Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas

Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas
Texas 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

- ii –

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration of Lynn R. Anspaugh ...................................................................................................1
Qualifications ...................................................................................................................................2
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................8
Background 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......................................................................14
Examination 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 ..................................................................................20
A 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 .............................24
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................25
Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................25
References and documents examined ............................................................................................26
Appendix: Curriculum Vitae of Lynn R. Anspaugh .....................................................................29

-2–

QUALIFICATIONS
I hold a Bachelor of Arts Degree with High Distinction from the Nebraska Wesleyan
University with a major in physics (1959); a Master of Bioradiology Degree from the University
of California, Berkeley, with a specialty in health physics (1961); and a Doctor of Philosophy
Degree with a specialty in biophysics from the University of California, Berkeley (1963). In
order to undertake my graduate work I competed for and received a Special Fellowship in
Radiological Physics and a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship. During my
graduate work and before receiving a Ph.D. I was examined for my proficiency in four fields of
knowledge: atomic and nuclear physics, radiation physiology, biochemistry, and cellular
physiology.
Following receipt of my Ph.D. degree I worked at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory until retirement at the end of 1996. Since that time I have been at the University of
Utah in a position of Research Professor, and I do independent work through my sole
proprietorship, Lynn R. Anspaugh, Consulting.
During my career I have been the author or co-author of 348 published articles and
reports and an additional 75 abstracts. A complete list of these publications in provided in my
Curriculum Vitae, which is the Appendix to this report.
My work has focused almost entirely on environmental health physics, radiation-dose
reconstruction, and environmental risk analysis. I have also, as a member of a team, prepared
and presented several courses and seminars on radiation-dose reconstruction and general risk
assessment at a number of universities, including San Jose State University; University of
California, Los Angeles; Stanford University; University of California, Davis; and University of
California, 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;

-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;

-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;

-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. Among
them 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;

-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 recognition
of my technical expertise and experience. In addition, I have received the following honors from
my 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

-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 as
an expert witness for radiation-dose-reconstruction and dose-projection issues. I do not consider
this as part of my qualifications, but as evidence of the acceptance of my expertise.

-8–

INTRODUCTION
Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, have applied to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to expand their natural gas-pipeline systems
in New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Both of these companies are Spectra Energy
Corporation natural gas-pipeline companies. The FERC has issued a Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) for this project (FERC 2012) and has approved the project subject to
implementation of proposed mitigation and other measures. Following publication of the FEIS
several entities have sought to intervene and to request a rehearing regarding several issues. One
of the more frequently cited issues relates to the presence of radon (specifically 222Rn) in natural
gas (Ring undated; Schulte undated; Scott 2011; Donohue 2012; Resnikoff 2012; Schulte 2012).1
Rationale given for raising the concern about radon in this context is the belief that the natural
gas in the pipeline is or will be derived from the Marcellus Shale formation, which some of the
interveners believe contains elevated levels of radon. Generally speaking all natural gas contains
some levels of radon, so the presence of radon in and of itself is not new. The fundamental
questions here are whether the natural gas in this pipeline might contain highly elevated levels
and 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 this
pipeline and possible risks to individuals. Most of the statements made by interveners are only
suggestive 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 all
significant issues raised in the other reports or statements.2

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Naturally occurring radiation and radioactive materials
Everyone is exposed to natural background radiation, which arises from a variety of
sources that can be grouped within four broad categories. The first group consists of cosmic rays
and cosmogenic radionuclides. Cosmic rays originate in outer space; these galactic rays have
components that are 98% nucleonic and 2% electrons. The nucleonic component consists mainly
1
The reference style used in this document is a combination of the usual scientific and legal styles. Complete
references are given only in the reference section. Where it is appropriate to designate a particular page or pages in
a 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’s
residence. Accordingly, lead from natural gas does not create any health risk to the natural gas customer.

-9–

of protons (nuclei of hydrogen), but also contains alpha particles (nuclei of helium) and some
heavier nuclei.3 These cosmic rays interact in the upper atmosphere and produce a radiation field
that exposes persons on the earth with generally higher exposures accorded to persons living at
higher altitudes. The cosmic rays also interact with nuclei in the upper atmosphere to produce
radionuclides by a variety of mechanisms; the more common cosmogenic radionuclides are 3H
(tritium), 7Be, 14C, and 22Na. These radionuclides enter the body and produce radiation
exposure.
The second category is external exposure from radionuclides that are contained in the
surface of the earth. These primordial radionuclides were present at the time of the earth’s
creation, and they have extremely long half-lives such that they are still present in the earth’s
surface. The main radionuclides of concern are 40K and the series of radionuclides that are
headed by 232Th and 238U. There is another decay chain headed by 235U, and this radionuclide is
very important in terms of the development and use of nuclear energy. However, 235U occurs
only 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 in
terms of natural background radiation. The decay chains headed by 232Th and 238U are
diagramed in Figs. 1 and 2. Each decay chain, unless disturbed, is said to be in secular
equilibrium in that the activity of every member of each chain is exactly the same, although the
masses of each member may be greatly different. Equilibrium is present because the half-life of
the parent radionuclide is much, much longer than the half-life of any successor radionuclide in
the chain. If secular equilibrium is disturbed, for example, by extracting the uranium from the
other members of the chain by the mining and milling of uranium, then the process of in-growth
of the daughter radionuclides will begin again, but it may be many years before secular
equilibrium is re-established within the uranium materials. External exposure to humans occurs
due to the decay of these radionuclides in soil (and in building materials) and the interaction of
the 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 a
noble gas, 220Rn or 222Rn. Either of these tends to migrate from the soil surface into the air and is
available 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 migrate
through soil and into outdoor air. Depending upon a variety of factors, radon may also

3
A much more lengthy discussion of natural background radiation can be found in UNSCEAR (2000).

- 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 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, 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 its
short-lived decay products) is generally the most significant source of exposure of humans to
natural background radiation, or radiation of any type. Other radionuclides in the two series and
40
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 primordial
radionuclides and the progeny of 232Th and 238U. As each of the three radionuclides resides in
soil, it is inevitable that some amounts of these materials are taken up into food crops or

- 11 –

238U
4.5 Gy

234Th 234mPa 234U
24 d 1.2 m 244 ky

230Th
77 ky

226Ra
1.6 ky
Atomic 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).

- 12 –

contaminate the outside surfaces of the food. Thus, the radioactive materials are ingested with
food, 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 under
conditions of secular equilibrium, but the mass of each member of the chain would be quite
different. 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 / 2

where
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 only
43  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 definition
was changed in 19504 to apply to any radionuclide that had 3.700 × 1010 disintegrations per
second. One Ci is a large amount of activity—not something usually encountered. More
appropriate 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, one
trillionth 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.

- 13 –

Unfortunately in terms of adding to confusion, most of the world, with the notable
exception of the United States, uses the Système International (SI) of units to describe almost
everything, including units of activity (ICRU 1998). Thus, the SI unit of activity is the
disintegration per second, of which the special name is the becquerel (Bq), equal to one
disintegration per second.
Concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides in soil
A substantial amount of effort has been devoted to determining the amount of exposure
and dose a person receives from these naturally occurring radioactive materials. One of the steps
in 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), considerable
interest has also been devoted to measuring the occurrence of 226Ra in soils. Information on the
occurrence of 40K, 232Th, and 238U in soils throughout the world is presented in Table 1. The
range of values is not the most extreme that can be found, but is a broad category of range that is
not unusual. Concentrations of 226Ra are very similar to those of 238U, although 226Ra is not
always found in complete equilibrium with its parent 238U. As indicated in Table 1, the
radionuclide with the highest typical concentration in soil is 40K, which is an isotope of
potassium that makes up 0.0117% by isotopic abundance of all potassium (Lederer and Shirley
1978).
As can be noted from Table 1, there is a substantial variation in the concentration of these
materials 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 was
stated to be equivalent to 1.8 g of 238U per gram of soil. Myrick et al. (1983) measured the
concentrations 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 Range
Median and range,
11 3.8–23 0.81 0.30–1.7 0.95 0.43–3.0
pCi/g
Population-weighted
11 1.2 0.89
mean, pCi/g

5
UNSCEAR (2000), p. 116; original values were given as Bq per kilogram (kg).

- 14 –

States. Some selected values that they reported are shown in Table 2. The variations in
concentration of all three radionuclides are large. For the samples collected and analyzed for the
entire U.S. the quotient of the high end of the range divided by the low end is on the order of
20 to 30.
Radiation dose from naturally occurring radionuclides
Based upon a variety of measurements, including some of those indicated above, the
UNSCEAR (2000) has calculated the annual doses that a person would receive due to exposure
to naturally occurring radionuclides. These values are summarized in Table 3 according to the
four broad categories previously discussed. An indication of the range of the doses is also
provided in Table 3. The average total dose rate is expected to be 240 mrem per year with a
reasonable range (not considering extremes) of about 100 to 1,000 mrem per year. And, as
indicated previously, it is seen that exposure to radon (primarily 222Rn) is the largest source of
exposure to man.

Concentration of airborne radon in U.S. homes
During 1989 and 1990 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook the
National Residential Radon Survey. Values were reported in units of Bq per m3, as is typical of
the scientific literature, whereas it is more typical in regulatory matters in the U.S. to speak about
units 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 unitless
232
Th 331 0.10–3.4 0.98 ± 0.46 0.87 × 1.7±1
238
U 355 0.12–3.8 1.0 ± 0.83 0.96 × 1.6±1
226
Ra 327 0.23–4.2 1.1 ± 0.48 1.0 × 1.6±1
a
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.

- 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/y
Total from cosmic rays and cosmogenic radionuclides 39 30–100
Total external exposure from radionuclides in soil, etc. 48 30–60
Total inhalation (mostly radon) 126 20–1000
Total ingestion 29 20–80
Total 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 L
and
pCi Bq (3)
1  37 3 .
L m

During 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 the
former 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 average
over all living levels of 31.8 Bq/m3 (1.86 pC/L). These values were compared with the EPA
action 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 as
30,000 excess lung cancer deaths in New York State might occur as a consequence of radon in
Marcellus Shale natural gas used by customers with unvented stoves. Resnikoff’s assertion
clearly violates the International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendation that
“the aggregation of very low individual doses over extended time period 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.”8 Resnikoff’s improper and incorrect cancer
estimate is based upon his erroneous estimate of the radon concentration in the natural gas

6
UNSCEAR (2000), p. 140; original values were given in mSv.
7
Resnikoff (2012), p. 2.
8
ICRP (2007), p. 13.

- 16 –

supplied to New York State customers. As explained in detail below, the cancer risk, based on
actual 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 Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC). Resnikoff’s statement was that the issue of radon had been
ignored by the DEC. This initial concern has been superseded by the Final Environmental
Impact 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 Heijde
1977); and the potential health impacts of this occurrence have been investigated by several
authors, including a major study by the U.S. EPA (Johnson et al. 1973). The EPA study
estimated that the overall average concentration of radon at the wellhead is 37 pCi/L. One major
conclusion of the Johnson et al. study was that, “The use of natural gas containing radon-222 for
average exposure conditions does not contribute significantly to lung cancer deaths in the United
States.”10 FERC cited the EPA study in its final environmental impact statement.11 The
Commission also cited studies by researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy,12 the British
National Radiation Protection Board,13 and the University of British Columbia Department of
Health Care and Epidemiology.14 These studies’ conclusions were consistent with the EPA
study conclusion. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy study specifically concluded that “in
most cases, the concentrations of radon-222 in well-head gas that would be required to produce
unacceptably high indoor radon-222 concentrations are far in excess of those that have been
observed…. On the basis of present information it seems unlikely that radon-222 in natural gas
would pose a radiological hazard to domestic users, except perhaps in specific local uses near
wells with extraordinarily high concentrations.”
It is my opinion that these studies represent the current scientific consensus regarding the
doses 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 the
Commission’s conclusion that “exposure to radon associated with domestic gas use is small and

9
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).

- 17 –

radon is not likely to be of concern to suppliers or customers due to the small quantity that is
released into buildings from burning natural gas.”15 The bases for my opinions are discussed
below.
Resnikoff disputes the studies referenced by the Commission based upon his claims16
that: (1) the radon concentrations in Marcellus Shale natural gas are higher than gas produced
elsewhere; (2) the proximity of the Marcellus Shale formation to the New York residences where
the gas is used will result in higher radon concentrations, because the radon decay during
transportation is reduced; (3) New York City apartment volumes are smaller than the residential
volume considered in the studies and the New York City apartment radon concentrations will be
correspondingly higher; and (4) the air exchange rate in New York City apartments is less than
the rate assumed in the studies.
Actual measurements conducted between June 26 and July 3, 2012, of the radon
concentration in the natural gas at various points along the existing pipeline, which will be
extended into New York City in the expansion project, completely refute Resnikoff’s claims and
fully support the Commission’s conclusion that radon is not a concern. Specifically, Resnikoff’s
claim that over 30,000 persons could die of lung cancer is based on his flawed estimate that the
radon concentration in the natural gas as it is delivered to customers in New York City will be
1953.97 pCi/L.17
In fact, however, the actual, measured radon concentration in the pipeline at
Lambertville, New Jersey, approximately 70 miles before the gas would reach New York City
customers by the pipeline extension is only about 17 pCi/L – 115 times less than Resnikoff’s
estimate. The Lambertville radon measurement and the other measurements made along the
pipeline clearly demonstrate that Resnikoff’s first two claims, (1) that Marcellus Shale gas has
much higher radon concentrations, and (2) that the concentrations remain high because of the
short transport distance and decay period, are incorrect. Even if one accepts Resnikoff’s other
two claims, (3) that New York City apartment volumes are smaller than the residential volumes
assumed by the EPA, and (4) that the air exchange rate is lower than assumed, the lung cancer
risk is still insignificant – approximately 1 chance in 100,000 – a risk level that is considered
acceptable 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

- 18 –

Concentration of radon at the natural gas wellhead
According to Resnikoff (2012)18 the first factor that must be addressed in assessing the
health effects of radon in natural gas is the concentration of radon at the natural gas wellhead. In
reality, however, the radon concentration in the pipeline measured at or near the consumer’s
home 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 gas
actually supplied to the customer. It is obvious that the radon concentration measured in the
pipeline will accurately represent the radon decay that has occurred just before the gas is
supplied 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 the
wellhead. If, instead, one relies only upon a wellhead radon estimate (as Resnikoff did), one
must 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 of
radon (by an independent, commercial laboratory) in natural gas samples (collected by an
independent, environmental engineering company) at various points along the pipeline are vastly
superior to Resnikoff’s wellhead estimates.
Further, Resnikoff’s wellhead estimates are not reliable or correct. He relies upon the
concentration of uranium-238 in various geologic formations for his estimate. The first source of
uranium data that he relies upon is some gamma ray logs that are of such poor quality that
Resnikoff admits: “It is not possible to give the specific radioactivity measurement.”19 Even if
Resnikoff could read the logs accurately, he incorrectly converts the API log units to picocuries
per gram, deriving a uranium concentration that is much too high.20 The second source of
uranium data upon which Resnikoff relies is a 1981 preliminary U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

18
19
20
Resnikoff contends that the poor-quality gamma ray logs indicate 200-400 API units, and he uses the conversion
that 16.5 GAPI units are equal to 1 pCi/g radium equivalent. He then assumes that 1 pCi/g radium equivalent is
equal to 1 pCi/g of radium alone. This is not true; the term equivalent refers to a mixture of radionuclides giving
rise to an equivalent dose as does radium alone. For a mixture of naturally occurring radionuclides, the radium
equivalent would be calculated as equal to A(Ra) + 1.43A(Th) + 0.077A(40K), where the A’s represent activity in
Bq/kg (Tufail et al. 2006). . Without knowing the concentration of Th and 40K in the wellbore, it is not possible to
interpret the GAPI unit quantitatively in terms of U or Ra

- 19 –

report that was not reviewed or edited by the USGS.21 Resnikoff claims at page 8 of his report
that the preliminary USGS data are consistent with his illegible gamma ray log data that he has
misinterpreted. All these sources of error and uncertainty should be disregarded in favor of real
empirical data – the actual radon measurements in the pipeline that are now available.
Resnikoff uses the inconsistent USGS data and illegible gamma logs in an unknown
model to estimate the concentration of radon at the wellhead. Resnikoff provides no information
about the model. He lists 15 parameters (e.g., “max gas-yielding radius r”), but supplies no
information about where he obtained the parameter data that he claims to use in the model. He
also fails to state the uncertainties associated with each of the parameters. Again, all of these
postulations should be disregarded, and reliance should be placed instead upon the actual radon
measurements in the pipeline. In fact, it is a scientific axiom that actual measured data are
always superior to modeled estimates. In this case, Resnikoff’s modeled estimates are
particularly unreliable, because he does not give any information about the model or the basis for
the parameters he uses in the model. In summary, Resnikoff’s estimate of the concentration of
radon at the wellhead is not correct or reliable, because he used unreliable or undocumented data
in 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. As
explained above and considered in more detail below, independent testing of samples collected
along the pipeline has been accomplished. This testing, as noted, is far superior to testing the
wells, 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 pertains
to the transportation of the gas from the wellhead to the household.23 The main importance of
this factor is that radon-222 has a half-life of only 3.8 days (Fig. 2), so the longer distance that
natural gas is transported the more time there is for decay of the radon. Dr. Resnikoff notes that
if gas is piped from the Gulf Coast it takes longer than for gas piped from the Marcellus Shale
formation. As explained above, actual measurements of the radon in natural gas samples
collected along the pipeline are the most accurate indication of the radon that will be present in

21
“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
23

- 20 –

the gas supplied to the customer. These measurements account not only for the reduction in the
radon concentration due to radioactive decay during transportation, but also for the reductions
due to commingling of the gas from the Marcellus Shale formations with other gas, storage, and
processing of the gas. Thus, these actual measurements are much more useful and reliable than
Resnikoff’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 concerns
the dilution of radon entering the home. The dilution factor used in the EPA study (Johnson et
al. 1973) was given as 7,111. This value depends on three factors: the amount of natural gas
used 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 air
exchanges assumed in the EPA study. He postulates a smaller average size of the home and a
smaller rate of air exchange. His postulated dilution factor is given as 4,053.24 As discussed
below, even if Dr. Resnikoff’s dilution factor is applied to the actual radon concentrations
measured in the pipeline, the health risk is insignificant.

A MORE RATIONAL APPROACH TO
CALCULATING RADON EXPOSURE IN THE HOME
Measurements of radon in the pipeline natural gas
We agree entirely with Dr. Resnikoff that there was a need for independent testing of the
radon levels in natural gas that might reasonably be expected to enter homes of the residents in
New Jersey and New York. In order to meet this need, Spectra Energy retained an independent
environmental engineering company25 to collect samples of natural gas from eight different
locations as shown in Fig. 3 and submitted the samples to an independent commercial
laboratory26 for analysis of radon. The results are given in Table 4. As expected, the
concentrations of radon in samples further to the west have higher concentrations than those to
the east. This is partly due to radioactive decay of the radon as the natural gas moves eastward
through the pipeline. It seems clear that the first two samples in Table 4 are the more

24
25
RAdata, Inc., 27 Ironia Road, Flanders, NJ.
26
Bowser-Morner, 4518 Taylorsville Road, Dayton, OH. The natural gas samples were analyzed for their radon
concentrations by Dr. Philip Jenkins, Ph.D., who is a Certified Health Physicist and specializes in radon
mesurements.

- 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.

- 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 station
June 26, 2012 17.0±1.6 0.12
M&R#78012 Line 20
June 27, 2012 Anadardo M&R#73659 27.6±2.6 0.10
June 27, 2012 Williams LMM M&R#736521 23.9±2.2 0.10
July 1, 2012 NiSource Midstream (#75660) 32.9±3.0 0.12
July 1, 2012 Caiman (#73656) 39.1±3.6 0.11
July 2, 2012 National Fuel-Holbrook (#75720) 26.2±2.4 0.09
July 2, 2012 Energy Corp-Jefferson (#73465) 44.1±4.1 0.10
a
Minimum detectable concentration.

representative of the concentrations of radon in natural gas as it would enter residences, because
these 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 a
dilution factor. According to Resnikoff that dilution factor should be 4053. On that basis the
incremental 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 in
residences of 1.86 pCi/L in EPA Region 2 (New York and New Jersey).27

27
Marcinowski et al. (1991), p. 705.

- 23 –

Dose from incremental increase of radon in residences
The calculation of radiation dose from the inhalation of radon has been carefully studied
for years. This research gave rise early on to an expression of exposure rather than dose in terms
of a Working Level (WL). Originally, this was intended to equate to being exposed to 100 pCi/L
of radon in equilibrium with its short-lived daughters. However, radon is seldom in equilibrium
with its short-lived daughters, so the definition of a WL was changed to “that concentration of
short-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 surrogate
for dose was then defined in terms of working level months (WLM). The original definition was
applied for occupational exposure, so a WLM was calculated on the basis of exposure for 170
hours per month.28
The most recent authoritative document that addresses dose and risk from exposure to
radon 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 would
have 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 radon
gas concentration. In other words, the ratio of potential alpha energy concentration for the actual
mixture of radon decay product to that which would apply at radioactive equilibrium.” This is
important, because the equilibrium factor is typically given as 0.4.
An important statement in ICRP (2010) is that, “an annual domestic exposure of
227 Bq/m3 gives rise to 1 WLM assuming occupancy of 7000 hours per year and an equilibrium
factor of 0.4. Thus, the annual dose (in WLM) of the exposure to the incremental radon
exposure given above is

pCi 1 Bq L m 3 WLM WLM
17   37 3   0.00068 . (6)
L 4053 m pCi 227 Bq year year

28
ICRP (1993), p.4.
29
ICRP (2010), p. 19.

- 24 –

If we integrate that annual dose over a 30-year period, as suggested by Resnikoff, 30 the
result 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, the
individual risk of lung cancer is calculated to be 1.0 × 10-5. This means the risk of lung cancer
associated with radon in natural gas used in unvented ovens and calculated with Dr. Resnikoff’s
dilution 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 there
may not be any increase over the risk that the future customers of this pipeline will receive, as
they are likely already using natural gas from other sources. The actual measured concentration
of radon in the existing pipeline is below the average tabulated by Johnson et al. 1973) for the
United States. Thus, the use of natural gas from this pipeline might actually decrease the
existing risk.

DISCUSSION
This report began with a discussion of background radiation, levels of naturally occurring
radionuclides in soil, doses received from background radiation, and levels of radon found in
U.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 Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act.32 Radon is ubiquitous and is the largest source of dose to
man from naturally occurring radioactive materials.33 The naturally occurring level of radon in
homes 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 environmental
levels of radiation and radon are very weak carcinogens, if they are carcinogenic at those levels
at all. This conclusion might seem surprising to those who have grown accustomed to the scare
tactics employed by interveners. However, the proof exists in the fact that humans still exist on

30
31
ICRP (2010), p. 11.
32
Marcinowski et al. (1994), p. 699.
33
See Table 3 above.

- 25 –

earth. If the projections employed by the interveners were correct, all humans would have
perished from cancer thousands of years ago.
From Table 3 above, the average dose to the world population from the inhalation of
radon is 0.126 rem per year. With use of a dose conversion factor of 9 nSv per Bq h/m3 from
UNSCEAR,34 the annual dose from the projected use of natural gas from the pipeline extension
is calculated to be 0.0004 rem. Compared to an annual dose of 0.240 rem per year from all
sources of natural background, this is a trivial dose.
The ICRP, which is recognized as the pre-eminent authority on radiation protection, has
cautioned against summing such trivial doses over a large number of persons (this is termed
collective 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 I
consider 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 the
dose and risks associated with radon in natural gas by considering the pertinent research
performed by leading scientists in the two federal departments having primary responsibility for
the 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, are
supported by additional research conducted by scientists at the National Radiological Protection
Board (which is now part of the U.K. Health Protection Agency) – the primary agency
responsible for public radiation protection in the United Kingdom – and other scientific
institutions. The Commission considered this British study, as well as supportive Canadian
research. The Commission’s conclusion that radon in natural gas is not a significant concern is
fully supported by this research. It is my scientific opinion that the Commission’s conclusion is

34
UNSCEAR (2000), p. 36.
35
UNSCEAR (2000), p. 21.

- 26 –

completely consistent with the information on radon dose and risk presently accepted by the
knowledgeable scientific community.
Dr. Marvin Resnikoff criticizes the Commission’s conclusion, claiming that the radon
level in Marcellus Shale gas is extraordinarily high and that the reduced distance between the
wellhead and customer’s residence will cause many deaths. He makes this claim despite a clear
warning by the leading international radiation-protection agency that such assertions are
scientifically improper.
Natural gas samples have now been collected by an independent environmental
engineering company and analyzed by at an independent commercial laboratory by a certified
health physicist and specialist in radon measurements. The samples were collected along the
applicant’s pipeline and particularly at the point near where the pipeline would be extended into
the New York City metropolitan area. The sample analyses clearly show that the radon levels in
the natural gas are low and will cause no significant health risk. Further, the sample results
directly and factually contradict Resnikoff’s speculative claims. Most importantly, the sample
results support the Commission’s conclusion that radon in natural gas is not a significant
concern.

REFERENCES AND DOCUMENTS EXAMINED

Dixon 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 29 -

APPENDIX

CURRICULUM VITAE OF LYNN R. ANSPAUGH

CURRICULUM VITAE

LYNN R. ANSPAUGH

EDUCATION: 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), 1961–1963

POSITIONS: 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,

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,

Biophysicist and Director, Risk Sciences Center, Health and
Ecological Assessment Division, Lawrence Livermore National
1995

Biophysicist and Director, Dose Reconstruction Program,
Atmospheric and Ecological Sciences Program, Health and
Ecological Assessment Division, Lawrence Livermore National
1996

Lynn R. Anspaugh Page 2
CV/Bibliography

Research Professor, Division of Radiobiology, Radiology Department,
School of Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah,
1997–Present

CONCURRENT Teacher, University Extension, University of
POSITIONS: 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–Present

RESEARCH: 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

CV/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 Tests

PROFESSIONAL American Association for the Advancement of Science
SOCIETIES: 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 Society

PROFESSIONAL Consultant, Subcommittee to Develop a Federal Strategy
ACTIVITIES: 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

CV/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
Vice Chairman, Scientific Committee 64 on Radionuclides in
the Environment, 1995–2001
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

CV/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
Committee on Development of Risk-Based Approaches for
Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Waste, 2003–2004
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 Tsunami

HONORS: 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

CV/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

CV/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

CV/Bibliography

G.D. Potter, Biomedical Division Preliminary Report for Project Schooner,
(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

CV/Bibliography

17. L.R. Anspaugh, W.L. Robison, W.H. Martin, and O.A. Lowe, Compilation of
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
Normal and Diseased States. III. Data Summary Ordered by Organ and
Suborgan, Subordered by Atomic Number and General Health State, Lawrence

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

CV/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
Normal and Diseased States. IV. Data Summary Ordered by Specific Health
State, Subordered by Atomic Number, Organ, and Suborgan, Lawrence

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,
(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

CV/Bibliography

Energy Commission Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV, NVO-140,
vol. 1, pp. 515–525 (1973).

35. P.L. Phelps, L.R. Anspaugh, S.J. Roth, G.W. Huckabay, and D.L. Sawyer,
“Ge(Li) Low Level In Situ Gamma-Ray Spectrometer Applications,”
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 21, 543–552 (1974).

36. P.L. Phelps, L.R. Anspaugh, N.C. Kennedy, H.G. Booth, R.W. Goluba, J.M.
Reichman, and J.S. Koval, “Resuspension Element Status Report,” in The
Dynamics of Plutonium in Desert Environments, P.B. Dunaway and M.G.
White, Eds., United States Atomic Energy Commission Nevada Operations
Office, Las Vegas, NV, NVO-142, pp. 221–310 (1974).

37. L.R. Anspaugh, J.H. Shinn, and D.W. Wilson, “Evaluation of the
Resuspension Pathway Toward Protective Guidelines for Soil Contamination
with Radioactivity,” in Population Dose Evaluation and Standards for Man
and His Environment (International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1974),
pp. 513–524.

38. L.R. Anspaugh and D.W. Wilson, “The Relative Biological Hazards of Fissile
Materials,” in Joint AEC-DOD Phase II Feasibility Study of a Low-Yield
Atomic Demolition Munition (LOADM) and a Reduced Residual Radiation
Demolition Munition (RADM), US Army Armament Command, Rock Island,
IL, FO-304-74 (1974) (title U, report SRD).

39. L.R. Anspaugh, K.R. Peterson, and W.L. Robison, “Modeling the Dose to Man
from Exposure to Tritiated Water Vapor,” in Peaceful Nuclear Explosions IV,
(International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1975), pp. 369–376.

40. L.R. Anspaugh, J.H. Shinn, P.L. Phelps, and N.C. Kennedy, “Resuspension
and Redistribution of Plutonium in Soils,” Health Phys. 29, 571–582 (1975).

41. J.H. Shinn and L.R. Anspaugh, “Resuspension—New Results in Predicting the
Vertical Dust Flux,” in The Radioecology of Plutonium and Other
Transuranics in Desert Environments, M.G. White and P.B. Dunaway, Eds.,
United States Energy Research and Development Administration Nevada
Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV, NVO-153, pp. 207–215 (1975).

42. P.L. Phelps and L.R. Anspaugh, “Resuspension Element Status Report,” in
Radioecology of Plutonium and Other Transuranics in Desert Environments,
M.G. White and P.B. Dunaway, Eds., United States Energy Research and
Development Administration Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV,
NVO-153, pp. 197–205 (1975).

43. L.R. Anspaugh and P.L. Phelps, Interim Report on the Investigation
of the Impact of the Release of 222Rn, Its Daughters, and Possible Precursors

July 1, 2012

Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas

Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas

Ähnlich wie Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas (20)

Mehr von Marcellus Drilling News

Mehr von Marcellus Drilling News (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas