Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural GasTexas Eastern Transmission, LP and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC    New...
- ii –                                                     TABLE OF CONTENTSDeclaration of Lynn R. Anspaugh .................
-2–                                      QUALIFICATIONS       I hold a Bachelor of Arts Degree with High Distinction from ...
-3–   Principal Investigator, Project on the experimental measurement of the resuspension of    plutonium and other radio...
-4–   Scientific Director, The Basic Environmental Compliance and Monitoring Program for    the Nevada Test Site;   Memb...
-5–      Member, World Health Organization team to perform a preliminary assessment of       radiation dose from the nucl...
-6–      National Academy of Science/National Research Council Committee on an Assessment       of CDC Radiation Studies;...
-7–      Selected for listing in Who’s Who in Science and Engineering.       I have also been accepted by Federal and Sta...
-8–                                               INTRODUCTION         Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, and Algonquin Gas T...
-9–of protons (nuclei of hydrogen), but also contains alpha particles (nuclei of helium) and someheavier nuclei.3 These co...
- 10 –                                                                                                         232Th      ...
- 11 –                                                                                            238U                    ...
- 12 –contaminate the outside surfaces of the food. Thus, the radioactive materials are ingested withfood, and some soil i...
- 13 –           Unfortunately in terms of adding to confusion, most of the world, with the notableexception of the United...
- 14 –States. Some selected values that they reported are shown in Table 2. The variations inconcentration of all three ra...
- 15 –      Table 3. Estimated annual dose to the population of the world from naturally occurring        radionuclides an...
- 16 –supplied to New York State customers. As explained in detail below, the cancer risk, based onactual radon measuremen...
- 17 –radon is not likely to be of concern to suppliers or customers due to the small quantity that isreleased into buildi...
- 18 –Concentration of radon at the natural gas wellhead         According to Resnikoff (2012)18 the first factor that mus...
- 19 –report that was not reviewed or edited by the USGS.21 Resnikoff claims at page 8 of his reportthat the preliminary U...
- 20 –the gas supplied to the customer. These measurements account not only for the reduction in theradon concentration du...
- 21 –Fig. 3. A schematic diagram of the existing Spectra Energy pipeline. The red lines represent the Texas Eastern pipel...
- 22 –    Table 4. Results of independent sample analysis for the content of 222Rn in natural gas at eight      different ...
- 23 –Dose from incremental increase of radon in residences           The calculation of radiation dose from the inhalatio...
- 24 –         If we integrate that annual dose over a 30-year period, as suggested by Resnikoff, 30 theresult is a 30-yea...
- 25 –earth. If the projections employed by the interveners were correct, all humans would haveperished from cancer thousa...
- 26 –completely consistent with the information on radon dose and risk presently accepted by theknowledgeable scientific ...
- 27 –Gogolak CV. Review of 222Rn in natural gas produced from unconventional sources. New   York, NY: Environmental Measu...
- 28 –National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Exposures from the uranium  series with emphasis on radon...
- 29 -             APPENDIXCURRICULUM VITAE OF LYNN R. ANSPAUGH
CURRICULUM VITAELYNN R. ANSPAUGHEDUCATION:         Nebraska Wesleyan University, Lincoln, Nebraska                     B.A...
Lynn R. Anspaugh                                                                 Page 2CV/Bibliography                   R...
Lynn R. Anspaugh                                                            Page 3CV/Bibliography                   Recons...
Lynn R. Anspaugh                                                           Page 4CV/Bibliography                   Member,...
Lynn R. Anspaugh                                                               Page 5CV/Bibliography                     A...
Lynn R. Anspaugh                                                                 Page 6CV/Bibliography                    ...
Lynn R. Anspaugh                                                                      Page 7CV/Bibliography               ...
Lynn R. Anspaugh                                                                      Page 8CV/Bibliography             G....
Lynn R. Anspaugh                                                                   Page 9CV/Bibliography      17.    L.R. ...
Lynn R. Anspaugh                                                                  Page 10CV/Bibliography      26.    P.L. ...
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas

3,599

Published on

Study authored by Dr. Lynn Anspaugh which looks in detail at the question of whether or not radon in Marcellus Shale natural gas poses a health risk for residents of New Jersey and New York City. It completely refutes, via science, the claims that because Marcellus gas is so close to the markets it serves, that radon is present in very high levels posing lung cancer risks to consumers.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,599
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas

  1. 1. Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural GasTexas Eastern Transmission, LP and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC New Jersey–New York Expansion Project, Docket No. CP11-56 Prepared at the Request of Counsel for Applicants Lynn R. Anspaugh, Ph.D. Henderson, Nevada July 5, 2012
  2. 2. - ii – TABLE OF CONTENTSDeclaration of Lynn R. Anspaugh ...................................................................................................1Qualifications ...................................................................................................................................2Introduction ......................................................................................................................................8Background information ..................................................................................................................8 Naturally occurring radiation and radioactive materials ............................................................8 Concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides in soil ..............................................13 Radiation dose from naturally occurring radionuclides .....................................................14 Concentration of airborne radon in U.S. Homes......................................................................14Examination of the Resnikoff (2012) report ..................................................................................15 Concentration of radon at the natural gas wellhead .................................................................18 Transportation from the wellhead to the residence ..................................................................19 Dilution of incoming radon in the home ..................................................................................20A more rational approach to calculating radon exposure in the home ..........................................20 Measurements of radon in the pipeline natural gas .................................................................20 Concentration of radon from burning natural gas in residences ..............................................22 Dose from incremental increase of radon in residences ..........................................................23 Risk of lung cancer from the incremental increase in radon concentration .............................24Discussion ......................................................................................................................................25Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................25References and documents examined ............................................................................................26Appendix: Curriculum Vitae of Lynn R. Anspaugh .....................................................................29
  3. 3. -2– QUALIFICATIONS I hold a Bachelor of Arts Degree with High Distinction from the Nebraska WesleyanUniversity with a major in physics (1959); a Master of Bioradiology Degree from the Universityof California, Berkeley, with a specialty in health physics (1961); and a Doctor of PhilosophyDegree with a specialty in biophysics from the University of California, Berkeley (1963). Inorder to undertake my graduate work I competed for and received a Special Fellowship inRadiological Physics and a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship. During mygraduate work and before receiving a Ph.D. I was examined for my proficiency in four fields ofknowledge: atomic and nuclear physics, radiation physiology, biochemistry, and cellularphysiology. Following receipt of my Ph.D. degree I worked at the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory until retirement at the end of 1996. Since that time I have been at the University ofUtah in a position of Research Professor, and I do independent work through my soleproprietorship, Lynn R. Anspaugh, Consulting. During my career I have been the author or co-author of 348 published articles andreports and an additional 75 abstracts. A complete list of these publications in provided in myCurriculum Vitae, which is the Appendix to this report. My work has focused almost entirely on environmental health physics, radiation-dosereconstruction, and environmental risk analysis. I have also, as a member of a team, preparedand presented several courses and seminars on radiation-dose reconstruction and general riskassessment at a number of universities, including San Jose State University; University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles; Stanford University; University of California, Davis; and University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. My research and publications have originated mainly from the following activities:  Principal Investigator, Project on the determination of trace elements in human tissues (an important subject for the prediction of the uptake of radionuclides by the human body);  Principal Investigator, Project on the microdosimetry of 131I in the thyroid gland;  Principal Investigator, Risk evaluation (one of the first quantitative risk assessments) of the potential use of a nuclear explosive to create a reservoir for the storage of natural gas;
  4. 4. -3– Principal Investigator, Project on the experimental measurement of the resuspension of plutonium and other radionuclides from soil surfaces; Principal Investigator, Risk evaluation and experimental measurements of the risk of flaring natural gas (contaminated with 3H) from a well bore fractured with a nuclear explosive; Principal Investigator, Development of a model to predict the movement of tritium (3H) in biological systems; One of several investigators, Development of a system to assess the real time impacts of radionuclides in Utah from releases at the Nevada Test Site; Principal Investigator, Development and calibration of a field-spectrometry system to measure radionuclides in the environment; Principal Investigator, Examination of the relative hazards of different fissile materials; Co-Principal Investigator, Study of the impact of the emission of 222Rn from The Geysers Geothermal Power Plant; Scientific Director, The Imperial Valley Environmental Project, which was a comprehensive project to examine the environmental impacts of the use of geothermal energy; Project Director, Experimental determination of the inventory and distribution of all man- made radionuclides on surface soil at the Nevada Test Site; Scientific Director, Off-Site Radiation Exposure Project, which was the first major dose- reconstruction project carried out in the United States. The goal was to assess the radiation dose to hypothetical receptors and some actual persons from past releases of radionuclides from the Nevada Test Site; Co-Principal Investigator, Assessment of the use of radionuclides as tracers in the enhanced recovery of oil and gas; Investigator, Assessment of the global impacts of the Chernobyl accident; Co-Principal Investigator, Development of a dose-assessment model for possible future uses of the Nevada Test Site; Scientific Director, The Nevada Applied Ecology Group, which conducted a radioecological study of radionuclides deposited in soil at the Nevada Test Site;
  5. 5. -4– Scientific Director, The Basic Environmental Compliance and Monitoring Program for the Nevada Test Site; Member, Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel, which was part of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy charged with evaluating the potential impacts of radionuclides being launched into space; Leader, Working Group on Environmental Transport of the US–USSR Joint Coordinating Committee on Nuclear Reactor Safety; Member, Project on the reconstruction of thyroid dose to children in Belarus and Ukraine exposed as a result of the Chernobyl accident; Member, Project on the reconstruction of collective dose to the population living in Ukrainian areas contaminated by the Chernobyl accident; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on the use of measurements of 129I to reconstruct the deposition of 131I in Belarus from the Chernobyl accident; US Principal Investigator, Project on dose reconstruction for the population living on the Techa River, which is downstream of the first Russian facility for the production of plutonium; Principal Investigator, Evaluation of internal dose to the population of the contiguous United States from testing of nuclear weapons at the Nevada Test Site and of large tests at other sites (global fallout). My two reports on this subject have been incorporated in a report to Congress by the US Department of Health and Human Services; Investigator, Reconstruction of radiation dose from the testing of nuclear weapons at the Semipalatinsk Polygon, Kazakhstan; Investigator, Dose reconstruction in support of an epidemiologic study of radiogenic thyroid cancer in children from the testing of nuclear weapons in Nevada; Investigator, Dose reconstruction for Chernobyl clean-up workers enrolled in an epidemiologic study of radiogenic leukemia; US Principal Investigator, Derivation of source terms for releases of 131I and other radionuclides from the first Russian facility for the production of plutonium, evaluation of pathways through the environment to man, and reconstruction of dose to residents of Ozersk, Russia;
  6. 6. -5–  Member, World Health Organization team to perform a preliminary assessment of radiation dose from the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami;  Member, World Health Organization team to perform a Health Risk Assessment regarding the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami; and  Member, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation team to perform a detailed dose reconstruction concerning the nuclear accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. As part of my career work, I have participated in the work of many committees. Amongthem are:  Review Panel on Total Human Exposure, Subcommittee on Strategies and Long-Term Research Planning, Science Advisory Board, Environmental Protection Agency;  Department of Energy/Office of Health and Environmental Research Interlaboratory Task Group on Health and Environmental Aspects of the Soviet Nuclear Accident;  United States Delegation to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR);  Biomedical and Environmental Effects Subpanel, Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel, Office of Science and Technology Policy;  Executive Steering Committee, University of California Systemwide Toxic Substances Research and Teaching Program;  National Laboratory Directors’ Environmental and Public/Occupational Health Standards Steering Group;  National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, an independent organization chartered by the US Congress;  International Committee to Assess the Radiological Consequences in the USSR for the Chernobyl Accident, International Atomic Energy Agency;  California Radiation Emergency Screening Team, California Department of Health Services;  Environmental Management Advisory Committee, US Department of Energy;
  7. 7. -6–  National Academy of Science/National Research Council Committee on an Assessment of CDC Radiation Studies;  Radiation Advisory Committee, Science Advisory Board, US Environmental Protection Agency;  Expert Group Environment, United Nations Chernobyl Forum;  National Academy of Science/National Research Council Committee on Development of Risk-Based Approaches for Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Waste; and  National Academy of Science/National Research Council Committee on Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator Weapon and Other Weapons  World Health Organization, Expert Panel on Exposure Assessment for the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant  World Health Organization, Expert Panel on Health Risk Assessment for the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Selection for service on many of the above named committees and panels is recognitionof my technical expertise and experience. In addition, I have received the following honors frommy colleagues or other organizations.  Elected Fellow, Health Physics Society;  Elected President, Environmental Section, Health Physics Society;  Elected President, Northern California Chapter, Health Physics Society;  Elected to Board of Directors, Great Salt Lake Chapter, Health Physics Society;  Elected Treasurer, Lake Mead Chapter, Health Physics Society;  Elected as a Distinguished Emeritus Member, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (following service as an elected member of the Council for two six- year terms);  Designated as an Honorary Professor, Urals Research Centre for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia;  Selected for listing in American Men and Women of Science;  Selected for listing in Who’s Who in the West;  Selected for listing in Who’s Who in America;  Selected for listing in Who’s Who in Medicine and Health Care; and
  8. 8. -7–  Selected for listing in Who’s Who in Science and Engineering. I have also been accepted by Federal and State of Louisiana courts without challenge asan expert witness for radiation-dose-reconstruction and dose-projection issues. I do not considerthis as part of my qualifications, but as evidence of the acceptance of my expertise.
  9. 9. -8– INTRODUCTION Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, have applied tothe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to expand their natural gas-pipeline systemsin New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Both of these companies are Spectra EnergyCorporation natural gas-pipeline companies. The FERC has issued a Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement (FEIS) for this project (FERC 2012) and has approved the project subject toimplementation of proposed mitigation and other measures. Following publication of the FEISseveral entities have sought to intervene and to request a rehearing regarding several issues. Oneof the more frequently cited issues relates to the presence of radon (specifically 222Rn) in naturalgas (Ring undated; Schulte undated; Scott 2011; Donohue 2012; Resnikoff 2012; Schulte 2012).1Rationale given for raising the concern about radon in this context is the belief that the naturalgas in the pipeline is or will be derived from the Marcellus Shale formation, which some of theinterveners believe contains elevated levels of radon. Generally speaking all natural gas containssome levels of radon, so the presence of radon in and of itself is not new. The fundamentalquestions here are whether the natural gas in this pipeline might contain highly elevated levelsand the possible health effects of human exposure to such levels. The purpose of this document is to examine the issue of radon levels in natural gas in thispipeline and possible risks to individuals. Most of the statements made by interveners are onlysuggestive or qualitative. Information given in Resnikoff (2012) and repeated in Schulte (2012)is presented in a quantitative fashion; examination of the Resnikoff report is believed to cover allsignificant issues raised in the other reports or statements.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATIONNaturally occurring radiation and radioactive materials Everyone is exposed to natural background radiation, which arises from a variety ofsources that can be grouped within four broad categories. The first group consists of cosmic raysand cosmogenic radionuclides. Cosmic rays originate in outer space; these galactic rays havecomponents that are 98% nucleonic and 2% electrons. The nucleonic component consists mainly1 The reference style used in this document is a combination of the usual scientific and legal styles. Completereferences are given only in the reference section. Where it is appropriate to designate a particular page or pages ina reference, this information is provided as a footnote.2 Ring notes that stable 206Pb (lead) is a toxic heavy metal and that “lead will be formed in the pipes to the homes,which use natural gas.” Insignificantly small amounts of stable lead, which is the ultimate decay product of radon,will accumulate on the inside wall of the pipeline, but only long before the pipeline reaches any customer’sresidence. Accordingly, lead from natural gas does not create any health risk to the natural gas customer.
  10. 10. -9–of protons (nuclei of hydrogen), but also contains alpha particles (nuclei of helium) and someheavier nuclei.3 These cosmic rays interact in the upper atmosphere and produce a radiation fieldthat exposes persons on the earth with generally higher exposures accorded to persons living athigher altitudes. The cosmic rays also interact with nuclei in the upper atmosphere to produceradionuclides by a variety of mechanisms; the more common cosmogenic radionuclides are 3H(tritium), 7Be, 14C, and 22Na. These radionuclides enter the body and produce radiationexposure. The second category is external exposure from radionuclides that are contained in thesurface of the earth. These primordial radionuclides were present at the time of the earth’screation, and they have extremely long half-lives such that they are still present in the earth’ssurface. The main radionuclides of concern are 40K and the series of radionuclides that areheaded by 232Th and 238U. There is another decay chain headed by 235U, and this radionuclide isvery important in terms of the development and use of nuclear energy. However, 235U occursonly in minor amounts: Of naturally occurring uranium, only 0.72% by weight consists of 235U(Lederer and Shirley 1978), so the presence of 235U and the chain it heads are not significant interms of natural background radiation. The decay chains headed by 232Th and 238U arediagramed in Figs. 1 and 2. Each decay chain, unless disturbed, is said to be in secularequilibrium in that the activity of every member of each chain is exactly the same, although themasses of each member may be greatly different. Equilibrium is present because the half-life ofthe parent radionuclide is much, much longer than the half-life of any successor radionuclide inthe chain. If secular equilibrium is disturbed, for example, by extracting the uranium from theother members of the chain by the mining and milling of uranium, then the process of in-growthof the daughter radionuclides will begin again, but it may be many years before secularequilibrium is re-established within the uranium materials. External exposure to humans occursdue to the decay of these radionuclides in soil (and in building materials) and the interaction ofthe decay emissions (primarily gamma rays or photons) with human tissue. As noted in Figs. 1 and 2, each of the two chains has one decay product that consists of anoble gas, 220Rn or 222Rn. Either of these tends to migrate from the soil surface into the air and isavailable for subsequent inhalation by man; this is the third category of exposure: inhalation.Radon-222 is the more important of the two, as its half-life is long enough for it to migratethrough soil and into outdoor air. Depending upon a variety of factors, radon may also3 A much more lengthy discussion of natural background radiation can be found in UNSCEAR (2000).
  11. 11. - 10 – 232Th 14 Gy 228Ra 228Ac 228Th 5.75 y 6.13 h 1.91 y 224Ra 3.7 d Atomic weight 220Rn 55.6 s 216Po 0.15 s 212Pb 212Bi 212Po 10.6 h 61 m 0.3 s 36% 64% 208Tl 208Pb 3.1 m Stable Atomic number Fig. 1. The radioactive decay chain headed by 232Th. Decays by alpha-particle emission are noted by diagonal lines indicating a change in atomic number of two and a change in atomicweight by four. Decays by beta emission are noted by short horizontal lines indicating a change of one in atomic number, but no change in mass. Abbreviations used are y = years, d = days, h = hours, m = minutes, and s = seconds. Prefixes used are G = Giga = 109, and  = micro = 10-6. This diagram is patterned after that of Evans (1955).accumulate in indoor air, where it may become concentrated. The inhalation of radon (and itsshort-lived decay products) is generally the most significant source of exposure of humans tonatural background radiation, or radiation of any type. Other radionuclides in the two series and40 K may also be suspended from the soil surface and inhaled. The final category of exposure is related to the ingestion of the same three primordialradionuclides and the progeny of 232Th and 238U. As each of the three radionuclides resides insoil, it is inevitable that some amounts of these materials are taken up into food crops or
  12. 12. - 11 – 238U 4.5 Gy 234Th 234mPa 234U 24 d 1.2 m 244 ky 230Th 77 ky 226Ra 1.6 kyAtomic weight 222Rn 3.8 d 218Po 3.05 m 214Pb 214Bi 214Po 26.8 m 20 m 160 s 210Pb 210Bi 210Po 22.3 y 5.0 d 138 d 206Pb Stable Atomic number Fig. 2. The radioactive decay chain headed by 238U. Decays by alpha-particle emission are noted by diagonal lines indicating a change in atomic number of two and a change in atomic weight by four. Decays by beta emission are noted by short horizontal lines indicating a change of one in atomic number, but no change in mass. Abbreviations used are y = years, d = days, h = hours, m = minutes, and s = seconds. Prefixes used are G = Giga = 109, k = kilo = 103, and  = micro = 10-6. This diagram is patterned after that of Evans (1955).
  13. 13. - 12 –contaminate the outside surfaces of the food. Thus, the radioactive materials are ingested withfood, and some soil is also ingested directly due to the contamination of hands, etc. A general concept is the relationship between activity and mass. As mentioned above,the activity of each member of a chain headed by a parent radionuclide would be the same underconditions of secular equilibrium, but the mass of each member of the chain would be quitedifferent. The relationship between activity, A, and mass, M, of a radionuclide is given by K  A0   K  A0 0.693 A M   M , (1) AW AW T1 / 2where A = activity of a radionuclide, Ci; K = constant equal to 8.56  10-19 Ci-y disintegration-1; A0 = Avogadro’s constant, atoms mole-1; AW = atomic weight of the radionuclide, g mole-1;  = decay constant, disintegrations (atom-y)-1; 0.693 = natural logarithm of 2; T1/2 = half-life of the radionuclide, y; and M = mass of the radionuclide, g.Thus, for 238U there would be 3  106 g per Ci of activity, but for 234Th there would be only43  10-6 g per Ci, a difference of about 11 orders of magnitude. The activity values given above are in terms of curies, which is abbreviated as Ci.Originally one Ci was defined as the activity associated with one gram of 226Ra; this definitionwas changed in 19504 to apply to any radionuclide that had 3.700 × 1010 disintegrations persecond. One Ci is a large amount of activity—not something usually encountered. Moreappropriate subunits have been given as a milli-curie (mCi, one thousandth of a Ci), micro-curie(Ci, one millionth of a Ci), nano-curie (nCi, one billionth of a Ci), and pico-curie (pCi, onetrillionth of a Ci). Much of the data discussed in this report is given in the smallest of the above,i.e., in pCi.4 Evans (1955), p. 472.
  14. 14. - 13 – Unfortunately in terms of adding to confusion, most of the world, with the notableexception of the United States, uses the Système International (SI) of units to describe almosteverything, including units of activity (ICRU 1998). Thus, the SI unit of activity is thedisintegration per second, of which the special name is the becquerel (Bq), equal to onedisintegration per second.Concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides in soil A substantial amount of effort has been devoted to determining the amount of exposureand dose a person receives from these naturally occurring radioactive materials. One of the stepsin this description has been to determine the concentrations of 40K, 232Th, and 238U in soil.Because of historical interest and because it is the parent of 222Rn (see Fig. 2), considerableinterest has also been devoted to measuring the occurrence of 226Ra in soils. Information on theoccurrence of 40K, 232Th, and 238U in soils throughout the world is presented in Table 1. Therange of values is not the most extreme that can be found, but is a broad category of range that isnot unusual. Concentrations of 226Ra are very similar to those of 238U, although 226Ra is notalways found in complete equilibrium with its parent 238U. As indicated in Table 1, theradionuclide with the highest typical concentration in soil is 40K, which is an isotope ofpotassium that makes up 0.0117% by isotopic abundance of all potassium (Lederer and Shirley1978). As can be noted from Table 1, there is a substantial variation in the concentration of thesematerials in soil throughout the world. An older survey for the United States (NCRP 1984)indicated that a typical value for the occurrence of 238U in US soil was 0.6 pCi g-1, which wasstated to be equivalent to 1.8 g of 238U per gram of soil. Myrick et al. (1983) measured theconcentrations of 232Th, 238U, and 226Ra in soil at more than 300 locations across the United Table 1. Occurrence of naturally occurring radionuclides in soil. Values in this table are averages over the world.5 40 232 238 Parameter K Th U Value Range Value Range Value RangeMedian and range, 11 3.8–23 0.81 0.30–1.7 0.95 0.43–3.0 pCi/gPopulation-weighted 11 1.2 0.89 mean, pCi/g5 UNSCEAR (2000), p. 116; original values were given as Bq per kilogram (kg).
  15. 15. - 14 –States. Some selected values that they reported are shown in Table 2. The variations inconcentration of all three radionuclides are large. For the samples collected and analyzed for theentire U.S. the quotient of the high end of the range divided by the low end is on the order of20 to 30.Radiation dose from naturally occurring radionuclides Based upon a variety of measurements, including some of those indicated above, theUNSCEAR (2000) has calculated the annual doses that a person would receive due to exposureto naturally occurring radionuclides. These values are summarized in Table 3 according to thefour broad categories previously discussed. An indication of the range of the doses is alsoprovided in Table 3. The average total dose rate is expected to be 240 mrem per year with areasonable range (not considering extremes) of about 100 to 1,000 mrem per year. And, asindicated previously, it is seen that exposure to radon (primarily 222Rn) is the largest source ofexposure to man.Concentration of airborne radon in U.S. homes During 1989 and 1990 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook theNational Residential Radon Survey. Values were reported in units of Bq per m3, as is typical ofthe scientific literature, whereas it is more typical in regulatory matters in the U.S. to speak aboutunits in terms of pCi/L. In order to facilitate conversions it may be helpful to note the following:Table 2. Reported measurements of naturally occurring radionuclides in soil throughout the US. Values are taken from Myrick et al. (1983). Geometric mean, Number of Arithmetic mean Radio- pCi/g, and samples Range of values, pCi/g and standard nuclide geometric standard analyzed deviation,a pCi/g deviation,b unitless232 Th 331 0.10–3.4 0.98 ± 0.46 0.87 × 1.7±1238 U 355 0.12–3.8 1.0 ± 0.83 0.96 × 1.6±1226 Ra 327 0.23–4.2 1.1 ± 0.48 1.0 × 1.6±1a Standard deviation of the arithmetic mean is the 2  value.b The geometric standard deviation (GSD) is a multiplicative parameter; the range between the geometric mean multiplied by the GSD and the geometric mean divided by the GSD would contain 68% of the values in the distribution.
  16. 16. - 15 – Table 3. Estimated annual dose to the population of the world from naturally occurring radionuclides and cosmic rays. The ranges are not those for individuals in extreme circumstances, but are reasonable ranges for substantial segments of the population. Data are taken from UNSCEAR (2000).6 Source or pathway category Average, mrem/y Range, mrem/yTotal from cosmic rays and cosmogenic radionuclides 39 30–100Total external exposure from radionuclides in soil, etc. 48 30–60Total inhalation (mostly radon) 126 20–1000Total ingestion 29 20–80Total from all sources 240 100–1000 Bq m3 Ci 1012 pCi pCi 1  3    0.027 (2) m 10 L 3.7  10 Bq 3 10 Ci Land pCi Bq (3) 1  37 3 . L mDuring the survey 5,694 U.S. housing units were tested successfully, of which 4,658 were single-family homes and 1036 were multi-family homes. The average radon concentration in theformer housing type was 54.0 Bq/m3 (1.46 pCi/L) and in the latter 24.1 Bq/m3 (0.651 pCi/L).Values for EPA Region 2 (New York and New Jersey) were somewhat lower with an averageover all living levels of 31.8 Bq/m3 (1.86 pC/L). These values were compared with the EPAaction level for mitigation of 148 Bq/m3 (4 pCi/L). EXAMINATION OF THE RESNIKOFF (2012) REPORT The essence of the Resnikoff paper7 is its sensational and false assertion that as many as30,000 excess lung cancer deaths in New York State might occur as a consequence of radon inMarcellus Shale natural gas used by customers with unvented stoves. Resnikoff’s assertionclearly violates the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendation that“the aggregation of very low individual doses over extended time period is inappropriate, and inparticular, the calculation of the number of cancer deaths based on collective effective dosesfrom trivial individual doses should be avoided.”8 Resnikoff’s improper and incorrect cancerestimate is based upon his erroneous estimate of the radon concentration in the natural gas6 UNSCEAR (2000), p. 140; original values were given in mSv.7 Resnikoff (2012), p. 2.8 ICRP (2007), p. 13.
  17. 17. - 16 –supplied to New York State customers. As explained in detail below, the cancer risk, based onactual radon measurements from natural gas samples along the existing pipeline, is insignificant. The Resnikoff report appears to have been prepared9 initially as a criticism of a DraftSupplemental Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (DEC). Resnikoff’s statement was that the issue of radon had beenignored by the DEC. This initial concern has been superseded by the Final EnvironmentalImpact Statement (FEIS) prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)(FERC 2012). The FERC report does consider the issue of radon. It has been known for about 100 years that radon occurs in natural gas (van der Heijde1977); and the potential health impacts of this occurrence have been investigated by severalauthors, including a major study by the U.S. EPA (Johnson et al. 1973). The EPA studyestimated that the overall average concentration of radon at the wellhead is 37 pCi/L. One majorconclusion of the Johnson et al. study was that, “The use of natural gas containing radon-222 foraverage exposure conditions does not contribute significantly to lung cancer deaths in the UnitedStates.”10 FERC cited the EPA study in its final environmental impact statement.11 TheCommission also cited studies by researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy,12 the BritishNational Radiation Protection Board,13 and the University of British Columbia Department ofHealth Care and Epidemiology.14 These studies’ conclusions were consistent with the EPAstudy conclusion. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy study specifically concluded that “inmost cases, the concentrations of radon-222 in well-head gas that would be required to produceunacceptably high indoor radon-222 concentrations are far in excess of those that have beenobserved…. On the basis of present information it seems unlikely that radon-222 in natural gaswould pose a radiological hazard to domestic users, except perhaps in specific local uses nearwells with extraordinarily high concentrations.” It is my opinion that these studies represent the current scientific consensus regarding thedoses and risks related to the residential use of natural gas. I am unaware of any contradictory,peer-reviewed, scientific publications. It is also my opinion that these studies fully support theCommission’s conclusion that “exposure to radon associated with domestic gas use is small and9 Resnikoff (2012), p. 1.10 Johnson et al. (1973), p. 51.11 FERC (2012), p. 4-217.12 Gogolak et al. (1980).13 Dixon (2001). The National Radiation Protection Board has been subsumed by the Health Protection Agency.14 Van Netten (1998).
  18. 18. - 17 –radon is not likely to be of concern to suppliers or customers due to the small quantity that isreleased into buildings from burning natural gas.”15 The bases for my opinions are discussedbelow. Resnikoff disputes the studies referenced by the Commission based upon his claims16that: (1) the radon concentrations in Marcellus Shale natural gas are higher than gas producedelsewhere; (2) the proximity of the Marcellus Shale formation to the New York residences wherethe gas is used will result in higher radon concentrations, because the radon decay duringtransportation is reduced; (3) New York City apartment volumes are smaller than the residentialvolume considered in the studies and the New York City apartment radon concentrations will becorrespondingly higher; and (4) the air exchange rate in New York City apartments is less thanthe rate assumed in the studies. Actual measurements conducted between June 26 and July 3, 2012, of the radonconcentration in the natural gas at various points along the existing pipeline, which will beextended into New York City in the expansion project, completely refute Resnikoff’s claims andfully support the Commission’s conclusion that radon is not a concern. Specifically, Resnikoff’sclaim that over 30,000 persons could die of lung cancer is based on his flawed estimate that theradon concentration in the natural gas as it is delivered to customers in New York City will be1953.97 pCi/L.17 In fact, however, the actual, measured radon concentration in the pipeline atLambertville, New Jersey, approximately 70 miles before the gas would reach New York Citycustomers by the pipeline extension is only about 17 pCi/L – 115 times less than Resnikoff’sestimate. The Lambertville radon measurement and the other measurements made along thepipeline clearly demonstrate that Resnikoff’s first two claims, (1) that Marcellus Shale gas hasmuch higher radon concentrations, and (2) that the concentrations remain high because of theshort transport distance and decay period, are incorrect. Even if one accepts Resnikoff’s othertwo claims, (3) that New York City apartment volumes are smaller than the residential volumesassumed by the EPA, and (4) that the air exchange rate is lower than assumed, the lung cancerrisk is still insignificant – approximately 1 chance in 100,000 – a risk level that is consideredacceptable by the U.S. EPA. Each of these concepts is discussed in detail below.15 FERC (2012), p. 4-217.16 Resnikoff’s May 10, 2012, Declaration, as included in Schulte (2012).17 Resnikoff (2012), p. 12.
  19. 19. - 18 –Concentration of radon at the natural gas wellhead According to Resnikoff (2012)18 the first factor that must be addressed in assessing thehealth effects of radon in natural gas is the concentration of radon at the natural gas wellhead. Inreality, however, the radon concentration in the pipeline measured at or near the consumer’shome is much more useful and reliable than an estimate of the wellhead radon concentration,because the radon concentration in the pipeline will reflect the radon concentration in the gasactually supplied to the customer. It is obvious that the radon concentration measured in thepipeline will accurately represent the radon decay that has occurred just before the gas issupplied to the customer, as well as the radon reductions caused by any commingling with non-Marcellus Shale gas, storage, and/or processing that may have occurred since the gas left thewellhead. If, instead, one relies only upon a wellhead radon estimate (as Resnikoff did), onemust make uncertain assumptions about the radon reductions caused by commingling, storage,and processing (as Resnikoff failed to do in his analysis). For this reason, the measurements ofradon (by an independent, commercial laboratory) in natural gas samples (collected by anindependent, environmental engineering company) at various points along the pipeline are vastlysuperior to Resnikoff’s wellhead estimates. Further, Resnikoff’s wellhead estimates are not reliable or correct. He relies upon theconcentration of uranium-238 in various geologic formations for his estimate. The first source ofuranium data that he relies upon is some gamma ray logs that are of such poor quality thatResnikoff admits: “It is not possible to give the specific radioactivity measurement.”19 Even ifResnikoff could read the logs accurately, he incorrectly converts the API log units to picocuriesper gram, deriving a uranium concentration that is much too high.20 The second source ofuranium data upon which Resnikoff relies is a 1981 preliminary U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)18 Resnikoff (2012), p. 4.19 Resnikoff (2012), p. 6.20 Resnikoff contends that the poor-quality gamma ray logs indicate 200-400 API units, and he uses the conversionthat 16.5 GAPI units are equal to 1 pCi/g radium equivalent. He then assumes that 1 pCi/g radium equivalent isequal to 1 pCi/g of radium alone. This is not true; the term equivalent refers to a mixture of radionuclides givingrise to an equivalent dose as does radium alone. For a mixture of naturally occurring radionuclides, the radiumequivalent would be calculated as equal to A(Ra) + 1.43A(Th) + 0.077A(40K), where the A’s represent activity inBq/kg (Tufail et al. 2006). . Without knowing the concentration of Th and 40K in the wellbore, it is not possible tointerpret the GAPI unit quantitatively in terms of U or Ra
  20. 20. - 19 –report that was not reviewed or edited by the USGS.21 Resnikoff claims at page 8 of his reportthat the preliminary USGS data are consistent with his illegible gamma ray log data that he hasmisinterpreted. All these sources of error and uncertainty should be disregarded in favor of realempirical data – the actual radon measurements in the pipeline that are now available. Resnikoff uses the inconsistent USGS data and illegible gamma logs in an unknownmodel to estimate the concentration of radon at the wellhead. Resnikoff provides no informationabout the model. He lists 15 parameters (e.g., “max gas-yielding radius r”), but supplies noinformation about where he obtained the parameter data that he claims to use in the model. Healso fails to state the uncertainties associated with each of the parameters. Again, all of thesepostulations should be disregarded, and reliance should be placed instead upon the actual radonmeasurements in the pipeline. In fact, it is a scientific axiom that actual measured data arealways superior to modeled estimates. In this case, Resnikoff’s modeled estimates areparticularly unreliable, because he does not give any information about the model or the basis forthe parameters he uses in the model. In summary, Resnikoff’s estimate of the concentration ofradon at the wellhead is not correct or reliable, because he used unreliable or undocumented datain an unknown model. Dr. Resnikoff concludes this section of his report with the comment that,“independent testing of production wells in the Marcellus shale formation”22 is needed. Asexplained above and considered in more detail below, independent testing of samples collectedalong the pipeline has been accomplished. This testing, as noted, is far superior to testing thewells, because it accurately measures the concentration of radon in the consumer’s gas supply.Transport from the wellhead to the residence Resnikoff’s second factor for estimating the health effects of radon in natural gas pertainsto the transportation of the gas from the wellhead to the household.23 The main importance ofthis factor is that radon-222 has a half-life of only 3.8 days (Fig. 2), so the longer distance thatnatural gas is transported the more time there is for decay of the radon. Dr. Resnikoff notes thatif gas is piped from the Gulf Coast it takes longer than for gas piped from the Marcellus Shaleformation. As explained above, actual measurements of the radon in natural gas samplescollected along the pipeline are the most accurate indication of the radon that will be present in21 “Geochemistry of trace elements and uranium in Devonian shales of the Appalachian Basis,” J.S. Leventhal et al.,U.S. Geological Survey (Open File Report 81-778, 1981); available at:http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1981/0778/report.pdf.22 Resnikoff (2012), p. 9.23 Resnikoff (2012), p. 4.
  21. 21. - 20 –the gas supplied to the customer. These measurements account not only for the reduction in theradon concentration due to radioactive decay during transportation, but also for the reductionsdue to commingling of the gas from the Marcellus Shale formations with other gas, storage, andprocessing of the gas. Thus, these actual measurements are much more useful and reliable thanResnikoff’s estimates of the radon reduction due to decay alone.Dilution of incoming radon in the home Resnikoff’s third factor for estimating the health effects of radon in natural gas concernsthe dilution of radon entering the home. The dilution factor used in the EPA study (Johnson etal. 1973) was given as 7,111. This value depends on three factors: the amount of natural gasused in the home, the size of the home, and the number of air exchanges per unit time.Dr. Resnikoff takes issue with the home size (residential volume) and the number of airexchanges assumed in the EPA study. He postulates a smaller average size of the home and asmaller rate of air exchange. His postulated dilution factor is given as 4,053.24 As discussedbelow, even if Dr. Resnikoff’s dilution factor is applied to the actual radon concentrationsmeasured in the pipeline, the health risk is insignificant. A MORE RATIONAL APPROACH TO CALCULATING RADON EXPOSURE IN THE HOMEMeasurements of radon in the pipeline natural gas We agree entirely with Dr. Resnikoff that there was a need for independent testing of theradon levels in natural gas that might reasonably be expected to enter homes of the residents inNew Jersey and New York. In order to meet this need, Spectra Energy retained an independentenvironmental engineering company25 to collect samples of natural gas from eight differentlocations as shown in Fig. 3 and submitted the samples to an independent commerciallaboratory26 for analysis of radon. The results are given in Table 4. As expected, theconcentrations of radon in samples further to the west have higher concentrations than those tothe east. This is partly due to radioactive decay of the radon as the natural gas moves eastwardthrough the pipeline. It seems clear that the first two samples in Table 4 are the more24 Resnikoff (2012), p. 10.25 RAdata, Inc., 27 Ironia Road, Flanders, NJ.26 Bowser-Morner, 4518 Taylorsville Road, Dayton, OH. The natural gas samples were analyzed for their radonconcentrations by Dr. Philip Jenkins, Ph.D., who is a Certified Health Physicist and specializes in radonmesurements.
  22. 22. - 21 –Fig. 3. A schematic diagram of the existing Spectra Energy pipeline. The red lines represent the Texas Eastern pipelines and the green lines represent the Algonquin Gas Transmission pipelines. The locations of eight points sampling for analysis of 222Rn are shown by the boxes. The point considered to be most representative of natural gas delivered or to be delivered to customers in New Jersey and New York is the Lambertsville Compressor Station.
  23. 23. - 22 – Table 4. Results of independent sample analysis for the content of 222Rn in natural gas at eight different sampling points. The first two samples are nearer to residents in New Jersey and New York, who might use gas from the pipeline extension. Rn conc. MDC a Sample date Sample location (pCi/L) (pCi/L)June 26, 2012 Mahwah Interconnect (#00201) 16.9 ±1.6 0.10 Lambertsville compressor stationJune 26, 2012 17.0±1.6 0.12 M&R#78012 Line 20June 27, 2012 Anadardo M&R#73659 27.6±2.6 0.10June 27, 2012 Williams LMM M&R#736521 23.9±2.2 0.10July 1, 2012 NiSource Midstream (#75660) 32.9±3.0 0.12July 1, 2012 Caiman (#73656) 39.1±3.6 0.11July 2, 2012 National Fuel-Holbrook (#75720) 26.2±2.4 0.09July 2, 2012 Energy Corp-Jefferson (#73465) 44.1±4.1 0.10a Minimum detectable concentration.representative of the concentrations of radon in natural gas as it would enter residences, becausethese two samples are the closest to the customers in New York City.Concentration of radon from burning natural gas in residences According to the methods employed by both Johnson et al. (1973) and Resnikoff (2012)the concentration of radon in residences is simply the concentration in natural gas divided by adilution factor. According to Resnikoff that dilution factor should be 4053. On that basis theincremental concentration of radon in residences is 0.0042 pCi/L, as derived below: pCi 1 pCi 17   0.0042 and (4) L 4053 L pCi 1 Bq L Bq 17   37 3  0.16 3 . (5) L 4053 m pCi m This value of 0.0042 pCi/L is 443 times lower than the “normal” radon level inresidences of 1.86 pCi/L in EPA Region 2 (New York and New Jersey).2727 Marcinowski et al. (1991), p. 705.
  24. 24. - 23 –Dose from incremental increase of radon in residences The calculation of radiation dose from the inhalation of radon has been carefully studiedfor years. This research gave rise early on to an expression of exposure rather than dose in termsof a Working Level (WL). Originally, this was intended to equate to being exposed to 100 pCi/Lof radon in equilibrium with its short-lived daughters. However, radon is seldom in equilibriumwith its short-lived daughters, so the definition of a WL was changed to “that concentration ofshort-lived radon daughter products in a liter of air that will yield 1.3 × 105 million electron volts(MeV) of alpha energy in decaying through 214Po (see Fig. 2). Integrated exposure as a surrogatefor dose was then defined in terms of working level months (WLM). The original definition wasapplied for occupational exposure, so a WLM was calculated on the basis of exposure for 170hours per month.28 The most recent authoritative document that addresses dose and risk from exposure toradon is the International Commission on Radiological Protection Report No. 115 (ICRP 2010).Two further definitions are important, because of the non-equilibrium among radon and its short-lived daughters.29 The first is that of “equilibrium equivalent concentration,” which is defined as“the activity concentration of radon gas in equilibrium with its short-lived progeny that wouldhave the same potential alpha energy concentration as the existing non-equilibrium mixture.”And, the equilibrium factor is “the ratio of the equilibrium equivalent concentration to the radongas concentration. In other words, the ratio of potential alpha energy concentration for the actualmixture of radon decay product to that which would apply at radioactive equilibrium.” This isimportant, because the equilibrium factor is typically given as 0.4. An important statement in ICRP (2010) is that, “an annual domestic exposure of227 Bq/m3 gives rise to 1 WLM assuming occupancy of 7000 hours per year and an equilibriumfactor of 0.4. Thus, the annual dose (in WLM) of the exposure to the incremental radonexposure given above is pCi 1 Bq L m 3 WLM WLM 17   37 3   0.00068 . (6) L 4053 m pCi 227 Bq year year28 ICRP (1993), p.4.29 ICRP (2010), p. 19.
  25. 25. - 24 – If we integrate that annual dose over a 30-year period, as suggested by Resnikoff, 30 theresult is a 30-year dose of 0.020 WLM.Risk of lung cancer from the incremental increase in radon concentration As given by the ICRP, the risk of lung cancer is 5 × 10-4 per WLM.31 Thus, theindividual risk of lung cancer is calculated to be 1.0 × 10-5. This means the risk of lung cancerassociated with radon in natural gas used in unvented ovens and calculated with Dr. Resnikoff’sdilution factor is 1 in 100,000. According to the U.S. EPA any risk below 10-4 (1 in 10,000) is deemed acceptable(Fields 1997; Luftig and Weinstock 1997; EPA 2012). And, it must be remembered that theremay not be any increase over the risk that the future customers of this pipeline will receive, asthey are likely already using natural gas from other sources. The actual measured concentrationof radon in the existing pipeline is below the average tabulated by Johnson et al. 1973) for theUnited States. Thus, the use of natural gas from this pipeline might actually decrease theexisting risk. DISCUSSION This report began with a discussion of background radiation, levels of naturally occurringradionuclides in soil, doses received from background radiation, and levels of radon found inU.S. homes during the National Residential Radon Survey (NRRS) (Marcinowski et al. 1994).The NRRS was conducted by the EPA under a mandate from Congress in the SuperfundAmendments and Reauthorization Act.32 Radon is ubiquitous and is the largest source of dose toman from naturally occurring radioactive materials.33 The naturally occurring level of radon inhomes in EPA Region II, which includes New York and New Jersey, is 1.86 pCi/L. A major conclusion from the study of natural background radiation is that environmentallevels of radiation and radon are very weak carcinogens, if they are carcinogenic at those levelsat all. This conclusion might seem surprising to those who have grown accustomed to the scaretactics employed by interveners. However, the proof exists in the fact that humans still exist on30 Resnikoff (2012), p. 4.31 ICRP (2010), p. 11.32 Marcinowski et al. (1994), p. 699.33 See Table 3 above.
  26. 26. - 25 –earth. If the projections employed by the interveners were correct, all humans would haveperished from cancer thousands of years ago. From Table 3 above, the average dose to the world population from the inhalation ofradon is 0.126 rem per year. With use of a dose conversion factor of 9 nSv per Bq h/m3 fromUNSCEAR,34 the annual dose from the projected use of natural gas from the pipeline extensionis calculated to be 0.0004 rem. Compared to an annual dose of 0.240 rem per year from allsources of natural background, this is a trivial dose. The ICRP, which is recognized as the pre-eminent authority on radiation protection, hascautioned against summing such trivial doses over a large number of persons (this is termedcollective dose) to project cancer risks. This was noted above, but it is worth repeating here: “Collective effective dose is not intended as a tool for epidemiological risk assessment, and it is inappropriate to use it in risk projections. The aggregation of very low individual doses over extended time periods is inappropriate, and in particular, the calculation of the number of cancer deaths based on collective effective doses from trivial individual doses should be avoided.”Effective dose is a specialized concept of dose that is a weighted sum of doses to all organs.35 Iconsider the comment above on trivial doses to apply to lung doses as well as to effective doses. CONCLUSION The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission appropriately confronted the issue of thedose and risks associated with radon in natural gas by considering the pertinent researchperformed by leading scientists in the two federal departments having primary responsibility forthe public’s radiation protection – the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.Department of Energy. These studies, which still represent the current scientific consensus, aresupported by additional research conducted by scientists at the National Radiological ProtectionBoard (which is now part of the U.K. Health Protection Agency) – the primary agencyresponsible for public radiation protection in the United Kingdom – and other scientificinstitutions. The Commission considered this British study, as well as supportive Canadianresearch. The Commission’s conclusion that radon in natural gas is not a significant concern isfully supported by this research. It is my scientific opinion that the Commission’s conclusion is34 UNSCEAR (2000), p. 36.35 UNSCEAR (2000), p. 21.
  27. 27. - 26 –completely consistent with the information on radon dose and risk presently accepted by theknowledgeable scientific community. Dr. Marvin Resnikoff criticizes the Commission’s conclusion, claiming that the radonlevel in Marcellus Shale gas is extraordinarily high and that the reduced distance between thewellhead and customer’s residence will cause many deaths. He makes this claim despite a clearwarning by the leading international radiation-protection agency that such assertions arescientifically improper. Natural gas samples have now been collected by an independent environmentalengineering company and analyzed by at an independent commercial laboratory by a certifiedhealth physicist and specialist in radon measurements. The samples were collected along theapplicant’s pipeline and particularly at the point near where the pipeline would be extended intothe New York City metropolitan area. The sample analyses clearly show that the radon levels inthe natural gas are low and will cause no significant health risk. Further, the sample resultsdirectly and factually contradict Resnikoff’s speculative claims. Most importantly, the sampleresults support the Commission’s conclusion that radon in natural gas is not a significantconcern. REFERENCES AND DOCUMENTS EXAMINEDDixon DW. Radon exposures from the use of natural gas in buildings. National Radiological Protection Board. Radiat Prot Dosim 97:259–264; 1998.Donohue C. Request for rehearing of Sierra Club, No Gas Pipeline, Food & Water Watch and Sane Energy Project. New York, NY: Clare Donahue; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket No. CP11-56-000; 2012.Environmental Protection Agency. Exposure factors handbook. Washington, DC: EPA; 2011.Environmental Protection Agency. Title 40. Protection of the Environment. Part 300. National oil and hazardous substances pollution contingency plan. Subpart E. Hazardous substance response. § 300.430. Remedial investigation/feasibility study and selection of remedy. 40 CFR 300.430(e)(2)(i)(A)(2); (Current as of June 28, 2012).Evans RE. The atomic nucleus. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1955.Federal Energy Regulation Commission. New Jersey–New York Expansion Project. Final environmental impact statement Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC. Washington, DC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Docket Nos. CP11-56-000 and PF10-17-000; FERC/EIS-0241F; 2012.Fields TJ, Jr. Clarification of the role of applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements in establishing preliminary remediation goals under CERCLA. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency; OSWER No. 9200.4-23; 1997.
  28. 28. - 27 –Gogolak CV. Review of 222Rn in natural gas produced from unconventional sources. New York, NY: Environmental Measurements Laboratory; Report DOE/EML-385; 1980.Harley NH. Radon levels in a high-rise apartment. Health Phys 61:263–265; 1991.International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. Fundamental quantities and units for ionizing radiation. Bethesda, MD: ICRU; ICRU Report 60; 1998.International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Oxford: Pergamon Press; ICRP Publication 60; 1991.International Commission on Radiological Protection. Protection against radon-222 at home and at work. Oxford: Pergamon Press; ICRP Publication 65; 1993.International Commission on Radiological Protection. The ICRP Database of dose coefficients: Workers and members of the public. Oxford: Pergamon Press; ICRP CD-ROM System, Version 2.01; 2001.International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Orlando, FL: Elsevier; ICRP Publication 103; 2007.International Commission on Radiological Protection. Lung cancer risk from radon and progeny and statement on radon. Orlando, FL: Elsevier; ICRP Publication 115; 2010.Johnson RH, Jr, Bernhardt DE, Nelson NS, Calley HW, Jr. Assessment of potential radiological health effects from radon in natural gas. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency; Report EPA-520/1-73-004; 1973.Lederer CM, Shirley VS, Eds. Table of isotopes, seventh edition. New York, NY: Wiley; 1978.Leventhal JS, Crock JG, Malcolm MJ. Geochemistry of trace elements and uranium in Devonian shales of the Appalachian Basin. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey; Open File Report 81-778; 1981. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1981/0778/report.pdf. Last accessed on July 3, 2012.Luftig SD, Weinstock L. Establishment of cleanup levels for CERCLA sites with radioactive contamination. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency; OSWER No. 9200.4- 18; 1997.Marcinowski F, Lucas RM, Yeager WM. National and regional distributions of airborne radon concentrations in U.S. homes. Health Phys 66:699–706; 1994.Myrick TE, Berven BA, Haywood FF. Determination of concentrations of selected radionuclides in surface soil in the U.S. Health Phys 45:631–642; 1983.National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council. Radiation dose reconstruction for epidemiologic uses. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998.National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council. Health effects of exposure to radon. BEIR VI. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999a.National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council. Evaluation of guidelines for exposures to technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999b.
  29. 29. - 28 –National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Exposures from the uranium series with emphasis on radon and its daughters. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; NCRP Report No. 77; 1984.National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Approaches to risk management in remediation of radioactively contaminated sites. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; NCRP Report No. 146; 2004.Resnikoff M. Radon in natural gas from Marcellus Shale. New York, NY: Radioactive Waste Management Associates; January 10, 2012. Also given as Attachment A in Schulte (2012).Resnikoff M. Declaration of Marvin Resnikoff, Ph.D. May 10, 2012. This declaration is included in Schulte (2012).Ring JW. The radioactive dangers associated with the hydrofracking process in the Marcellus and Utica Shales in NY State. Exhibit 18 in Schulte (undated).Schulte WJ. Comments of Sierra Club, Food & Water Watch and No Gas Pipeline on Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Newark, NJ: Eastern Environmental Law Center; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket No. CP11-56; undated.Schulte WJ. Motion to supplement the record of the Sierra Club, Food & Water Watch, and No Gas Pipeline. Newark, NJ: Eastern Environmental Law Center; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket No. CP11-56; 2012.Scott G. Comment of Gudrun Scott, RN on DEIS in CP 11-56. Andover, NY: Gudrun Scott; Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Docket No. CP11-56; 2011.Tufail M, Akhtar N. Waqas M. Radioactive rock phosphate: The feed stock of phosphate fertilizers used in Pakistan. Health Phys 90:361–370; 2006.United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation. New York, NY: United Nations; UNSCEAR 2000 report to the General Assembly; Sales No. E.00.IX.3; 2000.United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Effects of ionizing radiation. Volume II. Annex D. Sources to effects assessment for radon in homes and workplaces. New York, NY: United Nations; UNSCEAR 2006 report to the General Assembly; Sales No. E.09.IX.5; (2009).Van Netten C, Kan K, Anderson J, Morley D. Radon-222 and gamma ray levels associated with the collection, processing, transmission, and utilization of natural gas. Am Indust Hygiene Assoc J 59:622–628; 1998.
  30. 30. - 29 - APPENDIXCURRICULUM VITAE OF LYNN R. ANSPAUGH
  31. 31. CURRICULUM VITAELYNN R. ANSPAUGHEDUCATION: Nebraska Wesleyan University, Lincoln, Nebraska B.A. with High Distinction (Physics), 1955–1959 University of California, Berkeley, California M.Bioradiology (Health Physics), 1959–1961 University of California, Berkeley, California Ph.D. (Biophysics), 1961–1963POSITIONS: USAEC Special Fellowship in Radiological Physics, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1959–1961 National Science Foundation Graduate Fellow, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1961–1963 Biophysicist, Biomedical and Environmental Research Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, California, 1963–1974 Biophysicist and Group Leader for Applied Environmental Sciences, Biomedical and Environmental Research Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, California, 1974–1975 Biophysicist and Section Leader for Analysis and Assessment, Environmental Sciences Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, California, 1976– 1982 Biophysicist and Division Leader, Environmental Sciences Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, California, 1982–1992 Biophysicist and Director, Risk Sciences Center, Health and Ecological Assessment Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, California, 1993– 1995 Biophysicist and Director, Dose Reconstruction Program, Atmospheric and Ecological Sciences Program, Health and Ecological Assessment Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, California, 1995– 1996
  32. 32. Lynn R. Anspaugh Page 2CV/Bibliography Research Professor, Division of Radiobiology, Radiology Department, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1997–PresentCONCURRENT Teacher, University Extension, University ofPOSITIONS: California, Berkeley, California, 1966–1969 Lecturer, Department of Chemistry, San Jose State University, San Jose, California, 1975 Faculty Affiliate, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1979–1983 Scientific Director, NTS Off-Site Radiation Exposure Review Project, 1979–1996 Scientific Director, Nevada Applied Ecology Group, 1983–1986 Scientific Director, Basic Environmental Compliance and Monitoring Program, Nevada Test Site, 1986–1992 Guest Lecturer, University of California, Los Angeles, California, 1992–1997; 2008; 2010 Guest Lecturer, Stanford University, Stanford, California 1992 Co-Director, Risk Sciences Program, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, and University of California, Davis, California, 1992–1995 Visiting Lecturer and Associate in the Experiment Station, University of California, Davis, California, 1992–1995 Guest Lecturer, University of California, Berkeley, 1995–1997 Consulting Employee, Science Applications International Corporation, Las Vegas, NV; 1998–2000 Associate, Sanford Cohen & Associates, Inc., McLean, VA; 2003– 2004; 2006–PresentRESEARCH: Trace Elements in Human Metabolism Aeolian Resuspension of Transuranic Radionuclides Public Health Implications of the Use of Nuclear Energy Environmental and Health Effects of Utilizing Geothermal Energy July 1, 2012
  33. 33. Lynn R. Anspaugh Page 3CV/Bibliography Reconstruction of Radiation Doses from Early Fallout of Nuclear Weapons Tests Calculation of Radiation Doses from Nuclear Reactor Accidents Reconstruction of Radiation Doses from Releases from Plutonium- Production Facilities Reconstruction of Radiation Doses from NTS and Global Nuclear Weapons TestsPROFESSIONAL American Association for the Advancement of ScienceSOCIETIES: Health Physics Society President, Environmental Radiation Section, 1984–85 President-Elect, Northern California Chapter, 1985–86 President, Northern California Chapter, 1986–87 Member, Research Needs Committee, 1994–1997; 1999–2002 Member, International Relations Committee, 1997–2000 Member, Board of Directors, Great Salt Lake Chapter, 2001–2003 Treasurer, Lake Mead Chapter, 2008–Present Radiation Research SocietyPROFESSIONAL Consultant, Subcommittee to Develop a Federal StrategyACTIVITIES: for Research Into the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation; Interagency Radiation Research Committee, 1979 Member, Fallout Study Advisory Committee, University of Utah, 1983–1986 Consultant, Subcommittee on Risk Assessment for Radionuclides, Science Advisory Board, Environmental Protection Agency, 1984 Member, Ad Hoc Working Group to Review a Veterans Administration Health Assessment Project, Interagency Radiation Research Committee, 1984 Member, Task Group 7 (Contaminated Soil), Scientific Committee 64 (Radionuclides in the Environment), National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1985–1990 Member, Review Panel on Total Human Exposure, Subcommittee on Strategies and Long-Term Research Planning, Science Advisory Board, Environmental Protection Agency, 1985 Member, DOE/OHER Interlaboratory Task Group on Health and Environmental Aspects of the Soviet Nuclear Accident and Member, Committee on the Assessment on Health Consequences in Exposed Populations, 1986–1987 Member, Task Group on Exposure of American People to Iodine- 131 from NTS Fallout, National Cancer Institute Thyroid/Iodine- 131 Assessment Committee, 1986–1993 Member, United States Delegation, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, 1987–2005; 2007; 2008; 2011 July 1, 2012
  34. 34. Lynn R. Anspaugh Page 4CV/Bibliography Member, Biomedical and Environmental Effects Subcommittee, Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Committee, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1988–Present Member, Executive Steering Committee, University of California Systemwide Toxic Substances Research and Teaching Program, 1989–1993 Member, National Laboratory Directors Environmental and Public/Occupational Health Standards Steering Group, 1989–1996 Consultant, International Atomic Energy Agency, 1989–1992, 1996, 2002–2007 Member, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1989–Life; Distinguished Emeritus Member after 2001 Member, Program Committee, 1989–1990 Chairman, Scientific Committee 84 on Radionuclide Contamination, 1990–1995 Member, Program Committee, 1994–1995 Vice Chairman, Scientific Committee 64 on Radionuclides in the Environment, 1995–2001 Member, Program Committee, 2000–2001 Distinguished Emeritus Member, 2002–Life Member, Scientific Committee 87-5 on Risk Management and Analysis for Decommissioned Sites, 2002–2004 Member, Scientific Committee 6-4 on Fundamental Principles of Dose Reconstruction, 2006–2010 US Leader, Working Group on Environmental Transport, US-USSR Joint Coordinating Committee for Civilian Nuclear Reactor Safety, 1989–1995 Member, International Committee to Assess the Radiological Consequences in the USSR for the Chernobyl Accident, International Atomic Energy Agency, 1990–1991 Co-Leader, Task on Corroboration of Dose Assessment, International Committee to Assess the Radiological Consequences in the USSR from the Chernobyl Accident, International Atomic Energy Agency, 1990–1991 Member, California Radiation Emergency Screening Team, Department of Health Services, State of California, 1990–1996 Member, Environmental Management Advisory Board, Department of Energy, 1992–2001. Member, National Cancer Institute, Committee on Fallout Radiation Effects on Thyroid (FRETTERS), 1995–1996 Member, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Committee on an Assessment of CDC Radiation Studies, 1997– 2001 Consultant, National Academy of Sciences/Institute of Medicine/National Research Council, Committee on Exposure of July 1, 2012
  35. 35. Lynn R. Anspaugh Page 5CV/Bibliography American People to I-131 from Nevada Atomic Tests: Implications for Public Health, 1998 Expert Foreign Affairs Officer (Special Government Employee), U.S. Department of State, April 1999; May 2000; April 2001; January 2003; April 2004; September 2005; May 2007; July 2008; May 2011. Member (Special Government Employee), Radiation Advisory Committee, Science Advisory Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999–2005 Chairman, Expert Group Environment, United Nations Chernobyl Forum and International Atomic Energy Agency, 2003–2006 Member, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Committee on Development of Risk-Based Approaches for Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Waste, 2003–2004 Member, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Committee on Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator Weapon and Other Weapons, 2004 Member, Expert Panel assembled by the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council to consult with members of the Government Accountability Office on Public Health and Environmental Impacts of Radioactive Leaks [particularly tritium] at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, January 2011 Member, World Health Organization, International Expert Panel for the Initial Evaluation of Population Radiation Exposure from the Nuclear Accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, 2011–2012. Member, World Health Organization, International Expert Panel for the Initial Health Risk Assessment: 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident. 2011–2012 Member, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, International Expert Group for the Assessment of the Levels and Effects of Radiation Exposure Due to the Nuclear Accident after the 2011 Great East-Japan Earthquake and TsunamiHONORS: Sigma Xi Fellow, Health Physics Society, 1989 Elected Member, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), 1989–1995, 1995–2001 Distinguished Emeritus Member, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), 2002–Life Who’s Who in the West, 21st Edition, 1987–1988; 29th Edition, 2002– 2003; 30th Edition; 31st Edition, 2004–2005; 32nd Edition, 2005; 33rd Edition, 2006; 34th Edition, 2007 Who’s Who in America, 52nd Edition, 1997; 53rd Edition, 1999; 54th Edition, 2000; 55th Edition, 2001; 56th Edition, 2002; 57th Edition, July 1, 2012
  36. 36. Lynn R. Anspaugh Page 6CV/Bibliography 2003; 58th Edition, 2004; 59th Edition, 2005; 60th Edition, 2006; 61st Edition, 2007; 62nd Edition, 2008; 63rd Edition, 2009. Who’s Who in Medicine and Healthcare, 2nd Edition, 1999–2000; 3rd Edition, 2000–2001; 4th Edition, 2002–2003; 5th Edition, 2004– 2005 Who’s Who in Science and Engineering, 5th Edition, 2000–2001 Honorary Professor, Urals Research Center for Radiation Medicine, Chelyabinsk, Russia, 2007–Life Alumni Achievement Award, Nebraska Wesleyan University, 2010 July 1, 2012
  37. 37. Lynn R. Anspaugh Page 7CV/Bibliography BIBLIOGRAPHY Lynn R. Anspaugh, Ph.D.PUBLICATIONS 1. L.R. Anspaugh, Chemical Elements in the Serum of Man in Health and Diabetes Mellitus: X-Ray Emission Spectrographic Determinations, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, UCRL-10873 (1963). 2. L.R. Anspaugh, Special Problems of Thyroid Dosimetry: Considerations of I131 Dose as a Function of Gross Size and Inhomogeneous Distribution, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-12492 (1965). 3. L.R. Anspaugh, W.H. Martin, and O.A. Lowe, “The Elemental Analysis of Biological Fluids and Tissues,” in Program Book for the Advisory Committee for Biology and Medicine of the USAEC, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-14739, pt. 2, pp. 33–36 (1966). 4. L.R. Anspaugh and W.H. Martin, “Special Problems of Thyroid Dosimetry,” in Program Book for the Advisory Committee for Biology and Medicine of the USAEC, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL- 14739, pt. 2, pp. 161–166 (1966). 5. L.R. Anspaugh, J.W. Gofman, O.A. Lowe, and W.H. Martin, “X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis Applied to Biological Problems,” in Proc. of Second Symp. on Low-Energy X- and Gamma Sources and Applications, P.S. Baker and M. Gerrard, Eds. (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1967), pp. 315–334. 6. L.R. Anspaugh, A.L. Langhorst, O.A. Lowe, and W.H. Martin, “Chemical Elements of Biological Fluids and Tissues,” in Program Book for the Meeting of the AEC Bio-Medical Program Directors, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-50223, pp. 9–11 (1967). 7. L.R. Anspaugh and W.H. Robison, Quantitative Evaluation of the Biological Hazards of Radiation Associated with Project Ketch, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCID-15325 (1968). 8. L.R. Anspaugh, R.J. Chertok, B.R. Clegg, J.J. Cohen, R.J. Grabske, F.L. Harrison, R.E. Heft, G. Holladay, J.J. Koranda, Y.C. Ng, P.L. Phelps, and July 1, 2012
  38. 38. Lynn R. Anspaugh Page 8CV/Bibliography G.D. Potter, Biomedical Division Preliminary Report for Project Schooner, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-50718 (1969). 9. F.P. Cranston and L.R. Anspaugh, Preliminary Studies in Nondispersive X-Ray Fluorescent Analysis of Biological Materials, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-50569 (1969). 10. Y.C. Ng, L.R. Anspaugh, C.A. Burton, and O.F. deLalla, Preshot Evaluation of the Source Terms for the Schooner Event, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-50677 (1969) (title U, report SRD). 11. B. Shore, L.R. Anspaugh, R. Chertok, J. Gofman, F. Harrison, R. Heft, J. Koranda, Y. Ng, P. Phelps, G. Potter, and A. Tamplin, “The Fate and Importance of Radionuclides Produced in Nuclear Events,” in Proc. for the Symp. on Public Health Aspects of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosives (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1969), pp. 595– 651. 12. W.L. Robison and L.R. Anspaugh, Assessment of Potential Biological Hazards from Project Rulison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-50791 (1969). 13. G. Holladay, S.R. Bishop, P.L. Phelps, and L.R. Anspaugh, “A System for the Measurement of Deposition and Resuspension of Radioactive Particulate Released from Plowshare Cratering Events,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 17, 151– 158 (1970). 14. L.R. Anspaugh, P.L. Phelps, G. Holladay, and K.O. Hamby, “Distribution and Redistribution of Airborne Particulates from the Schooner Cratering Event,” in Proc. 5th Annual Health Physics Society Midyear Topical Symp.: Health Physics Aspects of Nuclear Facility Siting (Eastern Idaho Health Physics Society, Idaho Falls, ID, 1970), vol. 2, pp. 428–446. 15. L.R. Anspaugh and W.L. Robison, “Trace Elements in Biology and Medicine,” in “Recent Advances in Nuclear Medicine,” J.H. Lawrence, Ed., Prog. At. Med. 3, 63–138 (1971). 16. L.R. Anspaugh, W.L. Robison, W.H. Martin, and O.A. Lowe, Compilation of Published Information on Elemental Concentrations in Human Organs in Both Normal and Diseased States. I. Raw Data Ordered by Atomic Number, Subordered by Organ and Suborgan, Listing Method of Analysis, Geographical Source, Age, Sex, and Number of Individuals, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-51013, pt. 1, rev. 1 (1971). July 1, 2012
  39. 39. Lynn R. Anspaugh Page 9CV/Bibliography 17. L.R. Anspaugh, W.L. Robison, W.H. Martin, and O.A. Lowe, Compilation of Published Information on Elemental Concentrations in Human Organs in Both Normal and Diseased States. II. Data Summary Ordered by Atomic Number, Subordered by Organ, Suborgan, and General Health State, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-51013, pt. 2 (1971). 18. L.R. Anspaugh, W.L. Robison, W.A. Martin, and O.A. Lowe, Compilation of Published Information on Elemental Concentrations in Human Organs in Both Normal and Diseased States. III. Data Summary Ordered by Organ and Suborgan, Subordered by Atomic Number and General Health State, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-51013, pt. 3 (1971). 19. L.R. Anspaugh, J.J. Koranda, W.L. Robison, and J.R. Martin, “The Dose to Man Via Food Chain Transfer Resulting from Exposure to Tritiated Water Vapor,” in Tritium, A.A. Moghissi and M.W. Carter, Eds. (Messenger Graphics, Las Vegas, 1971), pp. 405–421. 20. L. Schwartz, W. Robison, and L. Anspaugh, Opportunities to Monitor Potential Dose to Man from Nuclear Excavation, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-51068 (1971). 21. J.J. Koranda, P.L. Phelps, L.R. Anspaugh, and G. Holladay, “Sampling and Analytical Systems for Measurement of Environmental Radioactivity,” in Rapid Methods for Measuring Radioactivity in the Environment (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1971), pp. 587–614. 22. L.R. Anspaugh, J.J. Koranda, and W.L. Robison, “Environmental Aspects of Natural Gas Stimulation Experiments with Nuclear Devices,” in Radionuclides in Ecosystems, D.J. Nelson, Ed. (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1971), pp. 37–52. 23. R.C. Pendleton, J.J. Koranda, W.W. Wagner, P.L. Phelps, R.D. Lloyd, L.R. Anspaugh, and W.H. Chapman, “Radioecological Studies in Utah Subsequent to the Baneberry Event,” in Radionuclides in Ecosystems, D.J. Nelson, Ed. (National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA, 1971), pp. 150–169. 24. L.R. Anspaugh, “Retention by Vegetation of Radionuclides Deposited in Rainfall: A Literature Summary,” in Study of the Iodine Problem, W. Nervik, Ed., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-51177 (1972) (title U, report SRD). 25. J.J. Koranda, L.R. Anspaugh, and J.R. Martin, “The Significance of Tritium Releases to the Environment,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 19, 27-39 (1972). July 1, 2012
  40. 40. Lynn R. Anspaugh Page 10CV/Bibliography 26. P.L. Phelps, L.R. Anspaugh, J.J. Koranda, and G.W. Huckabay, “A Portable Ge(Li) Detector for Field Measurement of Radionuclides in the Environment,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 19, 199–210 (1972). 27. L.R Anspaugh, P.L. Phelps, G.W. Huckabay, P.H. Gudiksen, and C.L. Lindeken, “Methods for the In-Situ Measurement of Radionuclides in Soil,” in Workshop on Natural Radiation Environment, J.E. McLaughlin, Ed., United States Atomic Energy Commission Health and Safety Laboratory, New York, NY, HASL-269, pp. 12–39 (1972). 28. P.H. Gudiksen, C.L. Lindeken, C. Gatrousis, and L.R. Anspaugh, Environmental Levels of Radioactivity in the Vicinity of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, January through December 1971, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-51242 (1972). 29. L.R. Anspaugh, P.L. Phelps, P.H. Gudiksen, C.L. Lindeken, and G.W. Huckabay, “The In Situ Measurement of Radionuclides in the Environment with a Ge(Li) Spectrometer,” in The Natural Radiation Environment II, J.A.S. Adams, W.M. Lowder, and T.F. Gessell, Eds. (National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA., 1972), pp. 279-303. 30. C.L. Lindeken, P.H. Gudiksen, J.W. Meadows, K.O. Hamby, and L.R. Anspaugh, Environmental Levels of Radioactivity in Livermore Valley Soils, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL- 74424 (1973). 31. L.R. Anspaugh, P.L. Phelps, N.C. Kennedy, and H.G. Booth, “Wind-Driven Resuspension of Deposited Radioactivity,” in Environmental Behavior of Radionuclides Released in the Nuclear Industry (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1973), pp. 167–184. 32. W.L. Robison, L.R. Anspaugh, W.H. Martin, and O.A. Lowe, Compilation of Published Information on Elemental Concentrations in Human Organs in Both Normal and Diseased States. IV. Data Summary Ordered by Specific Health State, Subordered by Atomic Number, Organ, and Suborgan, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-51013, pt. 4 (1973). 33. L.R. Anspaugh, P.L. Phelps, G.W. Huckabay, and T. Todachine, Field Spectrometric Measurements of Radionuclide Concentrations and External Gamma Exposure Rates at the Nevada Test Site. A Demonstration Study, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-51412 (1973). 34. L.R. Anspaugh, “Relationship Between Resuspended Plutonium in Air and Plutonium in Soil,” in Enewetak Radiological Survey, United States Atomic July 1, 2012

×