Independent environmental monitoring and public dose assessment around the Canadian Nuclear Power Plants

  • S. Hamlat
  • P. Thompson
  • M. Rinker
  • N. St-Amant
  • P. Pan
  • K. Peters
  • E. Dagher
  • S. Jovanovic
  • K. Sauvé


Radiological impact to members of the public living around the Canadian Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) was assessed using environmental monitoring data for tritium, gross alpha, 137Cs and 131I and dose calculations. The monitoring data exhibited concentrations much lower than guidelines and are comparable to other results in Canada. Tritium is the most significant radionuclide and major contributor to the very low dose (µSv y−1), to members of the public. The tritium dose was a fraction of the regulatory dose limit and background radiation dose. The public living around Canadian NPPs is not exposed to radiation that would result in a radiological impact.


Radioactivity measurement Environmental monitoring Dose assessment NPPs Tritium 



We thank site Inspectors and staff (Environmental Compliance Group and Laboratory Services Division) for their collaboration in providing logistical support, and contribution to the design of the sampling plans, and collecting samples during 2013 and 2015 sampling campaigns.


  1. 1.
    United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (1982) United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation report to the General Assembly New York (United Nations)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    New Brunswick Power (NBP) (2014) Environmental radiation monitoring program, annual report ACR-07000-2014. New Brunswick, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ontario Power Generation (OPG) (2014) Results of environmental monitoring programs report, NREP-03443-10014 Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hydro-Québec (HQ) (2014) Résultats du programme de surveillance de l’environnement de la centrale de Gentilly-2. Rapport technique G2-RT-2014-00518-003 Québec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruce Power (BP) (2013) Environmental monitoring program report, B-REP-07000-00006, Revision 1. Kincardine CanadaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (2014) Basic safety standards radiation protection and safety of radiation sources: international basic safety standards. General Safety Requirements Part 3 Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Intenational Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP) (1996) Compilation of ingestion and inhalation dose coefficients in age dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides: part 5, Publication 72. Ann ICRP 26(1):1–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Canadian Standard Association (CSA) (2014). Guidelines for calculating derived release limits for radioactive material in airborne and liquid effluents for normal operation of nuclear facilities. Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    International Committee on Radiation Protection (ICRP) (1995) Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides: part 4 inhalation dose coefficients. Publication 71. Annals of the ICRP 25 (3/4). Pergamon Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laurence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) (2002) Environmental report, appendix C. Methods of dose calculations. UCRL-50027-02. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. California, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Health Canada (HC) (2009) Health Canada guidelines for canadian drinking water quality screening level: guideline technical document—radiological parameters. Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (2001) Tritium in the Canadian environment: levels and health effects. Report RSP-0153-1. Prepared for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission under CNSC contract no. 87055-01-0184 by Ranasara Consultants and Richard OsborneGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ontario Ministry of Labour (OML) (2014) Nuclear reactor surveillance programs report to the radiation monitoring working group. Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mihok S et al (2016) Tritium dynamics in soils and plants grown under three irrigation regimes at a tritium processing facilities in Canada. J Environ Radioact 153:176–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thompson P et al (2015) Levels of tritium in soils and vegetation near Canadian nuclear facilities releasing tritium to the atmosphere: implications for environmental models. J Environ Radioact 140:105–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osborne RV (2002) Tritium in the Canadian environment: levels and health effects. Report RSP-0153-1. Prepared for the Canadian Nuclear Safety CommissionGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    United Nations Food and Agriculture and World Health Organization (CodexAlimentarius) Standards for radioactivity in foods (
  18. 18.
    Currie LA (1968) Limits for qualitative detection and quantitative determination. Anal Chem 40(3):586–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marsh R, Croudace IW, Warwick PE, St-Amant N, Cooper N (2017) A new bomb-combustion system for tritium extraction. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 314(2):651–658CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim SB, Baglan NJO, St-Amant N, Carter B, Clark I, Bucur C (2015) Canadian Inter-laboratory organically bound tritium (OBT) analysis exercise. J Environ Radioact 150:236–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Connan O, Hebert M, Solier L, Caldeira Ideas P, Laguionie P, St-Amant N (2015) In situ measurements of tritium evapotranspiration (3H-ET) flux over grass and soil using the gradient and eddy covariance experimental methods and the FAO-56 model. J Environ Radioact 148:1–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ciallella HE et al (2004) Environmental radiological surveillance around nuclear power plants in Argentina. In: Proceedings of 11th International Congress on the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), Madrid, Spain, 23–28 May, pp 35–40Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Trivedi A et al (1997) Daily tritium intakes by people living near a heavy-water research reactor facility: dosimetric significance AECL report, AECL-11648, COG-96-333-1, Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lane R et al (2013) Radiation exposure and cancer incidence (1990 to 2008) around Nuclear Power Plants in Ontario. J Environ Prot 4:888–913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ravi PM et al (2008) Environmental radiation measurements and comprehensive impact assessment around a nuclear power plant site in Kaiga, India. J Nucl Sci Technol Suppl 5:635–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1999). Environmental report, appendix A. Methods of dose calculations. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Diabate S, Strack S (1993) Organically bound tritium. Health Phys 65(6):698–712CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA) (2015) Radiation protection regulations (SOR/2000-203). Government of CanadaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grasty RL, LaMarre JR (2004) The annual effective dose from natural sources of ionizing radiation in Canada. Radiat Prot Dosim 108(3):215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (2004) United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation Report to the General Assembly New York (United Nations)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Advisory Committee on Radiological Protection (ACRP) (1990) Advisory Committee on Radiological Protection and Advisory Committee on Nuclear Safety. Recommended de Minimis Radiation Dose Rates for CanadaGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (2014) Regulatory oversight report for Canadian nuclear power plants: 2014 (September, 2015). Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (2007). Recommendations of the ICRP, Publication 103, Annals (2–4). Elsevier LtdGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Leggett RW et al (1998) Reliability of ICRP’s systemic biokinetic models. Radiat Prot Dosim 79(1–4):335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hart D (2010) Uncertainty in dose estimates based on environmental monitoring results. Candu Owners Group-07-3043I. CanadaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)OttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations