Energy and Power Engineering, 2010, 46-52
doi:10.4236/epe.2010.21008 Published Online February 2010 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/epe)
Valuing Health Effects of Natural Radionuclides
Releases from Yatağan Power Plant
Tayfun BÜKE1, Aylin Çiğdem KÖNE2
1Department of Physics, Muğla University, Muğla, Turkey
2Department of Economics, Muğla University, Muğla, Turkey
Abstract: The objective of this paper is the valuation of radiological health effects of Yatağan Power Plant.
To this aim the radiation dose calculations are carried out for the population living within 80 km radius of the
plant. The average of the maximum measured specific isotopes 238U, 232Th and 226Ra in the flying ash samples
are considered as radioactive sources. Based on the dose calculations, first the stochastic health effects and
then monetary health effects are estimated. The estimated total collective dose and economic value of the pre-
dicted health effects are 0.3098 man Sv/y and 14791 US$/y respectively. The results obtained from the dose
calculations are lower than the limits of International Commission of Radiation Protection (ICRP) and it does
not pose any risk for public health. Monetary value of health risks is also negligible in comparison to the av-
erage yearly sales revenue of the plant which is 250 million US$.
Keywords: coal-fired power plants, collective dose, atmospheric dispersion, valuing health effects
1. Introduction
Yatağan Power Plant (YPP) is one of the largest lignite-
fired power plants in Turkey with a total capacity of 630
MW. It has been operated in Muğla province at the west-
ern Anatolia since 1982 [1]. Lignite in Muğla province
contains some uranium as all lignite does. That uranium
passes to ash with a higher concentration during the fir-
ing process in furnace chamber at 1000 oC. While well-
urned ash goes to the plant chimney, the others are not
burned perfectly, which are called slag ashen drops the
furnace chamber floor [2,3]. The radioactive flying ash is
released to the atmosphere, depending on the efficiency
of the plant’s chimney emission control equipment. The
major potential pathway, which might result in increased
radiation doses to people are inhalation of flying ash,
ingestion of food grown in contaminated soil or direct
radiation exposure from the increased deposited radioac-
tivity when flying ash are released from the plant chim-
ney [4,5].
In this study, the radiation dose calculations have been
carried out using the code CAP88-PC which stands for
Clean Air Act Assessment Package [6] for the population
living within 80 km radius of the YPP by using the aver-
age of the maximum measured specific isotopes 238U,
232Th and 226Ra in the flying ash samples as radioactive
sources. Based on the dose calculations, the stochastic
health effects have been estimated by using the risk fac-
tors, as recommended by the International Commission
of Radiation Protection (ICRP) [7]. Then the predicted
health effects have been monetized by using the
methodology given in NucPacts model [8].
In order to estimate the average dispersion of radionu-
clides released from a point source, a modified plume
dispersion model has been used in the calculations. Pas-
quill categories A-F with site-specific averaged mete-
orological conditions are used in the modified dispersion
model. The meteorological data on atmospheric stability
conditions like mean wind speed and the frequency dis-
tribution of wind direction are obtained from Turkish
State Meteorological Service [9]. The population distri-
bution around the YPP is taken from Turkish State Insti-
tute of Statistics [10].
Annual radioactivity release rate for three different ra-
dionuclides in the dose calculations is calculated by us-
ing the ash emission rate from the plant chimney, the
measured activity in flying ash and the plant loading
factor [11,12].
The rest of the study is organized as follows. Section 2
introduces the source terms for 238U, 232Th and 226Ra.
Section 3 deals with the assessment of radiation hazard.
In Section 4 risk calculations are given in detail. Section
5 presents a monetary valuation of health effects. Finally,
Section 6 gathers the main conclusions derived from this
paper.
2. Source Terms
In this study, the literature related to the maximum
measured specific isotopes 238U, 232Th and 226Ra in the
flying ashes of the YPP are reviewed. In those studies,
the concentrations of 238U, 232Th and 226Ra have been

T. BÜKE ET AL.
47
measured with high-resolution gamma spectroscopy. The
maximum radionuclides concentrations in flying ashes of
the YPP are presented in Table 1 [13–15]. As seen from
Table 1 the measured concentrations are different from
each other and the average of the maximum measured
concentrations of different studies for 238U, 232Th and
226Ra are 854, 191, 286 Bq/kg respectively. This is an
expected result since the natural radionuclides content in
the flying ashes of a coal fired power plant depend on the
quality of the coals burned in the power plant. The ra-
dionuclides concentrations can be changed up to 1 and 2
orders in magnitude according to the coal types used in
the power plant [2].
In this study, the average of the maximum measured
specific isotopes 238U, 232Th and 226Ra in the flying ash
samples are used as radioactive sources for the potential
worst-case scenario.
3. Assessment of Radiation Hazard
The radiation dose calculations have been carried out by
the code CAP88-PC for the population living within 80
km radius of the YPP by using the average of the maxi-
mum measured specific isotopes 238U, 232Th and 226Ra in
the flying ash samples as radioactive sources.
The CAP88-PC (which stands for Clean Air Act As-
sessment Package) computer code is a set of computer
programs, databases and associated utility programs for
estimation of dose and risk from radionuclide emissions
to air on a personal computer. It uses a modified Gaus-
sian plume equation to estimate the average dispersion of
radionuclides released from up to six emitting sources
for a circular grid of distances and directions for a radius
of up to 80 km around the facility. The sources may be
either elevated stacks, such as a smokestack, or uniform
area sources, such as a pile of uranium mill tailings.
Plume rise can be calculated assuming either a momen-
tum or buoyant-driven plume. The plume centerline re-
mains at effective stack height unless gravitational set-
tling of particulates produces a downward tilt, or until
meteorological conditions change. Radionuclides are
depleted from the plume by precipitation scavenging, dry
deposition and radioactive decay. The stored depletion
fractions were calculated numerically with a Simpson's
rule. Ground surface and soil concentrations are calcu-
lated for those nuclides subject to deposition due to dry
deposition and precipitation scavenging. Agricultural
Table 1. Concentrations of natural radionuclides in flying
ashes of the YPP (Bq/kg)
Reference number 238U 232Th 226Ra
[13] 375 253 63
[14] 1704 178 122
[15] 484 141 672
Average 854 191 286
arrays of milk cattle, beef cattle and agricultural crop
area are generated automatically, requiring the user to
supply only the agricultural productivity values. Only 7
organs are valid for the effective dose equivalent. They
are Gonads 25 %, Breast 15%, Red marrow 12%, Lungs
12%, Thyroid 3%, Endost 3% and Remainder 30 %.
Doses are provided for the pathways of ingestion and
inhalation intake, ground level air immersion and ground
surface irradiation. Particle size, clearance class and
gut-to-blood transfer factors of the released nuclide type
are further break down factors. These factors are stored
in a database for use by the program.
3.1 Input Data
The estimate of radioactivity released annually in the
environment by the YPP has been carried out for 238U,
232Th and 226Ra that, according to average of the maxi-
mum measured concentrations given in the literature,
have resulted to be the most significant. Annual nuclide
release rate for the radionuclide type i [i Q: Bq/y] is cal-
culated from the relation given by:
LAmQ ii 

(1)
where m
 is the ash emission rate from the plant chim-
ney (kg/y), i
A is the average of the maximum measured
radionuclide type i in flying ash (Bq/kg) and L is the
plant loading factor.
Plume rise is calculated by using the momentum
plume model since ash emission velocity at the chimney
exit is known. An average lid for the assessment area is
provided as part of the input data. The agricultural data
like beef cattle density, milk cattle density and land frac-
tion cultivated for vegetable crop and others for the re-
gion are inputted to the code in order to estimate of
emitted radionuclides into the food chain.
The meteorological data which obtained from Turkish
State Meteorological Service [9] are processed to find
out the stability array file for 16 directions. The atmos-
pheric dispersion of the radionuclides from the stack of a
power plant are strongly depends on the meteorological
conditions where the power plant is located. Therefore
the meteorological data are annually averaged within
hourly time step for the each year of the period 1975–
2006. The better estimation has been made in dose cal-
culations by this way.
The stability array file consists of 4 different wind fre-
quencies, one for each of the 16 wind directions and 6
Pasquill stability category (A-F). 16 records are entered
for each Pasquill stability category and wind frequencies.
Pasquill stability classes used in the code are A) ex-
tremely unstable, B) unstable, C) slightly unstable, D)
neutral, E) slightly stable, and F) stable. Once a stability
array file has been prepared, and it is converted to wind
file for input to the CAP88-PC code which is namely

T. BÜKE ET AL.
48
MUGLA. WND.
Population distribution in the 80-km radius of the
plant is presented Table 2 [10] and the dose calculations
are made for those population. The program uses a
population file for dose calculations. The population file
contains the location description, latitude, and longitude
of the facility, the number of distances and population for
each distance according to 16 wind directions in counter-
clockwise order starting with North. The distances are
edge points of each sector and are entered in the popula-
tion file in km. The population distribution file which is
namely MUGLA.POP is prepared for 20 distances of
each wind direction. Those 20 distances are chosen clos-
est values to the distances presented in Table 2, which
are the exact values around the plant to get the sensible
results for dose calculations.
Input parameters used in the calculations are given in
Table 3 [1,16–18]. Calculated collective effective dose
equivalent rate values including all radionuclides and
pathways effect around the plant by CAP88-PC code are
presented Table 4.
4. Risk Calculation
The occurrence of each of the main stochastic health
effects (i.e. fatal and non-fatal cancers and severe he-
reditary effects) arising as a result of routine atmospheric
emission from a power plant is calculated as [8],
hh HRN

(2)
where h
N is the total occurrence of health effect, h
(cases/y),
H
is the total collective dose occurring via
all pathways (man Sv/y), h R is the risk factor for health
effect h (cases man/Sv).
The calculated health effects by the risk factors in
CAP88-PC computer code are lower than the calculated
health effects by the risk factors which are recommended
by the ICRP [7]. Therefore in this study, the ICRP’s risk
factors have been used in calculations for the potential
worst-case scenario. Those values are given in Table 5.
The total stochastic health effects around the YPP which
are calculated from Equation (2) are given in Table 6.
Table 2. Population distribution in the 80-km radius of the YPP
Location name Population Distance to plant (km) Direction
Yatağan 46252 3 N
Çine 53770 32 N
Köşk 25321 65 N
Sultanhisar 22795 66 N
Aydın, Merkez 208341 46 NNW
Koçarlı 37167 53 NNW
İncirliova 40733 70 NNW
Germencik 45821 75 NNW
Karpuzlu 13207 37 NW
Söke 137739 70 NW
Milas 112808 28 W
Didim 37395 71 W
Bodrum 97826 68 WSW
Datça 13914 77 WSW
Marmaris 79302 55 S
Muğla, (center) 83511 26 SE
Ula 21944 44 SE
Köyceğiz 29196 66 SE
Ortaca 35670 77 SE
Beyağaç 7332 72 ESE
Kale 21390 61 E
Tavas 60669 80 E
Kavaklıdere 12548 25 ENE
Babadağ 8212 80 ENE
Karacasu 21980 65 NE
Bozdoğan 35190 44 NNE
Yenipazar 15492 51 NNE
Nazilli 145963 67 NNE
Kuyucak 31094 81 NNE
Total 1502582

T. BÜKE ET AL.
49
Table 3. Input parameters used in the calculation
Explanation Values
Grid distances, (m) 3000, 14500, 26500, 35000, 45000, 54000,
61000, 67000, 73000, 78000
Annual precipitation in Yatağan, (cm/y) 64.96
Annual ambient temperature in Yatağan, (oC) 16.20
Annual average wind speed in Yatağan, (m/s) 2
Height of lid, (m) 642
Chimney height, (m) 120
Chimney inner diameter at the exit, (m) 6.4
Ash emission velocity at the chimney exit, (m/s) 4.1
Ash emission rate from the chimney, (kg/y) 7.55x106
Plant loading factor (%) 75
Average of the maximum measured activity in flying ash (238U, 232Th,
226Ra) (Bq/kg) 854, 191, 286
Annual nuclide release rate, (Bq/y) 4.84x109, 1.08x109, 1.62x109
Human inhalation rate, (cm3/hr) 9.17x105
Land fraction cultivated for vegetable crops 5.50x 10-2
Beef cattle density, (number/km2) 3.89
Milk cattle density, (number/km2) 1.13
Meat ingestion per person, (kg/y) 15
Leafy vegetable ingestion per person, (kg/y) 140
Cereals ingestion per person, (kg/y) 228
Milk ingestion per person, (L/y) 33
Table 4. Collective effective dose equivalent (man Sv/y)
Distance, km N NNW NW WNW
3.00 0.0480 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
14.50 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
26.50 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
35.00 0.0081 0.0000 0.0040 0.0000
45.00 0.0000 0.0390 0.0000 0.0000
54.00 0.0000 0.0060 0.0000 0.0000
61.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
67.00 0.0050 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
73.00 0.0000 0.0110 0.0230 0.0000
78.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Distance, km W WSW SW SSW
3.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
14.50 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
26.50 0.0510 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
35.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
45.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
54.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
61.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
67.00 0.0000 0.0120 0.0000 0.0000
73.00 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
78.00 0.0000 0.0015 0.0000 0.0000
Distance, km S SSE SE ESE
3.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
14.50 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
26.50 0.0000 0.0000 0.0260 0.0000
35.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
45.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0048 0.0000
54.00 0.0150 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

T. BÜKE ET AL.
50
Distance, km N NNW NW WNW
61.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
67.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0045 0.0000
73.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0012
78.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0050 0.0000
Distance, km E ENE NE NNE
3.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
14.50 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
26.50 0.0000 0.0027 0.0000 0.0000
35.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
45.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0039
54.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0016
61.00 0.0034 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
67.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0023 0.0140
73.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
78.00 0.0077 0.0009 0.0000 0.0027
Table 5. Risk factors for main stochastic health effects for
whole population (case/man Sv)
Health Effect Risk factor
Fatal cancer 5.0x10-2
Non fatal cancer 1.0x10-2
Severe hereditary effects 1.3x10-2
Table 6. The total stochastic health effects (cases/y)
Health effect type Number of cases
Fatal cancer 1.549x10-2
Non fatal cancer 3.098x10-3
Severe hereditary effects 4.027x10-3
5. Monetary Unit Costs for Health Impact
Assessments
The final stage of the impact pathway analysis is to value
the health endpoints in money terms. In literature there are
two approaches that may be used in health risk assess-
ments; the first is based on the Value of a Statistical Life
(VOSL) and the second is based on the Value of a Life
Year Lost (VLYL) [19]. The latter differs from the former
in that it takes into account the latency period of different
types of cancers. A component related to the cost of illness
has also been included in VLYL. Estimates for the eco-
nomic unit value of radiological health effects have been
made for several countries. Ideally, economic unit values
should be based on local economic valuation of a country.
However, in the absence of such information economic
unit values for specific to a country may be transferred to
another country after making some adjustments on the
basis of real per capita income. This adjustment is required
to reflect differences in income and hence, willing-
ness-to-pay regarding the valuation of the health damages
of two countries. The following formula can be used to
arrive at economic unit values of radiological health ef-
fects for countries where there are no studies [19]:
E
X
Y
XY PPPGNP
PPPGNP
DD 







 (3)
where Y
D economic unit values of radiological health
damages for country Y, X D economic unit values of
radiological health damages for country X, Y PPPGNP
and X PPPGNP is real Gross National Product per cap-
ita in purchasing power parity terms for country Y and X
respectively, E is the elasticity of income.
Once the total occurrence of health effect and eco-
nomic unit values are calculated from Equation (2) and
Equation (3) respectively; the total damage in terms of
health effect h is valued using VOSL or VLYL ap-
proach. ), (VLYLVOSLVh can be calculated from the
following formula [19]:
) ,( ), (VLYLVOSLDNVLYLVOSLV hhh

(4)
In this study, the economic unit values for Turkey are
estimated by using Canadian economic unit values of
radiological health impacts since the Canada is the coun-
try that the recent economic unit values of radiological
health impacts are available [8]. Turkey PPPGNP and
Canada
PPPGNP 8600 US$ and 27630 US$ respectively, in
2000 [20]. The elasticity (E) of income is assumed to be
Table 7. Economic unit values of radiological health impacts
(US$/case)
Canada Turkey
Fatal cancer VOSL 1.73x106 5.38x105
Fatal cancer VLYL 7.73x105 2.41x105
Non-fatal cancer 5.77x105 1.80x105
Severe hereditary effect1.73x106 5.38x105

T. BÜKE ET AL.
51
Table 8. The monetary value of the predicted health effects
(US$/y)
Health effect type Damage cost
Fatal cancer VOSL 8334
Fatal cancer VLYL 3733
Non fatal cancer 558
Severe hereditary effects 2167
Total 14791
equal to 1 [8,21]. Economic unit values of radiological
health impacts for Canada and estimated values for Tur-
key are given in Table 7.
Based on the economic unit values of radiological
health impacts (see Table 7), the valuation of the pre-
dicted health effects are calculated from Equation (4).
The calculated damage costs of the radiological health
effects are given in Table 8.
6. Conclusions
In this study, the radiation dose calculations have been
carried out by the code CAP88-PC for the population
living within 80 km radius of the Yatağan coal-fired
power plant (YPP). The average of the maximum meas-
ured specific isotopes 238U, 232Th and 226Ra in the flying
ash samples are considered as radioactive sources. Based
on the dose calculations, the stochastic health effects and
predicted health effects have been estimated. It is seen
that the total and the maximum collective effective dose
equivalent rate is 0.3098 man Sv/y and 0.0510 man Sv/y
respectively. Those values are lower than recommended
by the ICRP and it does not pose any risk for public
health.
The total monetary value of health risk is 14791 US$/y.
The yearly total revenue of the YPP from the sales of
electricity is approximately 250 million US$ [1,22]. The
results indicate that the predicted health effects are neg-
ligible in comparison to the economic value of the YPP.
YPP was stopped between 20 February and 20 March
1993 because of the speculations on radionuclide emis-
sions from the plant. It was a big occasion for news me-
dia [23]. The speculations on the radionuclide emissions
from the YPP and their health effects have continued
since 1993. Against the speculations, there is no signifi-
cant literature on the stochastic health effects and the
cost of the predicted health effects from the YPP [24].
Therefore, the results of this study are very useful for
ending up the speculations on the health effects and the
costs of those effects.
REFERENCES
[1] General Description of Yatağan Coal Fired Power Plant,
Electricity Generation Cooperation, Muğla, 2006.
[2] T. Zeevaert, L. Sweeck, and H. Vanmarcke, “The radio-
logical impact from airborne routine discharges of a
modern coal fired power plant,” Journal of Environ-
mental Radioactivity, Vol. 85, No. 3, pp. 1–22, 2006.
[3] C. Papastefanou and S. Charalambous, “On the escaping
radioactivity from coal power plants (CPP),” Health
Physics, Vol. 64, pp. 293–302, 1984.
[4] Radiological Impact on the UK Population of Industries
Which Use or Produce Materials Containing Enhanced
Levels of Naturally Occurring Radionuclides: Part I:
Coal-Fired Electricity Generation, Report No: NRPB-
R327, National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton,
2001.
[5] A. Nakaoka, M. Fukushima, and S. Takagi, “Environ-
mental effects of natural radionuclides from coal-fired
power plants,” Health Physics, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 407–
416, 1984.
[6] B. Parks and S. P. E. Chaki, CAP88-PC Version 2.0 Up-
dated User’s Guide, Report No: EPA 402-R-00-004, Las
Vegas, 2000.
[7] 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission
on Radiological Protection, Report No. 60, International
Commission on Radiological Protection, Pergamon Press,
Oxford, 1991.
[8] Review of NucPacts: An Environmental Assessment
Package, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,
2003.
[9] Annual Meteorological Conditions in Yatağan 1975–2006
Periods, Turkish State Meteorological Service, Ankara,
2007.
[10] City and Village Population, Annual Growth Rate of
Popupation, Surface Area and Density by Districts in
Turkey, Turkish Statistical Institute, Ankara,
http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreIstatistikTablo.do?istab_id=220
[11] T. Buke, “Dose assessment around the Yatağan coal-fired
power plant due to measured gross alpha radioactivity
levels in flying ash,” Journal of Radioanalytical and Nu-
clear Chemistry, Vol. 256, No. 2, pp. 323–328, 2003.
[12] S. Righi, P. Lucialli, and L. Bruzzi, “Health and environ-
mental impacts of a fertilizer plant Part I: Assessment of
radioactive pollution,” Journal of Environmental Radio-
activity, Vol. 82, pp. 167–182, 2005.
[13] Natural radioactivity measurements in ash-samples of the
Yatağan Power Plant, Turkish Atomic Energy Authority,
Ankara, 1994.
[14] T. Akyüz, S. Akyüz, A. Varinlioğlu, A. Köse, J. Eric, and
D. Davies, “FT-IR, EDXRF and gamma-isotopic analyses
of ashes from coal fired power plants of Turkey,”
Spectroscopy Letters, Vol. 29, pp. 1131–1139, 1996.
[15] G. A. Ayçık and A. Ercan, “Off-line determination of
ash content directly in coal samples via-spectrometry,”
Applied Spectroscopy Reviews, Vol.33, pp. 237–251,
1998.
[16] Economic and Commercial Conditions of Aydın. Industry
and Trade Center of Muğla, Muğla, 2007.

T. BÜKE ET AL.
52
[17] Economic and Commercial Conditions of Muğla, Indus-
try and Trade Center of Muğla, Muğla, 2007.
[18] N Selçuk, A. Atımtay, O. Uslu, Ş. Cirik, H. Vurdu, G.
Tuncel, Z. Kaya, M. Evirgen, and C. Yurteri, Scientific
Committee Report for Kemerkoy Thermal Power Plant,
Ankara, 1995.
[19] A. Markandya and R. Boyd, “Valuing the human health
effects of routine atmospheric releases from nuclear facili-
ties,” International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1999.
[20] World Development Indicators (WDI),
http://ddp-xt.worldbank.org.
[21] E. Liun, A. H. Kuncoro, and E. Sartono, “Environmental
impacts assessment of Java’s electricity generation using
SimPacts model,” International Conference on Advances
in Nuclear Science and Engineering in Conjunction with
LKSTN, pp. 379–384, 2007.
[22] Electricity selling prices of Turkey for the year 2000,
Directorate General of Turkish Electricity Distribution,
2000.
[23] M. Aslan, “A typical example of the discussion about the
environmental impacts of coal fired thermal power plants
in Turkey: Yatağan thermal power plant experience,”
Symposium on Environmental effects of Electricity Pro-
duction from Coal, Ankara, 1995.
[24] T. Oğuz “Personal communications,” Associate Mayor of
Yatağan, 2008.