Washington (Platts)--27Apr2010/536 am EDT/936 GMT

Any study of cancer and nuclear power plants faces significant challenges in showing causality, both industry supporters and critics told a National Academy of Sciences panel planning a study.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has asked the NAS to conduct a two-stage study of cancer risk for people who live near nuclear facilities. The new study would update a 1990 report that found there was no link between cancer and plant locations.

Arjun Makhijani, president of the anti-nuclear Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said the study must take a closer look at a small cross-section of nuclear plants to be able to identify links between living near the plants and cancer.

Many contributing factors, such as pesticide exposure and industrial chemical releases, could affect results, he said. "Unless you study specific plants, you're not going to be able to come up with a defensible conclusion," Makhijani said.

NRC will pay the costs for the study, expected to be $4 million to $5 million, according to Brian Sheron, director of the NRC's office of nuclear regulatory research.

The study will be conducted in two parts, the first focusing on reviewing what types of data are available and designing the methodology for the research. The second part would include the actual analysis of information, Sheron said. The first part will begin this summer and conclude in summer 2011, Sheron said. The second part would take two or three additional years, he said.

The scope of the study will be decided by a committee approved by the heads of the National Academies, Sheron said. "We don't want to be accused of influencing the study," he said in an interview following his presentation.

The NAS Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board will review information presented at the meeting and help the academies plan the implementation of the study, board chairman Richard Meserve said. Meserve is a former NRC chairman.

Steven Wing, an associate professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina, said the study should focus on children because previous studies have indicated they might be more vulnerable to effects of radiation.

It is also easier to determine where children have lived and when they moved, making it simpler to determine where their likely exposure occurred, Wing said.

Ralph Andersen, senior director of the radiation safety unit of the Nuclear Energy Institute industry trade group, said one of the difficulties in conducting the study is calculating the migration of populations being studied as well as other factors that could cause cancer rates to rise.

Coal plants can contribute more radiation to the environment from the natural uranium in coal ash than nuclear units do from normal operations, he said.

The type of epidemiological study being proposed "cannot even imply causality," he said, because there are so many contributing factors. The study should take into consideration the voluminous data maintained by NRC on radioactive releases by nuclear power plants, he said.

--William Freebairn, william_freebairn@platts.com