Standing offer: IEER will award $25 to the first person to notify us of an arithmetic error appearing in an IEER publication (as well as our gratitude for keeping us on our toes!)

Errata in Science for Democratic Action

  • The following quote in "A Reliable Renewable Electricity Grid in the United States," which appears on page 9 (at the bottom right) of SDA vol. 15, no. 2 (January 2008):
    "It was found that an average of 33% and a maximum of 47% of yearly-averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric power. Equally significant, interconnecting multiple wind farms to a common point, then connecting that point to a far-away city can allow the long-distance portion of transmission capacity to be reduced, for example, by 20% with only a 1.6% loss of energy."
    should have read:
    "It was found that an average of 33% and a maximum of 47% of yearly averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric power. Equally significant, interconnecting multiple wind farms to a common point and then connecting that point to a far-away city can allow the long-distance portion of transmission capacity to be reduced, for example, by 20% with only a 1.6% loss of energy."
    The quoted passage should have cited page 1701 of the following source:

    Cristina L. Archer and Mark Z. Jacobson. "Supplying Baseload Power and Reducing Transmission Requirements by Interconnecting Wind Farms." Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, v.46 (November 2007) pages 1701-1717. On the web at http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf.

  • The following sentence in "Health Risks of Tritium," which begins on page 1 and is continued at the top of page 10, of SDA vol. 14, no. 4 (February 2007):
    "For example, one gram (approximately the weight of a quarter of a teaspoon of salt) of tritium in tritiated water will contaminate almost 500 billion gallons of water up to the current drinking water limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."
    should have read:
    "For example, one gram (approximately the weight of a quarter of a teaspoon of salt) of tritium in tritiated water will contaminate almost 500 billion liters of water up to the current drinking water limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)."
  • The following endnote (no.14) in "Democratizing Money" on page 12 of SDA vol. 12, no. 1 (December 2003) gives a now bad link to a Web page:

    14. Keynes' ideas are set forth in Proposals for an International Clearing Union, Draft of the British government's proposal sent to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. by the British War Cabinet, Official Committee on the Post-War External Economic Problems and Anglo-American Co-operation, August 28, 1942. On the Web at http://e-server.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/Exhibition/keynes/pdf/62.pdf.

    The corrected link appears below:

    14. Keynes' ideas are set forth in Proposals for an International Clearing Union, Draft of the British government's proposal sent to U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr. by the British War Cabinet, Official Committee on the Post-War External Economic Problems and Anglo-American Co-operation, August 28, 1942. On the Web at http://www.lib.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/keynes_harrod/pdf/62.pdf.

  • The following sentence in "Dear Arjun" on page 15, column 2, line 6 of SDA vol. 9, no. 4 (August 2001):
    "While PBMRs would reduce the amount of waste volume per unit of power production, there would still be an enormous amount of radioactive waste that would result, posing the familiar problem of what to do with long-lived radioactive waste."
    should have read:
    "While the amount of radioactivity present in the reactor at any time per unit of power produced would be less in PBMRs than in LWRs, the volume of spent fuel would be considerably greater, posing the familiar problem of what to do with long-lived radioactive waste."
  • Page 5. Column 1. First two equations of the section called The Physics of Transmutation should read: I-129 (1.6x107 years) + n ==> I-130m (9 minutes) ==> I-130 (12 hours) ==> Xe-130 (stable) + e Cs-135 (2.3x106 years) + n ==> Cs-136m (19 seconds) ==> Cs-136 (13 days) ==> Ba-136m (0.3 seconds) + e ==> Ba-136 (stable)
  • Page 5. Column 2. Last equation should read: Pu-239 + n ==> Pu-240 ==> Te-135 (19 seconds) + Mo-102 (11 minutes) + 3 n I-135 (6.6 hours) + eTc-102m (4.4 minutes) + e Xe-135 m (15 minutes) + e Tc-102 (5.3 seconds) Xe-135 (9.1 hours) Ru-102 (stable) + e Cs-135m (53 minutes) + e Cs-135 (2.3x106 years)
  • Page 12. Correction: As of September 18, 1998, there are 187 States parties to the NPT, with four States remaining outside: Cuba, India, Israel, and Pakistan.
  • The box on page 17 should have indicated that Italy has signed and ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  • Page 7. Correction: As of September 18, 1998, there are 187 States parties to the NPT, with four States remaining outside: Cuba, India, Israel, and Pakistan.
  • The Dear Arjun column on page 21 contains a confusing sentence that we would like to clarify. In a discussion on chemical breakdown caused by radiolysis, we wrote that:
    They [chemical reactions resulting from radiolysis] also frequently result in the generation of hydrogen gas due to the radiolysis of water and of organic compounds, as well as of other toxic and flammable compounds.
    A better way of stating that would have been:
    Radiolysis of waste and organic compounds frequently results in the generation of hydrogen gas, as well as of other toxic and flammable compounds.
  • On page 20, we printed a table with figures on military and commercial plutonium stocks. Because many countries do not release this information publicly, all numbers are estimates. Since the publication of that issue, we have become aware of additional information about two countries. In July 1998, Britain released figures on its military stocks of fissile materials as a part of a policy to "be as open as possible about nuclear issues..." announced in its Strategic Defence Review. These were: 7.6 metric tons of plutonium and 21.9 tons of highly enriched uranium. Note that these are more than double the figures that we had printed. We have also come to learn that our estimates of German separated commercial plutonium were much too low. A better estimate is about 25 metric tons. (INESAP Information Bulletin, No. 16, November 1998; Plutonium Investigation No. 4-5, WISE-Paris, March-April 1998.)
  • Page 20: The row labeled "CTBT Status" in the table "The Nuclear Numbers" should read that Britain has ratified the CTBT, while China has signed it. Footnote reference 1 should be added to "India" in the first row of the table, and the note should read: "China and India are the only nuclear weapons states with a no-first-use policy." The 160 operational British weapons listed in column 4 of the table are Trident II SLBMs, and should have appeared in the row labeled "missiles."
  • Page 36: The entry for May 11 and 13, 1998 should read that India conducted 5 nuclear tests.
  • The entry in the "Radioactivity" column of the "Depleted Uranium" row on the table on pages 10-11 should read "0.2." In that same table, the entry in the "Regulatory Status" column of the "Uranium Mill Tailings" row should read "UMTRA and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act."
  • Lines 9 and 10 of the middle column of page 2 should read, "...between 8 to 10 million gallons of liquid waste..." Our thanks to James C. Warf of Los Angeles, CA for pointing out this error. James wins $25!
  • The Scrubber efficiency %" under the second vertical bar in the chart on page 6 should read "60," not "80."
  • Page 7: The correct range for uranium releases to the air given in the RAC study estimates is 590,000 lbs. to 790,000 lbs., with a best estimate of 680,000 lbs. In addition, the figure for RAC 1996 in the table "The Summary of Estimates of Uranium Releases" should also read 680,000 lbs.
  • The label on page 12 should read: UF6 -- 95.2% -- 557,000 metric tons.
  • In the "Dear Arjun" column, footnote 1 should read, "The various guidelines and standards have been discussed in the Centerfold for Technoweenies of SDA, Volume 3, Number 1."
  • In the table "Natural Radionuclide Concentrations in Continental Waters" on page 8, the note for radium-226 should read: "EPA standard for combined radium-226 and radium-228 is 5pCi/l."
  • The answer to question 1 should read "given that there are 2 milligrams of uranium-238 per gram of soil," rather than "given that there are 2 grams of soil." Bob Schaeffer brought this to our attention and will receive a $25 prize.

Errata in Technical Reports

  • For clarification, IEER issued Revision 1 (April 2009) with the following changes: On page 8 and page 27, as part of Recommendation 2, the second bulleted point was changed to: "EPA's limits to the whole body (25 millirem per year), thyroid (75 millirem per year), and any other organ (25 millirem per year) under of 25 millirem from nuclear fuel cycle operations (40 CFR 190)"
  • On page 9-10 and page 30, Recommendation 11 was changed and now reads: “Reduce maximum allowable exposure to 25 millirem per year from 100 millirem per year: Tighten NRC and DOE rules for maximum allowable exposure from nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear weapons facilities: The EPA is currently considering how the conclusions of BEIR VII should be incorporated in its regulatory framework. We do not agree with the EPA’s position that “current standards and guidance are protective” even in light of BEIR VII.2 For instance, tThe present radiation protection standard for the general public of 100 millirem per year in 10 CFR 20.1301(a), issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, is inadequate and obsolete, especially in light of the BEIR VII report’s conclusions. According to BEIR VII risk values, females have a lifetime risk of one in a hundred of getting cancer at this level of annual exposure. And this excludes the cancer risks during fetal exposure. This is unacceptably high. We recommend that the NRC should revise 10 CFR 20 to reduce it to 25 millirem per year, which is currently the EPA standard for the maximum for nuclear fuel cycle facilities and limit the dose from these combined to conform with the EPA limits in 40 CFR 190, which specifies the EPA standard for dose from a single nuclear fuel cycle facility. The DOE should similarly modify DOE Order 5400.5 to reduce the maximum dose to the general public from 100 millirem per year from nuclear weapons facilities to conform with 40 CFR 190. The EPA should also revise its standard for a single fuel cycle facility to make provision for tightening the dose limit from single facilities in cases where the public is exposed to more than one nuclear fuel cycle source (including any nuclear weapons-related facilities). Among other things, a A considerable tightening of drinking water standards for transuranic radionuclides is also in order.
  • On page 10 and page 30, one sentence of Recommendation 12 was changed as follows: We recommend that the EPA publish a White Paper on risk-based or risk-informed radiation standards where both doses and risks are calculated on a gender- and age-specific basis and where the lifetime risk to a maximally exposed individual is kept much lower than that implied by 40 CFR 190the current single fuel cycle facility limit of 25 millirem per year. Corrected version of the report.
  • New or amended footnotes to Recommendation 11 (footnotes 2, 3, 5, and 6 or footnotes 56, 57, 59 and 60. Footnotes 2 and 53 were replaced with 2 & 56; 3, 5, and 6 are all new) now read:
    • 2 or 56 This report is focused on members of the general public (with the exception of pregnant women in the workplace). Its recommendations are focused on nuclear fuel cycle facilities. They do not concern workers in any workplaces, such as industrial or medical workplaces, where there may be radiation producing devices or radionuclides, whether or not workers in such facilities are radiation workers or members of the general public at present.
    • 3 or 57 Doses in this report are total effective dose equivalent, unless otherwise specified. It should be noted that we only address nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear weapons facilities in this report. Specifically, we are not addressing medical, academic and other similar facilities in this report.
    • 5 or 59 This regulation limits the annual dose equivalent to “25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of any member of the public….” with the exception of doses from radon and its decay products (“daughters”).
    • 6 or 60 See Makhijani 2005.

Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free

Published on Aug 13, 2007

  • The following corrected text appears in the second (2008) and subsequent printings.
  • Page 42. In the first paragraph below the numbered list, the sentence spanning lines 6-8 has been changed to read as follows:

    At 15 percent conversion efficiency, available today, parking lot PV installations could supply more than much of the electricity generated in the United States today.

  • Page 43. The top paragraph has been replaced. It now reads:

    Solar electric systems can also be used in more centralized installations. At 15 percent efficiency, a 1,000 MW plant in the Southwest (that is, in a favorable area for solar) would occupy about 20 square kilometers for a flat plate, non-tracking system. Tracking systems need more land area because the arrays require more space between elements to avoid shading as they rotate. Rotation on two axes increases area further. However, tracking systems generate more electricity per unit of installed capacity, creating a trade-off between land area and installed capacity. Figure 3-6 (see color insert) is a map of the continental United States, published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, showing annual average incident solar radiation on a device that turns to face the sun. Figure 3-6 shows that there are large areas in the Southwest which are favorable to solar energy (more than 6 kWh per square meter per day). Much of the rest of the United States has an insolation rate of 4 to 5 kWh per square meter per day. The insolation values have been averaged day and night, over the entire year. The semi-arid and desert areas in the Southwest and West not only have the greatest incident energy, but also the greatest number of cloudless days. Those regions are therefore excellent candidates for central station solar PV, especially since this technology, unlike fossil fuel and nuclear plants, does not require cooling water. At 15 percent efficiency, the area requirements in the Southwest for generating one-fourth of the 2007 U.S. electricity output would be on the order of 3,000 to 4,000 square miles, for non-tracking systems. The area for tracking systems would be considerably larger.

  • Page 108. Some numbers in the three paragraphs on land-area requirements for solar energy have been changed to read as follows:

    Solar photovoltaic cells also do not take up much land. In fact, installations on rooftops and parking lots take up no additional land. Assuming that half of the large- and intermediate-scale installations are associated with commercial parking lots and rooftops, the land-area requirements for solar PV in the reference scenario are rather modest - about 860 1,800 square miles, which is equal to a square about 29 42 miles on the side, assuming the central station installations are in sunny areas. This includes a 30 percent allowance for roads, space between the PV arrays, and infrastructure.

    We estimate solar thermal electric power production land requirements would be about 210 1,150 square miles. The trough or parabolic reflectors that track the sun in such power plants capture solar energy much more efficiently than solar PV, though much of that advantage is lost in the thermal electricity production cycle as waste heat.

    Overall, the total land-area requirements in the reference scenario for wind and solar energy (other than parking lots and rooftops) would be about 1,560 3,440 square miles, which is a square almost 40 59 miles to the side.

  • Page 111. Some numbers in the table on land-area requirements have been changed: Centralized Solar PVSolar thermal (central station)
    Table 5-1: Land-Area Requirements for the IEER Reference Scenario (rounded)
    Energy sourceLand area, square milesSide of a square, milesComments
    Wind49022Mainly infrastructure, including roads
    1,80042See note 2
    1,15034See note 3
    Biofuels (solid and liquid)184,000429 About five-sixths of the area is harvested area for biomass; rest is microalgae and aquatic plants
    Total187,440443About 5.3 percent of U.S. land area
    Notes:
    1. Wind capacity factor = 30% and land footprint per megawatt = 0.6 hectares
    2. Solar PV efficiency = 15%; generation rate = 120 kWh/m2/yr.
    3. Solar thermal: generation rate = 75 kWh/m2/yr.
  • On page 60, in the box, a correction was made to a sentence in the third paragraph as follows: "For instance, one gram (about one-thirtieth of an ounce) of tritium in tritiated water will contaminate almost 500 billion gallons liters of water up to the drinking water limit of 20,000 picocuries per liter."
  • On page 38, in Table 6, a correction was made to the number of "All cancers" for five year old females. That number was changed from 2277 to the now correct 3377.
  • On page 73, footnote 214 was changed from ICRP 88 p. 20 to ICRP 88 p. 24

Bad to the Bone

Published on Aug 16, 2005

  • On page 18, a typographical correction was made to Table 2. The number in Row 3, Column 3 was corrected to 1.2.

Uranium Enrichment

Published on Oct 15, 2004

  • On page 10, following Figure 5 and its caption, corrections to the third and fourth sentences are as follows: "Such a facility would consume 460 580 to 680 816 thousand kWh of electricity, which could be supplied by less than a 100 kilowatt power plant. The use of modern weapon designs would reduce those numbers to just one to three thousand stages and 150 193 to 280 340 thousand kWh." These corrections were made to the report on the IEER web site on March 11, 2005. The corrected sentences appear on page 13 of the corrected version of the report.

Poison in the Vadose Zone

Published on Oct 22, 2001

  • Page 15. Last sentence under point 7, should read: "Despite the fact that there is a known plume of iodine-129, DOE rates its own monitoring of iodine-129 as 'poor'." Footnote addition is DOE, July 2000. Book 1, page 4-77.
  • Page 17. Add the following two-paragraph footnote after the sentence, "Hazardous organic materials, such as carbon tetrachloride and trichloroethylene (TCE), are highly toxic pollutants that could mobilize faster transport of radionuclides through the vadose zone.": "Laboratory experiments show that iodine is very soluble in carbon tetrachloride (Bender, 2002) and that the addition of carbon tetrachloride to tributyl phosphate enhances the ability of the latter to extract plutonium from an aqueous solution. (Wick, 1980, p. 464). Observations in the field have found that transuranics are transported by colloids (Kersting, et al., January 1999) or natural organic matter (McCarthy, et al., 1998) and can migrate much faster than previously believed. At INEEL, organic materials, including tributyl phosphate and carbon tetrachloride as well as radionuclides, including transuranics radionuclides, were dumped in the shallow pits and trenches of the RWMC (Lockheed, August 1995, Vol. 1, pp. 3-36 to 3-39). "Although the transport of radionuclides in the environment is a question that involves many parameters and, in some cases, is not very well understood, it is reasonable to conclude, based on the laboratory and field evidence cited above, that organic materials could enhance the migration of a variety of radionuclides through the vadose zone."
  • Page 45. First sentence in the third paragraph under 1. Radionuclides should read: "Despite the fact that there is a known plume of iodine-129, DOE rates its own monitoring of iodine-129 as 'poor'." Footnote addition is DOE, July 2000. Book 1, page 4-77.
  • Page 65. Replace the first sentence of the final paragraph of Chapter II, with these two sentences: "The failure to monitor crucial hazardous materials and to sufficiently and accurately monitor iodine-129 in the aquifer is especially troubling, particularly because extensive contamination of the perched water bodies as well as the Snake River Plain aquifer is already recognized. These problems take on even greater significance when the long half-life of iodine-129 and the fact that the concentration of this radionuclide already exceeds the safe drinking water standard in parts of the Snake River Plain aquifer under the site are taken into account."
  • Page 119+. Add the following to the References section:
    • Bender, 2002 Bender, Hal. Examples [class notes for Chemistry 105, Lesson 3]. Oregon City, OR: Clackamas Community College. Distance Learning, 2002. http://dl.clackamas.cc.or.us/ch105-03/examples1.htm. (Viewed December 9, 2002).
    • Wick, 1980 Wick, O.J., ed. Plutonium Handbook, A Guide to the Technology. La Grange Park, IL: American Nuclear Society, 1980.

Wind Power Versus Plutonium

Published on Jan 23, 1999

  • In table 22 on page 47, the costs for fuel and reprocessing should be, respectively, 0.9 and 1.0 cents per kilowatt-hour. As a result, the estimated cost of electricity from breeder reactors should be 11.3 cents per kilowatt-hour, not 11 cents. Also, the total cost of offshore wind should be 5.54 cents per kilowatt-hour. (This figure is provided to two significant decimal places because the cost of decommissioning, which it includes, is provided in this was.) The table in SDA vol. 8 no. 1 reflects these corrections.

Containing the Cold War Mess

Published on Oct 23, 1997

  • On page 123, paragraph 2, corrections to the sentence on lines 7 through 9 is as follows: Preliminary estimates indicate that transuranic radionuclides appear to travel 100 to 1,000 times orders of magnitude faster "than predicted from batch adsorption studies in the literature."
  • These corrections were made to the report on the IEER web site in September 2003.
  • In Chapter 5, on page 21, paragraph 4, corrections to the first sentences are as follows: Modern energy use in Indian agriculture is 560 gigajoules petajoules. Assuming an average efficiency of 15% to 20% for modern energy, the inputs of modern energy provide useful energy of about 84 to 110 gigajoules petajoules.
  • Table 11 in Chapter 5, on page 21: Change "GJ" to "petajoules."
  • These corrections were made to the report on the IEER web site in January 2012.

Deadly Crop in the Tank Farm

Published on Jul 24, 1986

  • Table 3.4, on page 27, item 5 (Plutonium-238), corrections to the third column (Average activity in sludge, curies/liter) are as follows: 7.9x10-2 2.9x10-2.
  • Table 3.5, on page 29, item 1 (DuPont-1978), under Plutonium-239, curies should read: 9,000 8,000; kilograms should read: 150 130.
  • These corrections were made to the report before scanning and posting to the IEER web site for the first time in January 2012.

Errata in Books

Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free

Published on Aug 13, 2007

  • The following corrected text appears in the second (2008) and subsequent printings.
  • Page 42. In the first paragraph below the numbered list, the sentence spanning lines 6-8 has been changed to read as follows:

    At 15 percent conversion efficiency, available today, parking lot PV installations could supply more than much of the electricity generated in the United States today.

  • Page 43. The top paragraph has been replaced. It now reads:

    Solar electric systems can also be used in more centralized installations. At 15 percent efficiency, a 1,000 MW plant in the Southwest (that is, in a favorable area for solar) would occupy about 20 square kilometers for a flat plate, non-tracking system. Tracking systems need more land area because the arrays require more space between elements to avoid shading as they rotate. Rotation on two axes increases area further. However, tracking systems generate more electricity per unit of installed capacity, creating a trade-off between land area and installed capacity. Figure 3-6 (see color insert) is a map of the continental United States, published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, showing annual average incident solar radiation on a device that turns to face the sun. Figure 3-6 shows that there are large areas in the Southwest which are favorable to solar energy (more than 6 kWh per square meter per day). Much of the rest of the United States has an insolation rate of 4 to 5 kWh per square meter per day. The insolation values have been averaged day and night, over the entire year. The semi-arid and desert areas in the Southwest and West not only have the greatest incident energy, but also the greatest number of cloudless days. Those regions are therefore excellent candidates for central station solar PV, especially since this technology, unlike fossil fuel and nuclear plants, does not require cooling water. At 15 percent efficiency, the area requirements in the Southwest for generating one-fourth of the 2007 U.S. electricity output would be on the order of 3,000 to 4,000 square miles, for non-tracking systems. The area for tracking systems would be considerably larger.

  • Page 108. Some numbers in the three paragraphs on land-area requirements for solar energy have been changed to read as follows:

    Solar photovoltaic cells also do not take up much land. In fact, installations on rooftops and parking lots take up no additional land. Assuming that half of the large- and intermediate-scale installations are associated with commercial parking lots and rooftops, the land-area requirements for solar PV in the reference scenario are rather modest - about 860 1,800 square miles, which is equal to a square about 29 42 miles on the side, assuming the central station installations are in sunny areas. This includes a 30 percent allowance for roads, space between the PV arrays, and infrastructure.

    We estimate solar thermal electric power production land requirements would be about 210 1,150 square miles. The trough or parabolic reflectors that track the sun in such power plants capture solar energy much more efficiently than solar PV, though much of that advantage is lost in the thermal electricity production cycle as waste heat.

    Overall, the total land-area requirements in the reference scenario for wind and solar energy (other than parking lots and rooftops) would be about 1,560 3,440 square miles, which is a square almost 40 59 miles to the side.

  • Page 111. Some numbers in the table on land-area requirements have been changed: Centralized Solar PVSolar thermal (central station)
    Table 5-1: Land-Area Requirements for the IEER Reference Scenario (rounded)
    Energy sourceLand area, square milesSide of a square, milesComments
    Wind49022Mainly infrastructure, including roads
    1,80042See note 2
    1,15034See note 3
    Biofuels (solid and liquid)184,000429 About five-sixths of the area is harvested area for biomass; rest is microalgae and aquatic plants
    Total187,440443About 5.3 percent of U.S. land area
    Notes:
    1. Wind capacity factor = 30% and land footprint per megawatt = 0.6 hectares
    2. Solar PV efficiency = 15%; generation rate = 120 kWh/m2/yr.
    3. Solar thermal: generation rate = 75 kWh/m2/yr.

Nuclear Wastelands

Published on Jun 18, 2000

  • Page 368. Table 7.5. The text in center of the table that says ">5 sieverts" should be corrected to read ">0.05 sieverts" (in both columns).

The Nuclear Power Deception

Published on Jun 18, 1999

  • Page 153. The last row, second column of Table 7, should read: Narora, Uttar Pradesh, India
  • Page 216-217. Figure B-1. The Uranium Decay Chain should appear as follows (most printed copies contain this correction):
    URANIUM DECAY CHAIN -- Main Branch

    Read from left to right. Arrows indicate decay.

    Uranium-238 ==>

    (half-life: 4.46 billion years) alpha decay

    Thorium-234 ==>

    (half-life: 24.1 days) beta decay

    Protactinium-234m ==>

    (half-life: 1.17 minutes) beta decay

    Uranium-234 ==>

    (half-life: 245,000 years) alpha decay

    Thorium-230 ==>

    (half-life: 75,400 years) alpha decay

    Radium-226 ==>

    (half-life: 1,600 years) alpha decay

    Radon-222 ==>

    (half-life: 3.82 days) alpha decay

    Polonium-218 ==>

    (half-life: 3.11 minutes) alpha decay

    Lead-214 ==>

    (half-life: 26.8 minutes) beta decay

    Bismuth-214 ==>

    (half-life: 19.9 minutes) beta decay

    Polonium-214 ==>

    (half-life: 163 microseconds) alpha decay

    Lead-210 ==>

    (half-life: 22.3 years) beta decay

    Bismuth-210 ==>

    (half-life: 5.01 days) beta decay

    Polonium-210 ==>

    (half-life: 138 days) alpha decay

    Lead-206 (stable)
  • Page 54. Table 3.2. Volume of LOW-LEVEL LIQUIDS should read 2.2 x 109 gallons. Under LOW-LEVEL LIQUIDS, Tritium radioactivity (in Curies) should read 4.0 x 104, Strontium-90 radioactivity (in Curies) should read 2.9, and Cesium-137 radioactivity (in Curies) should read 5.1. Volume of LOW-LEVEL SOLIDS should read 213 cubic meters Radioactive Heaven and Earth (1991)

Errata in Letters

  • The original memo incorrectly stated the reported tritium releases from all three Palo Verde reactors as 972 curies: "For instance, the Palo Verde plant reported 972 curies of tritium releases to the atmosphere in 2004 (all three reactors)" The correct number should have been 2,123 curies. This represents the total of releases from Unit 1 (672), Unit 2 (479), and Unit 3 (972).