the gaseous radioactive waste processing 

capabilities, whether best industry practices are adopted, and the analytical capabilities of the 

radioactive effluent control program.

The quartile rankings for noble gases discharged in gaseous effluents from BWRs are shown in 

Table 3.13. The numbers have been rounded for clarity. Inspection of Table 3.13 indicates the 

discharges of noble gases from all BWRs in 2009 ranged from a low of 0 curies to a maximum 

of 2,003 curies. Additionally, it can be seen that the actual discharges from facilities in the first 

quartile ranged from 0 to 2.9 curies; the second quartile ranged from 9.8 curies to 30.7 curies; 

the third quartile ranged from 53.0 to 115 curies; and facilities in the fourth quartile discharged 

more than 182 curies in 2009. 

So far, the discussion of industry quartiles has been limited to the grouping of facilities into four 

quartiles so that each quartile contains approximately the same number of facilities. However, 

Table 3.13 has 9 facilities in the first quartile in 2007, while it has 10 facilities in the first quartile 

in 2009. This is not arbitrary. To ensure the quartile groupings are assigned in a fair and 

objective manner, the numerical boundaries that define the four quartiles are calculated using 

standard mathematical formulas. For this report, the quartiles were calculated using a 

commonly available software package, Microsoft® Excel® 2010. Although several different 

formulas are available for calculating quartiles, the use of Excel®-based formulas allows the 

reader to replicate the calculations using commonly available software. 

The quartile boundaries for gaseous effluents, calculated with the assistance of the software 

package described above, are shown graphically in Figures 3.13 (BWRs) and 3.14 (PWRs). 
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-38 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.13 indicates that, for the 3 years between 2007 and 2009, the second quartile (or 

median) for gaseous effluents at BWRs decreased from 37.2 curies to 30.7 curies. This median 

value is important because it represents the “typical” noble gas effluents for BWRs. 

Approximately half of the reactors discharged more activity than the median, and approximately 

half of the reactors discharged less activity than the median value in any particular year. Figure 

3.13 demonstrates that typical (or median) noble gas activity in gaseous effluents from BWRs 

has decreased (i.e., improved) for the 3 years shown. This decrease for BWRs represents 

more than an 17% reduction in noble gas effluents during that 3-year period.

Figure 3.14 indicates a slight increase in the median for PWR noble gas effluents from 2007 to 

2008, but an overall decrease in 2009. It is interesting to note that the reduction over the 3-year 

period for PWRs is approximately 20%. This continues the longer-term trend described in the 

next section.
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-39

Table 3.13

Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents, BWRs

3-Year Trend, Quartile Rankings

2007 2008 2009

Facility Ci Facility Ci Facility Ci

First Quartile

Browns Ferry 1 0 Browns Ferry 1 0 Browns Ferry 1 0

Browns Ferry 2 0 Browns Ferry 2 0 Browns Ferry 2 0

Browns Ferry 3 0 Browns Ferry 3 0 Browns Ferry 3 0

Clinton 0 Hatch 1 0 Clinton 0

Fermi 2 0 Hatch 2 0 Susquehanna 1 0

Vermont Yankee 0 Susquehanna 1 0 Susquehanna 2 0

Hatch 1 0.046 Susquehanna 2 0 Vermont Yankee 0

Hatch 2 0.046 Vermont Yankee 0 Perry 1.2

Oyster Creek 13.4 Clinton 0.0011 Hatch 1 2.9

Second Quartile

Limerick 1 24.3 Nine Mile Point 1 0.33 Hatch 2 2.9

Limerick 2 24.3 Hope Creek 1.2 Nine Mile Point 1 9.8

Duane Arnold 27.3 Perry 2.4 Duane Arnold 11.4

Perry 27.4 Oyster Creek 7.6 Limerick 1 14.1

Cooper 27.9 Duane Arnold 11.4 Limerick 2 14.1

Hope Creek 34.3 Cooper 14.3 Fermi 2 14.4

Susquehanna 1 36.8 Fermi 2 15.4 Oyster Creek 15.4

Susquehanna 2 36.8 Limerick 1 36.7 Hope Creek 22.8

Nine Mile Point 1 37.2 Limerick 2 36.7 Dresden 2 30.7

Third Quartile

Columbia 60.3 Dresden 2 82.1 Dresden 3 30.7

Quad Cities 1 73.0 Dresden 3 82.1 FitzPatrick 53.0

Quad Cities 2 73.0 Quad Cities 1 85.6 Cooper 54.8

Dresden 2 157 Quad Cities 2 85.6 Quad Cities 1 85.8

Dresden 3 157 Columbia 91.4 Quad Cities 2 85.8

Monticello 199 FitzPatrick 189 Columbia 90.0

Peach Bottom 2 269 River Bend 204 River Bend 99.2

Peach Bottom 3 269 Peach Bottom 2 303 Pilgrim 115

Fourth Quartile

River Bend 343 Peach Bottom 3 303 Grand Gulf 182

Nine Mile Point 2 413 Pilgrim 311 Brunswick 1 349

Grand Gulf 622 Nine Mile Point 2 359 Brunswick 2 349

FitzPatrick 623 Grand Gulf 443 Nine Mile Point 2 448

Brunswick 1 744 LaSalle 1 791 Peach Bottom 2 511

Brunswick 2 744 LaSalle 2 791 Peach Bottom 3 511

LaSalle 1 1,315 Brunswick 1 846 Monticello 1,503

LaSalle 2 1,315 Brunswick 2 846 LaSalle 1 2,003

Pilgrim 1,553 Monticello 1,059 LaSalle 2 2,003
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-40 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 3.14

Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents, PWRs

3-Year Trend, Quartile Rankings

2007 2008 2009

Facility Ci Facility Ci Facility Ci

First Quartile

Seabrook 0.047 Beaver Valley 1 0.057 Beaver Valley 2 0.053

Prairie Island 1 0.049 Indian Point 3 0.071 Crystal River 3 0.091

Prairie Island 2 0.049 Kewaunee 0.083 Kewaunee 0.12

Kewaunee 0.079 Seabrook 0.25 Seabrook 0.15

Beaver Valley 2 0.19 Prairie Island 1 0.27 Robinson 2 0.24

Byron 2 0.24 Prairie Island 2 0.27 Point Beach 1 0.52

Beaver Valley 1 0.27 Harris 0.28 Point Beach 2 0.52

Byron 1 0.31 Palo Verde 3 0.34 Prairie Island 1 0.55

Point Beach 1 0.33 Three Mile Island 1 0.37 Prairie Island 2 0.55

Point Beach 2 0.33 Surry 1 0.54 Byron 2 0.63

Vogtle 1 0.34 Surry 2 0.54 Surry 1 0.67

Salem 1 0.45 Point Beach 1 0.55 Surry 2 0.67

Palo Verde 1 0.60 Point Beach 2 0.55 Indian Point 3 0.68

Diablo Canyon 1 0.80 Salem 1 0.59 Salem 2 0.80

Diablo Canyon 2 0.80 North Anna 1 0.70 Wolf Creek 0.92

Wolf Creek 0.93 North Anna 2 0.70 Diablo Canyon 1 1.4

Surry 1 0.99 Palo Verde 1 0.85 Diablo Canyon 2 1.4

Surry 2 0.99 Wolf Creek 0.91 McGuire 1 1.6

Second Quartile

Robinson 2 1.0 Salem 2 0.94 McGuire 2 1.6

Salem 2 1.0 McGuire 1 1.1 St. Lucie 1 1.7

Summer 1.0 McGuire 2 1.1 Summer 1.7

McGuire 1 1.1 Vogtle 1 1.3 Palo Verde 2 1.7

McGuire 2 1.1 Summer 1.4 Indian Point 2 1.8

Ginna 1.2 Beaver Valley 2 1.7 Catawba 1 1.9

Indian Point 2 1.4 Catawba 1 1.8 Catawba 2 1.9

South Texas 1 1.5 Catawba 2 1.8 Three Mile Island 1 2.2

Harris 1.6 St. Lucie 2 2.3 Sequoyah 1 2.4

Millstone 2 1.9 Crystal River 3 3.3 Sequoyah 2 2.4

Palo Verde 3 2.2 Byron 1 3.6 Comanche Peak 1 2.5

Catawba 1 2.3 Watts Bar 3.8 Comanche Peak 2 2.5

Catawba 2 2.3 Ft. Calhoun 3.8 South Texas 2 2.6

Ft. Calhoun 2.8 Ginna 4.6 Harris 2.7

Farley 2 3.1 Sequoyah 1 4.7 Cook 1 2.7

Three Mile Island 1 4.3 Sequoyah 2 4.7 Cook 2 2.7

Crystal River 3 4.4 Oconee 1 5.9 Ft. Calhoun 3.5

Third Quartile

Cook 1 4.9 Oconee 2 5.9 Ginna 3.5

Cook 2 4.9 Oconee 3 5.9 South Texas 1 3.9

St. Lucie 1 6.0 Farley 2 5.9 Braidwood 1 5.2

Turkey Point 4 6.1 Byron 2 7.9 Watts Bar 5.4

Turkey Point 3 6.1 St. Lucie 1 7.9 St. Lucie 2 5.8

Comanche Peak 1 7.0 Palisades 12.1 Braidwood 2 6.0

Comanche Peak 2 7.0 South Texas 1 15.4 Oconee 1 6.9
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-41

Table 3.14 (continued)

Noble Gases in Gaseous Effluents, PWRs

3-Year Trend, Quartile Rankings

2007 2008 2009

Facility Ci Facility Ci Facility Ci

Third Quartile

Arkansas 2 7.4 Cook 1 18.5 Oconee 2 6.9

Indian Point 3 7.7 Cook 2 18.5 Oconee 3 6.9

North Anna 1 8.5 Millstone 2 19.0 Beaver Valley 1 7.4

North Anna 2 8.5 South Texas 2 20.9 Arkansas 1 8.7

Arkansas 1 8.6 Arkansas 1 21.9 Millstone 3 9.4

Braidwood 2 8.6 San Onofre 2 25.0 Palo Verde 1 9.9

Palo Verde 2 9.1 San Onofre 3 25.0 Byron 1 11.5

Braidwood 1 9.2 Diablo Canyon 1 26.9 Farley 2 16.4

St. Lucie 2 9.6 Diablo Canyon 2 26.9 Farley 1 17.8

Sequoyah 1 16.5 Davis-Besse 27.0 Palo Verde 3 23.5

Fourth Quartile

Sequoyah 2 16.5 Farley 1 27.2 North Anna 1 27.4

Watts Bar 18.0 Braidwood 1 30.4 North Anna 2 27.4

Callaway 19.8 Indian Point 2 47.3 Salem 1 28.2

Farley 1 22.4 Turkey Point 4 52.8 Palisades 34.3

Davis-Besse 31.6 Turkey Point 3 60.0 Millstone 2 36.6

Waterford 3 40.8 Millstone 3 61.8 San Onofre 2 52.9

Millstone 3 46.0 Arkansas 2 74.1 San Onofre 3 52.9

South Texas 2 50.6 Callaway 111 Turkey Point 4 126

San Onofre 2 51.8 Palo Verde 2 131 Calvert Cliffs 1 134

San Onofre 3 51.8 Robinson 2 156 Calvert Cliffs 2 134

Vogtle 2 87.6 Calvert Cliffs 1 332 Turkey Point 3 162

Oconee 1 113 Calvert Cliffs 2 332 Davis-Besse 178

Oconee 2 113 Braidwood 2 370 Callaway 210

Oconee 3 113 Comanche Peak 1 498 Vogtle 1 270

Calvert Cliffs 1 315 Comanche Peak 2 498 Arkansas 2 321

Calvert Cliffs 2 315 Waterford 3 526 Vogtle 2 760

Palisades 341 Vogtle 2 645 Waterford 3 3,560
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-42 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.13

Gaseous Effluent Activity from BWRs

3-Year Trend of Industry Quartiles, 2007-2009

Figure 3.14

Gaseous Effluent Activity from PWRs

3-Year Trend of Industry Quartiles, 2007-2009

18.9

0.17

2.9

37.2

36.7

30.7

306.2

303.5

148.5

1,553.0 1,059.0 2,003.0

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

2007 2008 2009

Curies, Noble Gases

All Noble Gases, per Reactor 

First Quartile

Second Quartile

Third Quartile

Fourth Quartile

1.0

0.9 1.6

4.4

5.9

3.5

16.5

27.0

23.5

341.1

645.1

3,560.2

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

2007 2008 2009

Curies, Noble Gases

All Noble Gases, per Reactor

First Quartile

Second Quartile

Third Quartile

Fourth Quartile
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-43

3.3 Long-Term Trend in Gaseous Effluents

In the previous section, short-term trends of noble gas activity in gaseous effluents were 

discussed. The trend of noble gases released from BWRs showed a decrease each year, while 

the trend for PWRs actually showed an increase in 2008, followed by a decrease in 2009. This 

section discusses the long-term trends 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, the activity of 

radioactive effluents should ideally decrease over time. The trend in the median noble gas 

activity of gaseous effluents since 1975 is shown in Figure 3.15. This information comes from 

the Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Reports submitted by licensees and from information 

presented in previous NRC NUREGs (Refs. 2 thru 22). All power reactors that have operated in 

the United States, some of which are now shutdown, are included. Additionally, just as with 

Figures 3.13 and 3.14, no noble gas radionuclides have been excluded from Figure 3.15. As a 

result, Figure 3.15 is an extension of Figures 3.13 and 3.14, except that only the median

activities are shown.

Figure 3.15

Long-term Trend in Gaseous Effluents

Noble Gases

Figure 3.15 indicates a long-term downward trend in the amounts 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 

2009, the median was 30.7 curies. That change corresponds to a 99.92% reduction in median 

noble gas effluents over the last 34 years. One of the primary contributors to the reduction in 

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Curies, Noble Gas

Industry Median, per Reactor

BWRs

PWRs
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-44 NUREG/CR-2907

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.

Figure 3.15 contains a gap in the BWR data for the years 1994 to 1998. That data was not able 

to be compiled in time for publication in this report. That information is expected to be available 

in a future report. Even without all of the BWR data displayed, the overall long-term downward

trend for both BWRs and PWRs is evident from Figure 3.15.

As discussed in the paragraphs above, Tables 3.13 and 3.14 and Figures 3.13, 3.14, and 3.15

focus on noble gases in gaseous effluents. Similar tables and figures can be prepared to show 

industry performance with respect to radioactive liquid effluents, which is discussed in the next 

section.

3.4 Three-Year Trends in Liquid Effluents

In Section 3.1, only a few radionuclides from each of the categories in Table 2.2 were shown in 

the tables and figures. Although particular focus on a few selected radionuclides yields useful 

information, many radionuclides other than those shown in Section 3.1 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.

A long-standing, historical measure of the licensee’s ability to control liquid effluents is based on 

the activity of the mixed fission and activation products (MFAPs) discharged in liquid effluents. 

This category of radionuclides—MFAPs—is described in Table 2.2. It includes all radionuclides 

in liquid effluents except tritium, dissolved and entrained noble gases, and radionuclides 

emitting alpha radiation. 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 3.15 and 3.16 list the total activities for the last 3 years of all 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.

Table 3.15, for example, lists a separate column for each year from 2007 to 2009. Within each 

of these columns are the names of the facilities and the corresponding total activities of MFAPs 

released in liquid effluents during each of these 3 years. In each year, the facilities are ranked 

in order, with the facility discharging the least amount of activity at the top of each column, and 
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-45

the facility discharging the most activity at the bottom of each column. Additionally, within each 

column the facilities are grouped into four quartiles. Each group, or quartile, contains about 

25% (or one-fourth) of the total number of reactors. For example, in 2009, the facilities at the 

top of the table (highlighted in green on Table 3.15) represent those reactors that discharged 

the least amount of MFAP activity in that year. The reactors highlighted in green in 2009 are in 

the first quartile for that year. Similarly, those facilities in the fourth quartile (shown in blue) 

represent the 25% of reactors that discharged the most MFAPs in each of the years listed.

These quartile rankings, particularly the second quartile (or median), have historically been used 

in the United States as one general measure of effluent control for the entire fleet of power 

plants. These rankings should be viewed in the proper context. As for the gaseous effluents

previously discussed, those facilities in the fourth quartile do not represent any challenge to the

federal safety limits for radioactive effluents. As a result, these quartile rankings are not 

necessarily linked to potential health effects. Instead, they are more closely linked to the 

concepts of configuration, operation, control, optimization, and implementation. When viewed in

the proper context, the quartile rankings of activities may, among other things, provide insights 

regarding one or more of the following:

• configuration of plant systems,

• operation of plant systems,

• control of plant processes,

• optimization of plant procedures, and 

• implementation of operating practices.

As a result, quartile rankings, while not particularly useful for predicting potential health effects 

from radioactive effluents, can provide some insights that may be useful when evaluating a 

number of operational and design issues. Some of these insights may include the impact of 2-

year fuel cycles, the condition of the fuel cladding, the liquid radioactive waste processing 

capabilities, whether best industry practices are adopted, and the analytical capabilities of the 

radioactive effluent control program.

The quartile rankings for MFAPs discharged in liquid effluents from BWRs are shown in Table 

3.15. The numbers have been rounded for clarity. Inspection of Table 3.15 indicates the 

discharges of MFAPs in liquid effluents from all BWRs in 2009 ranged from a low of 0 curies to 

a maximum of 11.6 curies per reactor (or 11,607 millicuries). Please note that the liquid effluent 

activity is listed in units of millicuries in Table 3.15 to eliminate exponential notation and to allow 

the numbers to be represented in their simplest form. One thousand millicuries is equal to 1 

curie. Table 3.15 indicates that the actual discharges from facilities in the first quartile were all 0 

mCi; the second quartile ranged from 0.36 to just less than 2.8 mCi; the third quartile ranged 

from 2.8 to 5.8 mCi; and facilities in the fourth quartile discharged more than 23.7 mCi in 2009.
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-46 NUREG/CR-2907

So far, the discussion of industry quartiles has been limited to the grouping of facilities into four 

quartiles so that each quartile contains approximately the same number of facilities. However, 

Table 3.15 has 11 facilities in the first quartile in 2007, while it has 12 facilities in the first quartile 

in 2008. This is not arbitrary. To ensure the quartile groupings are assigned in a fair and 

objective manner, the numerical boundaries that define the four quartiles are calculated using 

standard mathematical formulas. For this report, the quartiles were calculated using a 

commonly available software package, Microsoft® Excel® 2010. Although several different 

formulas are available for calculating quartiles, the use of Excel®-based formulas allows the 

reader to replicate the calculations using commonly available software.

The quartile boundaries for liquid effluents, calculated with the assistance of the software 

package described above, are shown graphically in Figures 3.16 (BWRs) and 3.17 (PWRs). 

Figure 3.16 indicates that the second quartile (or median) for liquid effluents at BWRs increased 

from 1.0 millicurie to 2.8 millicuries between 2007 and 2009. The median value is important 

because it represents the “typical” activity of MFAP effluents for BWRs. Approximately half of 

the reactors discharged more activity than the median, and approximately half of the reactors 

discharged less activity than the median value in any particular year. Figure 3.16 demonstrates 

that typical (or median) releases of MFAPs in liquid effluents from BWRs increased for the 3 

years shown. Although the magnitude of the increase is small (i.e., an increase of 1.8 

millicuries over 3 years), in relative terms, the release of MFAPs more than doubled during that 

3-year period. A suggested explanation for this increase is discussed in Section 3.5. Even with 

this increase, median BWR releases of MFAPs in liquid effluents is approximately 5 times lower 

than such releases from PWRs.

Figure 3.17 demonstrates that typical (or median) MFAP activity in liquid effluents from PWRs 

has decreased (i.e., improved) for the 3 years shown. This decrease for PWRs represents 

more than a 40% reduction in MFAPs discharged during that 3-year period. The long-term 

trend for liquid effluent releases is described in the next section.
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-47

Table 3.15

Mixed Fission and Activation Products

In Liquid Effluents, BWRs

3-Year Trend, Quartile Rankings

2007 2008 2009

Facility mCi Facility mCi Facility mCi

First Quartile

Clinton 0 Clinton 0 Clinton 0

Columbia 0 Columbia 0 Columbia 0

Cooper 0 Duane Arnold 0 Duane Arnold 0

Duane Arnold 0 Fermi 2 0 Fermi 2 0

Fermi 2 0 FitzPatrick 0 FitzPatrick 0

LaSalle 1 0 LaSalle 1 0 LaSalle 1 0

LaSalle 2 0 LaSalle 2 0 LaSalle 2 0

Nine Mile Point 1 0 Monticello 0 Monticello 0

Nine Mile Point 2 0 Nine Mile Point 1 0 Nine Mile Point 2 0

Oyster Creek 0 Oyster Creek 0 Oyster Creek 0

Vermont Yankee 0 Pilgrim 0 Vermont Yankee 0

Second Quartile

Monticello 0.0010 Vermont Yankee 0 Nine Mile Point 1 0.36

FitzPatrick 0.017 Dresden 2 0.085 Cooper 0.38

Pilgrim 0.13 Dresden 3 0.085 River Bend 1.1

Susquehanna 1 0.22 Quad Cities 1 0.89 Pilgrim 1.4

Susquehanna 2 0.22 Quad Cities 2 0.89 Limerick 1 2.0

Quad Cities 1 0.96 Susquehanna 1 1.2 Limerick 2 2.0

Quad Cities 2 0.96 Susquehanna 2 1.2 Hatch 1 2.8

Third Quartile

Hatch 2 1.7 Nine Mile Point 2 3.1 Dresden 2 2.8

Brunswick 1 2.9 Browns Ferry 1 3.8 Dresden 3 2.8

Brunswick 2 2.9 Browns Ferry 2 3.8 Hatch 2 3.1

Limerick 1 3.6 Browns Ferry 3 3.8 Quad Cities 1 4.2

Limerick 2 3.6 Brunswick 1 4.0 Quad Cities 2 4.2

Perry 4.7 Brunswick 2 4.0 Susquehanna 1 4.4

Hatch 1 5.6 Cooper 4.7 Susquehanna 2 4.4

River Bend 6.0 Hatch 2 8.3 Brunswick 1 5.8

Fourth Quartile

Dresden 2 19.1 River Bend 8.7 Brunswick 2 5.8

Dresden 3 19.1 Perry 14.7 Perry 23.7

Hope Creek 44.9 Hope Creek 16.6 Hope Creek 57.5

Peach Bottom 2 387 Hatch 1 23.9 Grand Gulf 62.0

Peach Bottom 3 387 Limerick 1 34.7 Peach Bottom 2 63.8

Grand Gulf 420 Limerick 2 34.7 Peach Bottom 3 63.8

Browns Ferry 1 2,457 Peach Bottom 2 127 Browns Ferry 1 11,607

Browns Ferry 2 2,457 Peach Bottom 3 127 Browns Ferry 2 11,607

Browns Ferry 3 2,457 Grand Gulf 371 Browns Ferry 3 11,607
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-48 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 3.16

Mixed Fission and Activation Products

In Liquid Effluents, PWRs

3-Year Trend, Quartile Rankings

2007 2008 2009

Facility mCi Facility mCi Facility mCi

First Quartile

Byron 1 0 Byron 1 0 Palo Verde 1 0

Byron 2 0 Byron 2 0 Palo Verde 2 0

Palo Verde 1 0 Palo Verde 1 0 Palo Verde 3 0

Palo Verde 2 0 Palo Verde 2 0 Three Mile Island 1 0.29

Palo Verde 3 0 Palo Verde 3 0 Cook 1 1.7

Braidwood 1 1.7 Three Mile Island 1 0.19 Cook 2 1.7

Braidwood 2 1.7 Cook 1 4.5 Comanche Peak 1 1.9

Cook 1 2.2 Cook 2 4.5 Comanche Peak 2 1.9

Cook 2 2.2 Ginna 5.1 Ft. Calhoun 2.7

Three Mile Island 1 2.5 Oconee 1 7.0 Robinson 2 2.9

Salem 2 2.6 Oconee 2 7.0 Ginna 4.7

Comanche Peak 1 3.8 Oconee 3 7.0 Salem 2 5.9

Comanche Peak 2 3.8 Crystal River 3 7.4 South Texas 2 8.1

Wolf Creek 5.3 Comanche Peak 1 7.6 Oconee 1 8.5

Ft. Calhoun 5.3 Comanche Peak 2 7.6 Oconee 2 8.5

Oconee 1 6.5 Salem 2 9.5 Oconee 3 8.5

Oconee 2 6.5 South Texas 1 9.6 San Onofre 2 8.9

Oconee 3 6.5 Ft. Calhoun 11.0 San Onofre 3 8.9

Second Quartile

Salem 1 7.9 Robinson 2 11.7 Vogtle 1 9.9

Crystal River 3 10.1 South Texas 2 12.9 Sequoyah 1 10.2

Indian Point 3 11.5 Surry 1 14.0 Sequoyah 2 10.2

South Texas 1 12.3 Surry 2 14.0 Farley 1 10.9

Robinson 2 13.5 Indian Point 3 14.3 Seabrook 10.9

Davis-Besse 14.1 St. Lucie 1 14.3 Surry 1 11.0

Surry 1 14.1 St. Lucie 2 14.3 Surry 2 11.0

Surry 2 14.1 Diablo Canyon 1 14.5 Byron 1 11.1

Calvert Cliffs 1 14.8 Diablo Canyon 2 14.5 Byron 2 11.1

Calvert Cliffs 2 14.8 Davis-Besse 16.2 Kewaunee 11.4

Summer 16.3 Farley 1 17.5 North Anna 1 12.2

Vogtle 2 18.8 Palisades 17.6 North Anna 2 12.2

St. Lucie 2 20.3 Salem 1 19.0 Davis-Besse 12.7

St. Lucie 1 20.7 Harris 19.8 Calvert Cliffs 1 13.1

Indian Point 2 42.4 San Onofre 2 20.0 Calvert Cliffs 2 13.1

Ginna 22.0 San Onofre 3 20.0 Summer 14.6

Seabrook 22.2 Catawba 1 22.2 South Texas 1 14.8

Millstone 2 25.0 Catawba 2 22.2
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-49

Table 3.16 (continued)

Mixed Fission and Activation Products 

In Liquid Effluents, PWRs

3-Year Trend, Quartile Rankings

2007 2008 2009

Facility mCi Facility mCi Facility mCi

Harris 15.7

Third Quartile

Arkansas 2 25.1 Kewaunee 22.8 McGuire 1 17.4

Kewaunee 25.3 Summer 22.9 McGuire 2 17.4

Catawba 1 27.2 Waterford 3 23.8 Salem 1 18.1

Catawba 2 27.2 Seabrook 24.4 Farley 2 19.2

San Onofre 2 27.5 Indian Point 2 54.6 Arkansas 1 21.2

San Onofre 3 27.5 Vogtle 1 31.0 Diablo Canyon 1 21.6

Diablo Canyon 1 28.2 Farley 2 33.8 Diablo Canyon 2 21.6

Diablo Canyon 2 28.2 Calvert Cliffs 1 40.5 Indian Point 3 25.3

Turkey Point 3 29.5 Calvert Cliffs 2 40.5 Crystal River 3 30.5

Turkey Point 4 29.5 Sequoyah 1 40.8 Waterford 3 32.3

McGuire 1 30.6 Sequoyah 2 40.8 Millstone 3 33.7

McGuire 2 30.6 Arkansas 1 43.0 Catawba 1 34.4

South Texas 2 32.5 Arkansas 2 47.2 Catawba 2 34.4

Harris 34.3 Watts Bar 50.8 Indian Point 2 37.3

Vogtle 1 36.7 Vogtle 2 50.8 Vogtle 2 37.7

Palisades 36.7 Braidwood 1 51.6 Wolf Creek 46.8

Point Beach 1 40.2 Braidwood 2 51.6 Point Beach 1 48.3

Point Beach 2 40.2 McGuire 1 57.5 Point Beach 2 48.3

Fourth Quartile

Callaway 41.2 McGuire 2 57.5 Arkansas 2 50.2

Arkansas 1 46.2 Turkey Point 3 58.8 St. Lucie 1 66.9

Millstone 3 50.5 Turkey Point 4 58.8 St. Lucie 2 66.9

Prairie Island 1 56.9 Point Beach 1 60.1 Callaway 70.2

Prairie Island 2 56.9 Point Beach 2 60.1 Turkey Point 3 82.0

Sequoyah 1 61.5 North Anna 1 61.3 Turkey Point 4 82.0

Sequoyah 2 61.5 North Anna 2 61.3 Millstone 2 84.2

Farley 1 68.3 Millstone 3 80.4 Watts Bar 88.8

Beaver Valley 1 85.9 Wolf Creek 105 Beaver Valley 1 110

Beaver Valley 2 85.9 Millstone 2 113 Beaver Valley 2 110

Farley 2 92.4 Beaver Valley 1 199 Braidwood 1 136

Watts Bar 98.2 Beaver Valley 2 199 Braidwood 2 136

North Anna 1 128 Callaway 254 Prairie Island 1 204

North Anna 2 128 Prairie Island 1 381 Prairie Island 2 204

Waterford 3 174 Prairie Island 2 381 Palisades 217
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-50 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.16

Liquid Effluent Activity from BWRs

3-Year Trend of Industry Quartiles, 2007-2009

Figure 3.17

Liquid Effluent Activity from PWRs

3-Year Trend of Industry Quartiles, 2007-2009

0 0 0

1.0

1.2 2.8

12.6

8.5

5.8

2,456.5

371.0

11,606.7

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

2007 2008 2009

Second Quartile

Third Quartile

Fourth Quartile

Millicuries, MFAPs

All Mixed Fission and Activation Products

(Excludes Tritium, Noble Gases, and Alpha Emitters)

6.5

11.0

8.9

25.0

22.2

14.8

40.2

51.6

46.8

174.0

380.8

217.3

1

10

100

1,000

2007 2008 2009

First Quartile

Second Quartile

Third Quartile

Fourth Quartile

Millicuries, MFAPs

All Mixed Fission and Activation Products

(Excludes Tritium, Noble Gases, and Alpha Emitters)
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-51

3.5 Long-Term Trend in Liquid Effluents

In the previous section, short-term trends of MFAP activity in liquid effluents were discussed. 

The short-term, 3-year trend of MFAPs released from BWRs showed an increase in each of the 

3 years, while PWRs showed a decrease each year. This section discusses the long-term 

trends in MFAPs in liquid effluents from nuclear power plants in the United States.

NRC regulations require radioactive effluents to be ALARA. As a result, the activity of 

radioactive effluents should ideally decrease over time. The trend in the median MFAP activity 

of liquid effluents since 1975 is shown in Figure 3.18. This information comes from the Annual 

Radioactive Effluent Release Reports submitted by licensees and from information presented in 

previous NRC NUREGs (Refs. 2 thru 22). All power reactors that have operated in the United 

States, some of which are now shutdown, are included. Additionally, just as with Figures 3.16 

and 3.17, no MFAPs have been excluded from Figure 3.18. As a result, Figure 3.18 is an 

extension of Figures 3.16 and 3.17, except that only the median activities are shown.

Figure 3.18

Long-term Trend in Liquid Effluents

Mixed Fission and Activation Products

Figure 3.18 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 

1978, the median activity of liquid effluents from BWRs was greater than 1000 millicuries; 

however, in 2009, the median was 2.8 millicuries. That corresponds to a 99.7% reduction in 

MFAPs in liquid effluents over the last 34 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 reuse) either some or all of the liquid waste. The recycling of liquid 

0

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

BWRs

PWRs

Millicuries, MFAPs

Industry Median, per Reactor
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-52 NUREG/CR-2907

waste at BWRs is one reason why effluents from BWRs are generally lower than from PWRs. 

Additionally, PWRs use boron in the reactor water, whereas BWRs do not. This also 

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, 

contributions from the operations, maintenance, chemistry, and health physics departments at 

the various facilities has improved the handling and processing of liquid waste to further improve 

and optimize effluent performance.

Figure 3.18 indicates that from 2007 to 2009 median liquid effluents from BWRs increased each 

year. This is also shown in Figure 3.16. An analysis of this increase in median MFAP activity of 

liquid effluents from BWR reveals important information about the control of liquid effluents at 

BWRs. For many decades, BWRs have embraced a “zero-release” strategy for radioactive 

liquid effluents. Such a strategy has cost advantages, because it is expensive to discharge very 

high quality water that could appropriately be reused in designated plant systems. Additionally, 

a zero-release strategy conserves the natural resources and virtually eliminates radioactive 

liquid effluents in those BWRs that adopt this strategy. This combination of factors makes a 

zero-release strategy very popular among BWRs. The zero-release strategy is partly 

responsible for the decreases in the median MFAP activity during the 1980s, 1990s, and 

beyond 2000, which can be seen in Figure 3.18. This strategy can be very effective in reducing 

both the activity and the dose from radioactive effluents. Within the last 10 years, it was 

recognized that, at some sites, the relative contribution of tritium to personnel exposure was 

increasing. This increase had the potential to affect plant workers and members of the public. 

This relative increase can be attributed to 4 factors:

• As waste water is recycled, the tritium concentration in the water increases over time.

• Over the last 20 years, improved fuel integrity, improved fuel loading pattern designs,

and improved liquid waste processing capabilities effectively reduced the concentration 

of mixed fission and activation products in waste water.

• When all radioactive liquid releases are eliminated, tritium is released through the 

gaseous 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 same amount of tritium 

discharged from a liquid release point.

As a result, for some sites, it was a mathematical certainty that doses could be lowered if more 

tritium was released in liquid effluents. Limited liquid releases containing tritium, along with very 

low levels of mixed fission and activation products, can shift the release of tritium from a gas 

release point to a liquid release point, thereby lowering doses due to effluents. This strategy can 

cause a slight increase in the activity of MFAPs in liquid effluents. This strategy to reduce doses 

from liquid effluents is partly responsible for the increases in the MFAP activity of liquid effluents 

at BWRs since about 2005, which can be seen in Figure 3.18. 
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-53

This is an example of how the quartile rankings and medians discussed thus far can provide 

valuable insights regarding the optimization of the radioactive effluent control program. Such 

optimizations can minimize exposures to people and ensure radioactive effluents are ALARA.

This also demonstrates that the activities of some radionuclides can increase in liquid effluents, 

while the dose from liquid and gaseous effluents decreases. Dose is discussed in the next 

section. 

3.6 Radiation Doses from Liquid and Gaseous Effluents

The doses from liquid and gaseous effluents for 2009 are shown in Tables 3.17 through 3.20.

The data from these tables are illustrated graphically in Figures 3.19 through 3.24. These 

tables and figures contain annual organ doses (for liquid and gaseous effluents) and annual 

total body doses (for liquid effluents). Doses measure the potential impact of NPP effluents on 

public health and the environment. Licensees are required to calculate these doses as 

described in 10 CFR 50 Appendix I and the licensing documents for each site (Ref. 26). The 

dose calculation methodology is described in RG 1.109 (Ref. 29).

In accordance with regulatory requirements and RG 1.109 methodology, the doses are 

calculated for the individuals receiving the highest whole body and organ doses. As a result, 

these doses are often referred to as the maximum whole body and the maximum organ doses. 

Additionally, licensees are required to calculate the organ doses for 6 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. This is often referred to as the critical organ for the maximum 

exposed individual. 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 further away from 

the facility, are expected to be lower than those indicated in this report.

The doses shown in the tables and graphs of this section include contributions from all 

radionuclides in the type of effluent shown (i.e., liquid or gaseous). For example, any dose 

contributions from Sr-90, which can be a relatively significant contributor to dose, are included in 

the tables and graphs in this section.

The NRC design objectives (also called system operating limits in this report), discussed in 

Section 2.4, are included in the tables and figures. To allow the reader to compare one reactor 

with another in this report, the system operating limits are shown on a per-unit basis for multiunit sites. The dose tables and figures are organized by the two types of reactors used in the 

United States: BWRs and PWRs. The tables and figures are further subdivided into liquid and 

gaseous effluents.

If the licensee does not report a dose, the corresponding table entry will be blank. A blank entry 

indicates that a particular dose is zero. A dose of zero implies either (1) no releases occurred 

(e.g., the NPP is a zero-discharge plant) or (2) no exposure pathway exists and it is not possible 

for a member of the public to receive a dose. Zeros are not included in the dose tables in order 

to make it easier for the reader to quickly identify the positive values. 
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-54 NUREG/CR-2907

For comparison purposes, median values are included in the tables and figures. The median is 

a statistical estimate of 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 3.17, the 

BWR median annual organ dose due to gaseous effluents from all BWRs is highlighted in yellow 

in the center of the table. In this case, the median is 0.0148 mrem. This represents the typical 

annual organ dose, due to all gaseous effluents, from all BWRs operating in the United States in 

2009. The 2009 median organ dose is compared with the median organ doses from 2007 and 

2008 in Figure 3.23. The organ doses due to gaseous effluents from PWR are also shown on 

Figure 3.23. Figure 3.23 indicates organ doses due to gaseous effluents from BWRs decreased 

between 2007 and 2009. The median organ doses for liquid effluents from PWRs also 

decreased between 2007 and 2009. 

This information can be useful in a number of ways. For example, Figures 3.23 and 3.24 show

that, 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. Indeed, this was discussed at some length in Section 3.5. 

In Figure 3.18 of Section 3.5, it was noted that the activity of MFAPs in BWR liquid effluents 

increased from 2007 to 2009. As discussed in Section 3.5, this increase in MFAPs appears to 

be, at least partly, the result of an effort to reduce doses. Figures 3.23 and 3.24 indicate that 

even though the activity in BWR liquid effluents increased from 2007 to 2009 (as shown in 

Figure 3.18), the doses from BWR liquid and gaseous effluents decreased during the same 

period.

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.

The tables in this section indicate that the highest total body dose from all of the facilities was 

less than 0.4 mrem (Table 3.19), and the highest organ dose from all of the facilities was less 

than 0.9 mrem (Table 3.18). None of the doses from liquid or gaseous effluents exceeded 1 

mrem. 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 4 weeks from the natural potassium in each person’s body, or

• the dose received in 8 weeks by a homeowner residing in a brick or stone house.

The basis for each of these 3 values is discussed in the following paragraphs.
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-55

Based on information from the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Ref. 32), people’s 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, based on USGS data. 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 dose—above what they might normally have received if they had stayed in Florida—

of about 1.3 mrem.

According to a DOE report prepared by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Ref. 33) the 

average 150-pound individual receives about 14 mrem per year from the natural potassium-40 

that is incorporated into the human body. The dose for 4 weeks would be 1.1 mrem.

Report No. 95 issued by the NCRP (Ref. 34) 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 safety limits, and (3) 

the doses to members of the public are ALARA. The information presented in this section 

indicates the maximum dose due to radioactive releases from NPPs was less than 1 mrem in 

2009. The highest median dose was approximately 0.01 mrem. Additionally, the doses from 

radioactive effluents appear to be on a declining trend. Doses of these magnitudes are not 

expected to have a health impact on the public or the environment.
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-56 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 3.17

BWR Gaseous Effluents — Maximum Annual Organ Dose, 2009

BWR Facility Annual Organ 

Dose (mrem)

Perry 5.33E-05

Limerick 1 3.03E-04

Limerick 2 3.03E-04

Hope Creek 6.51E-04

Vermont Yankee 7.88E-04

Clinton 1.62E-03

FitzPatrick 3.37E-03

Dresden 2 3.44E-03

Browns Ferry 1 5.53E-03

Browns Ferry 2 5.53E-03

Browns Ferry 3 5.53E-03

Duane Arnold 6.05E-03

Oyster Creek 6.56E-03

Dresden 3 9.17E-03

Hatch 2 9.74E-03

Grand Gulf 1.37E-02

Hatch 1 1.44E-02

Peach Bottom 2 1.48E-02

Peach Bottom 3 1.48E-02

BWR Median Dose 1.48E-02

Columbia 1.84E-02

Nine Mile Point 1 2.97E-02

LaSalle 1 3.85E-02

LaSalle 2 3.85E-02

Cooper 3.90E-02

Pilgrim 6.19E-02

Monticello 6.24E-02

Fermi 2 6.96E-02

Nine Mile Point 2 1.13E-01

Quad Cities 1 1.47E-01

Quad Cities 2 1.47E-01

Susquehanna 1 1.48E-01

Susquehanna 2 1.98E-01

Brunswick 1 2.03E-01

Brunswick 2 2.03E-01

River Bend 3.48E-01

System Operational Limit 15
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-57

Table 3.18

PWR Gaseous Effluents — Maximum Annual Organ Dose, 2009

PWR Facility Annual Organ 

Dose (mrem) PWR Facility Annual Organ Dose (mrem)

Salem 2 4.08E-05 North Anna 1 1.55E-02

Salem 1 1.04E-04 North Anna 2 1.55E-02

Vogtle 2 3.56E-04 Point Beach 1 1.61E-02

Calvert Cliffs 1 4.00E-04 Point Beach 2 1.61E-02

Calvert Cliffs 2 4.00E-04 St. Lucie 2 2.14E-02

St. Lucie 1 9.68E-04 Beaver Valley 2 2.31E-02

Kewaunee 9.69E-04 Seabrook 2.51E-02

Summer 1.14E-03 Byron 2 2.82E-02

Diablo Canyon 2 1.28E-03 Wolf Creek 3.11E-02

Davis-Besse 1.66E-03 Comanche Peak 1 3.94E-02

Indian Point 2 2.10E-03 Comanche Peak 2 3.94E-02

South Texas 2 2.27E-03 Braidwood 2 4.81E-02

South Texas 1 2.36E-03 Surry 1 4.89E-02

Farley 2 2.61E-03 Surry 2 4.89E-02

Indian Point 3 3.18E-03 Three Mile Island 1 5.59E-02

Vogtle 1 3.21E-03 Diablo Canyon 1 7.55E-02

Farley 1 3.33E-03 Watts Bar 8.36E-02

Ginna 4.30E-03 Cook 1 8.37E-02

Millstone 3 6.21E-03 Cook 2 8.37E-02

Callaway 9.03E-03 Robinson 2 8.67E-02

Byron 1 7.24E-03 McGuire 1 9.90E-02

San Onofre 2 7.44E-03 McGuire 2 9.90E-02

San Onofre 3 7.44E-03 Palo Verde 1 1.11E-01

Crystal River 3 7.68E-03 Beaver Valley 1 1.32E-01

Palisades 8.39E-03 Braidwood 1 1.61E-01

Millstone 2 8.93E-03 Arkansas 2 1.65E-01

Oconee 1 9.17E-03 Palo Verde 3 1.92E-01

Oconee 2 9.17E-03 Palo Verde 2 2.43E-01

Oconee 3 9.17E-03 Turkey Point 4 3.69E-01

Arkansas 1 1.30E-02 Turkey Point 3 3.94E-01

Sequoyah 1 1.30E-02 Waterford 3 6.72E-01

Sequoyah 2 1.30E-02 Catawba 1 7.70E-01

Prairie Island 1 1.32E-02 Catawba 2 7.70E-01

Prairie Island 2 1.32E-02 Harris 8.47E-01

Ft. Calhoun 1.48E-02 System Operational 

Limit 15

PWR Median Dose 1.48E-02
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-58 NUREG/CR-2907

Table 3.19

BWR Liquid Effluents — Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose, 2009

BWR Facility Annual Total Body 

Dose (mrem)

Annual Organ 

Dose (mrem)

Clinton

Columbia

Fermi 2

LaSalle 1

LaSalle 2

Monticello

Nine Mile Point 2

Oyster Creek

Duane Arnold 4.56E-06 4.56E-06

FitzPatrick 1.66E-05 1.66E-05

River Bend 1.85E-05 4.09E-05

Dresden 2 2.72E-05 3.82E-05

Vermont Yankee 5.06E-05 5.06E-05

Dresden 3 7.12E-05 8.89E-05

Pilgrim 3.10E-05 2.10E-04

Hope Creek 8.32E-05 3.05E-04

Hatch 2 2.23E-04 2.83E-04

Perry 3.57E-04 3.61E-04

BWR Median Dose 3.57E-04 3.61E-04

Susquehanna 1 8.50E-04 1.28E-03

Susquehanna 2 8.50E-04 1.28E-03

Nine Mile Point 1 6.30E-04 1.95E-03

Browns Ferry 1 1.10E-03 1.55E-03

Browns Ferry 2 1.10E-03 1.55E-03

Browns Ferry 3 1.10E-03 1.55E-03

Peach Bottom 2 1.50E-03 2.36E-03

Peach Bottom 3 1.50E-03 2.36E-03

Hatch 1 8.78E-04 3.93E-03

Brunswick 1 2.24E-03 3.00E-03

Brunswick 2 2.24E-03 3.00E-03

Quad Cities 1 4.70E-03 7.45E-03

Quad Cities 2 4.70E-03 7.45E-03

Cooper 2.45E-02 2.49E-02

Grand Gulf 6.15E-02 1.21E-01

Limerick 1 3.88E-01 3.88E-01

Limerick 2 3.88E-01 3.88E-01

System Operational Limit 3 10
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-59

Table 3.20

PWR Liquid Effluents — Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose, 2009

PWR Facility

Annual 

Total Body 

Dose 

(mrem)

Annual 

Organ 

Dose 

(mrem)

PWR Facility

Annual 

Total Body 

Dose 

(mrem)

Annual 

Organ 

Dose 

(mrem)

Palo Verde 1 Farley 1 6.10E-03 9.13E-03

Palo Verde 2 South Texas 1 8.19E-03 8.25E-03

Palo Verde 3 Davis-Besse 7.81E-03 9.67E-03

Robinson 2 4.23E-05 4.76E-05 Harris 5.87E-03 1.27E-02

Salem 2 2.72E-05 8.89E-05 Ginna 9.57E-03 9.62E-03

Salem 1 3.22E-05 8.60E-05 Farley 2 6.42E-03 1.61E-02

Crystal River 3 5.53E-05 1.14E-04 Watts Bar 1.13E-02 1.40E-02

Turkey Point 3 3.93E-04 Vogtle 1 1.18E-02 1.49E-02

Turkey Point 4 3.93E-04 Cook 1 2.22E-02 2.23E-02

Surry 1 1.55E-04 2.52E-04 Cook 2 2.22E-02 2.23E-02

Surry 2 1.55E-04 2.52E-04 Three Mile Island 1 2.77E-02 2.86E-02

Diablo Canyon 1 1.67E-04 4.20E-04 Ft. Calhoun 2.80E-02 3.06E-02

Diablo Canyon 2 1.67E-04 4.20E-04 Catawba 1 2.51E-02 3.54E-02

Indian Point 3 2.49E-04 4.59E-04 Catawba 2 2.51E-02 3.54E-02

Kewaunee 5.81E-04 7.25E-04 Oconee 1 2.04E-02 4.87E-02

Seabrook 8.17E-04 1.11E-03 Oconee 2 2.04E-02 4.87E-02

Calvert Cliffs 1 8.50E-04 1.40E-03 Oconee 3 2.04E-02 4.87E-02

Calvert Cliffs 2 8.50E-04 1.40E-03 St. Lucie 1 1.59E-02 5.61E-02

Indian Point 2 9.00E-04 1.71E-03 St. Lucie 2 1.59E-02 5.61E-02

Millstone 3 4.00E-04 2.26E-03 Braidwood 1 4.91E-02 5.72E-02

San Onofre 2 1.08E-03 2.74E-03 Braidwood 2 4.91E-02 5.72E-02

San Onofre 3 1.08E-03 2.74E-03 Vogtle 2 5.06E-02 5.65E-02

Prairie Island 1 9.55E-04 3.46E-03 Comanche Peak 1 6.45E-02 6.48E-02

Prairie Island 2 9.55E-04 3.46E-03 Comanche Peak 2 6.45E-02 6.48E-02

Arkansas 2 2.30E-03 2.80E-03 Beaver Valley 1 5.32E-02 9.34E-02

Arkansas 1 2.50E-03 3.40E-03 Beaver Valley 2 5.32E-02 9.34E-02

Point Beach 1 3.01E-03 3.51E-03 Byron 1 7.35E-02 9.05E-02

Point Beach 2 3.01E-03 3.51E-03 Byron 2 7.35E-02 9.05E-02

Millstone 2 8.29E-04 7.76E-03 McGuire 1 8.90E-02 9.00E-02

South Texas 2 5.26E-03 5.28E-03 McGuire 2 8.90E-02 9.00E-02

Sequoyah 1 5.35E-03 5.35E-03 North Anna 1 1.40E-01 1.52E-01

Sequoyah 2 5.35E-03 5.35E-03 North Anna 2 1.40E-01 1.52E-01

Waterford 3 6.16E-03 5.61E-03 Palisades 1.39E-02 3.70E-01

Summer 6.24E-03 6.33E-03 Wolf Creek 1.93E-01 2.03E-01

Callaway 5.67E-03 8.18E-03 System 

Operational Limit 3 10 PWR Median Dose 6.10E-03 8.18E-03
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-60 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.19

BWR Gaseous Effluents — Maximum Annual Organ Dose

1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2

Perry

Limerick 1

Limerick 2

Hope Creek

Vermont Yankee

Clinton

FitzPatrick

Dresden 2

Browns Ferry 1

Browns Ferry 2

Browns Ferry 3

Duane Arnold

Oyster Creek

Dresden 3

Hatch 2

Grand Gulf

Hatch 1

Peach Bottom 2

Peach Bottom 3

BWR Median Dose

Columbia

Nine Mile Point 1

LaSalle 1

LaSalle 2

Cooper

Pilgrim

Monticello

Fermi 2

Nine Mile Point 2

Quad Cities 1

Quad Cities 2

Susquehanna 1

Susquehanna 2

Brunswick 1

Brunswick 2

River Bend

System Operational Limit

2009 Annual Organ Dose (mrem)
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-61

Figure 3.20

PWR Gaseous Effluents — Maximum Annual Organ Dose

1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2

PWR Median Dose

North Anna 1

North Anna 2

Point Beach 1

Point Beach 2

St. Lucie 2

Beaver Valley 2

Seabrook

Byron 2

Wolf Creek

Comanche Peak 1

Comanche Peak 2

Braidwood 2

Surry 1

Surry 2

Three Mile Island 1

Diablo Canyon 1

Watts Bar

Cook 1

Cook 2

Robinson 2

McGuire 1

McGuire 2

Palo Verde 1

Beaver Valley 1

Braidwood 1

Arkansas 2

Palo Verde 3

Palo Verde 2

Turkey Point 4

Turkey Point 3

Waterford 3

Catawba 1

Catawba 2

Harris

System Operational Limit

2009 Annual Organ Dose (mrem)
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-62 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.20 (continued)

PWR Gaseous Effluents — Maximum Annual Organ Dose 

1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2

Salem 2

Salem 1

Vogtle 2

Calvert Cliffs 1

Calvert Cliffs 2

St. Lucie 1

Kewaunee

Summer

Diablo Canyon 2

Davis-Besse

Indian Point 2

South Texas 2

South Texas 1

Farley 2

Indian Point 3

Vogtle 1

Farley 1

Ginna

Millstone 3

Byron 1

San Onofre 2

San Onofre 3

Crystal River 3

Palisades

Millstone 2

Callaway

Oconee 1

Oconee 2

Oconee 3

Arkansas 1

Sequoyah 1

Sequoyah 2

Prairie Island 1

Prairie Island 2

Ft. Calhoun

PWR Median Dose

System Operational Limit

2009 Annual Organ Dose (mrem)
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-63

Figure 3.21

BWR Liquid Effluents — Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose

1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2

Clinton

Columbia

Fermi 2

LaSalle 1

LaSalle 2

Monticello

Nine Mile Point 2

Oyster Creek

Duane Arnold

FitzPatrick

River Bend

Dresden 2

Vermont Yankee

Dresden 3

Pilgrim

Hope Creek

Hatch 2

Perry

BWR Median Dose

Susquehanna 1

Susquehanna 2

Nine Mile Point 1

Browns Ferry 1

Browns Ferry 2

Browns Ferry 3

Peach Bottom 2

Peach Bottom 3

Hatch 1

Brunswick 1

Brunswick 2

Quad Cities 1

Quad Cities 2

Cooper

Grand Gulf

Limerick 1

Limerick 2

System Operational Limit

2009 Annual Dose (mrem)

Total Body

Organ
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-64 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.22

PWR Liquid Effluents — Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose

1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2

PWR Median Dose

Farley 1

South Texas 1

Davis-Besse

Harris

Ginna

Farley 2

Watts Bar

Vogtle 1

Cook 1

Cook 2

Three Mile Island 1

Ft. Calhoun

Catawba 1

Catawba 2

Oconee 1

Oconee 2

Oconee 3

St. Lucie 1

St. Lucie 2

Braidwood 1

Braidwood 2

Vogtle 2

Comanche Peak 1

Comanche Peak 2

Beaver Valley 1

Beaver Valley 2

Byron 1

Byron 2

McGuire 1

McGuire 2

North Anna 1

North Anna 2

Palisades

Wolf Creek

System Operational Limit

2009 Annual Dose (mrem)

Total Body

Organ
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 3-65

Figure 3.22 (continued)

PWR Liquid Effluents — Maximum Annual Total Body and Organ Dose

1E-6 1E-5 1E-4 1E-3 1E-2 1E-1 1E+0 1E+1 1E+2

Palo Verde 1

Palo Verde 2

Palo Verde 3

Robinson 2

Salem 2

Salem 1

Crystal River 3

Turkey Point 3

Turkey Point 4

Surry 1

Surry 2

Diablo Canyon 1

Diablo Canyon 2

Indian Point 3

Kewaunee

Seabrook

Calvert Cliffs 1

Calvert Cliffs 2

Indian Point 2

Millstone 3

San Onofre 2

San Onofre 3

Prairie Island 1

Prairie Island 2

Arkansas 2

Arkansas 1

Point Beach 1

Point Beach 2

Millstone 2

South Texas 2

Sequoyah 1

Sequoyah 2

Waterford 3

Summer

Callaway

PWR Median Dose

System Operational Limit

2009 Annual Dose (mrem)

Total Body

Organ
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

3-66 NUREG/CR-2907

Figure 3.23

Median Maximum Annual Organ Dose, Gaseous Effluents

3-Year Trend, 2007-2009

Figure 3.24

Median Maximum Annual Dose, Liquid Effluents

3-Year Trend, 2007-2009

0.020

0.018

0.015

0.024

0.013

0.015

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

2007 2008 2009

BWRs

PWRs

Doses From All Noble Gas Effluents

mrem

0.0007 0.0009

0.0004

0.0086

0.0078

0.0082

0.0003

0.0006 0.0004

0.0049

0.0066

0.0061

-0.001

0.001

0.003

0.005

0.007

0.009

2007 2008 2009

BWRs

PWRs

Doses From All Liquid Effluents

mrem

Organ

Total Body
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 4-1

4 Summary

The information contained in this report characterizes liquid and gaseous effluents from all 

United States nuclear power plants (NPPs) in commercial operation for calendar year 2009.

Although all NPPs released some amount of radioactive materials in 2009, none of the effluents 

from any NPP exceeded:

• any NRC safety limit, 

• any NRC design objective, or 

• any of the licensees’ system operating limits for radioactive effluents.

This report summarizes several thousand pages of reports submitted to the NRC by licensees in 

the United States. The radionuclides selected for inclusion in this report are either the most 

predominant in radioactive effluents or are particularly useful indicators of overall releases. The 

radionuclides selected also provide additional information about operational practices at a site. 

The data presented in this report show a significant decreasing trend in radioactive effluents 

(i.e., mixed fission and activation products in liquid effluents and noble gases in gaseous 

effluents) over the last 34 years. 

The radiation doses in this report are those most directly associated with potential public health 

impact from radioactive effluents. People receive some radiation exposure from the radioactive 

effluents discharged from NPPs, but that exposure is very small. To provide some context, the 

dose from radioactive effluents to the maximum exposed individual living near any U.S. NPP is 

less than the dose from any one of the following: 

• 1 week of skiing in the Rocky Mountains,

• 4 weeks from the natural potassium in each person’s body,

• 8 weeks to a homeowner residing in a brick or stone house.

For additional context, the median activities for radioactive effluents, the system operating dose 

limits, the natural background sources of radiation, and other sources of radiation exposure to 

the U.S. population are provided in this report for comparison with the effluent data. 

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 information, including copies of the NPPs Annual Radioactive 

Effluent Release Reports (ARERRs), is available to the public on the NRC Web site. 

2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 5-1

5 References

1. “Report on Releases of Radioactivity in Effluents and Solid Wastes from Nuclear Power 

Plants for 1972,” Directorate of Regulatory Operations, August 1973.

2. “Summary of Radioactivity Releases in Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants During 

1973,” NUREG-75/001, January 1975.

3. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1974,” NUREG-0077, June 

1976.

4. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1975,” NUREG-0218, 

March 1977.

5. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1976,” NUREG-0367, 

March 1978.

6. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1977,” NUREG-0521, 

January 1979.

7. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1978,” NUREG/CR-1497, 

BNL-NUREG-51192, March 1981.

8. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1979,” NUREG/CR-2227, 

BNL-NUREG-51416, November 1981.

9. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1980,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 1, January 1983.

10. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1981,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 2, June 1984.

11. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1982,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 3, February 1986.

12. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1983,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 4, August 1986.

13. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1984,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 5, August 1987.

14. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1985,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 6, January 1988.

15. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1986,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 7, November 1988.

16. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1987,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 8, October 1989.
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

5-2 NUREG/CR-2907

17. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1988,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 9, July 1991.

18. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1989,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 10, September 1992.

19. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1990,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 11, October 1993.

20. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1991,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 12, May 1994.

21. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1992,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 13, August 1995.

22. “Radioactive Materials Released from Nuclear Power Plants, 1993,” NUREG/CR-2907, 

BNL-NUREG-51581, Vol. 14, August 1995.

23. SECY-06-0212, Preparation of Annual Reports on Radioactive Materials Released in 

Gaseous and Liquid Effluents and in Solid Wastes Shipped for Disposal by Commercial 

Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, October 

17, 2006.

24. Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants – Annual Report 2007, NRC Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, ADAMS Accession Number ML103620453, December 

2010.

25. Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants – Annual Report 2008, NRC Office of 

Nuclear Reactor Regulation, ADAMS Accession Number ML103620452, December 

2010.

26. 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.

27. Regulatory Guide 1.21, “Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactive Material in 

Liquid and Gaseous Effluents and Solid Waste,” Revision 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC, June 2009.

28. 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC.

29. Regulatory Guide 1.109, “Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of 

Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Demonstrating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, 

Appendix I,” U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, October 1977.

30. NCRP Report No. 160, “Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United 

States,” National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, 

March 3, 2009.
2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 5-3

31. NCRP Report No. 93, “Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United 

States,” National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD, 

September 1987.

32. Duval, J.S., Carson, J.M., Holman, P.B., and Darnley, A.G., 2005, Terrestrial 

radioactivity and gamma-ray exposure in the United States and Canada: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2005-1413. Available online only.

33. PNNL-18240, Radiation Doses to Hanford Workers from Natural Potassium-40, DJ 

Strom, T.P. Lynch, and D.R. Weier, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, February 

2009, http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18240.pdf.

34. NCRP Report No. 95, “Radiation Exposure of the U.S. Population from Consumer 

Products and Miscellaneous Sources,” National Council on Radiation Protection and 

Measurements, Bethesda, MD, 1987.

2009 Annual Report Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants

NUREG/CR-2907 6-1

6 Glossary

Activity or radioactivity: The rate of radioactive decay 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.

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 

were released during the fission process.

Gaseous effluents: Airborne effluents.

Iodines/Halogens: 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, as well as other halogens such as bromine82 (Br-82).

Maximum exposed individual: 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 20): Any individual except when that individual is receiving an 

occupational dose. 
Radioactive Effluents From Nuclear Power Plants 2009 Annual Report

6-2 NUREG/CR-2907

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 maximum number of electrons possible in their outer shell (2 for Helium, 8 for all others), 

making them unreactive. 

NUREG: A publication by or for the NRC containing nonsensitive information related to NRC’s 

mission that does not contain regulatory requirements and is published in a formal agency 

series to ensure the “...dissemination to the public of scientific and technical information related 

to atomic energy...” as mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Each 

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).



UNITED STATES 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

--------------------

OFFICIAL BUSINESS
NUREG/CR

-2907, Vol. 15

Final

Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants

Annual Report 2009