Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Appendix A
turns out that we don't have the cancer registries on a county-by-county basis to really allow us
to come to those conclusions because of the way they're compared. But if you look at it the
way it could be, you will see elevated concentrations of particulate cancers in communities that
are in close proximity to the reactors. But you don't look at that, so it's small. Small compared
to what Small compared to background
Well, you see some of us now finally understand the difference between background radiation
and the insult when the radiation is ingested or inhaled. Entirely different things. Background is
background. Why do you think your thigh bones are so big It's to keep the background out.
But once it's inside of you each radionuclide becomes very, very efficient at causing the
destruction that ultimately leads to the cancer. Small. No facts. Conjecture. Subjective. (B-2)
Response: The amounts of radioactive isotopes released from Monticello in liquid and
gaseous effluents are constantly monitored and recorded by NMC. The meteorological
conditions at the site are also constantly monitored and recorded. NRC health physics experts
routinely inspect these monitoring programs to ensure that they are being properly conducted.
All of this information is fed into calculational models that estimate the amount of radiation dose
a member of the public might receive. The calculational models are in the ODCM and have
been reviewed and approved by the NRC. These models include estimates of dose from
internally deposited radioactive isotopes as well as direct radiation exposure. In addition, NMC
conducts an environmental radiological monitoring program in the area around Monticello. The
program samples and measures the amount of radioactive isotopes in the air, water, soil, and
agricultural products and measures direct radiation from the plant. This program confirms that
the levels of radioactive isotopes in the environment that are predicted by the computer dose
models. The State of Minnesota also conducts an environmental radiological monitoring
program around Monticello that confirms the results of NMC's program. These programs show
that the radiation doses to members of the public from operation of Monticello are very low, well
within the limits set by NRC and EPA, and very small compared the dose from natural
background sources of radiation.
In spring 2006, the National Research Council of the National Academies published, "Health
Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, BEIR VII Phase 2." A pre-publication
version of the report was made public in June 2005. The major conclusion of the report is that
current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold
dose response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of
cancer in humans. This conclusion is consistent with the system of radiological protection that
*the NRC uses to develop its regulations. Therefore, the NRC`S regulations continue to be
adequately protective of public health and safety and the environment. None of the findings in
the BEIR VII report warrant changes to the NRC regulations. The BEIR VII,1 report does not say
there is no safe level of exposure to radiation; it does not address "safe versus not safe" It
does continue to support the conclusion that there is some amount of cancer risk associated
with any amount of radiation exposure and that risk increases with exposure and exposure rate.
It does also conclude that risk of cancer induction at the dose levels in NRC's and EPA's
radiation standards is very small. Similar conclusions have been made in all of the associated
August 2006 A-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 I