Environ
                     Washington DC 20460
                               ORP/CSD-77-5
          Radiation
v>EPA
Effect of
Nuclear Power Generation
on Water Quality
in the Great Lakes

-------
                                            TECHNICAL REPORT
                                            ORP/CSD-77-5
Effect of Nuclear Power Generation on Water Quality
                 in the Great Lakes
                         by



                 Robert E. Sullivan


                        and


                 William H. Ellett
                     July 1977
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
            Office of Radiation Programs
               Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
                               ABSTRACT



     The 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the United



States and Canada concerning improvement of the water quality of the



Great Lakes has led to a study of the probable effects of nuclear



power generation on radioactivity levels in the lakes.  From an



environmental viewpoint, it is the long-term behavior of the effluents



as they are discharged, mixed, and transported through the Great Lakes



chain which is of primary interest.  A simplified physical model of



the Great Lakes system has been employed which assumes thorough annual



mixing but allows for the perturbations in dilution volume required by



the periodic establishment of thermoclines.  Corrections are made,



where necessary, for removal of radionuclides by sedimentation and



equilibration.  The results are given in terms of the concentration of



radionuclides in each lake and the dose rates resulting from



continuous, long-term ingestion of system waters.



     Dose calculations are performed using equations promulgated by



the International Commission on Radiological Protection in ICRP Report



flO.  Using the model described, it is possible to obtain analytical



solutions for the coupled differential equations describing these



quantities.  In practice, a FORTRAN computer program, GLA-1, described



in Annex III has been employed to reduce calculational effort.

-------
                          Table of Contents


Introduction	   i

Purpose and Scope	   2

History and Topology	   3

Physical Model	   7

     Radionuclide Concentrations	   7
     Dose Rate and Dose to Reference Man	  11
     Computer Program	14

Problem Description	17

     U.S. Light Water Nuclear Power Stations	  17
     Canadian Heavy Water Reactor Power Stations	  20

Results 	20

ANNEXES	

       I.  Refined Radioactivity Objective ..............  27

      II.  Impact Assessment of the Refined Objective
              for Radioactivity in the Great Lakes	33

     III.  Computer Program	  62

-------
INTRODUCTION



     The importance of the Great Lakes System to both the United



States and Canada, along with the necessity for cooperation between



the two countries in its management, has been recognized formally



since signing of the "Boundary Waters Treaty" of 1909.  This initial



Treaty defined the extent of the "boundary waters," established the



International Joint Commission of the United States and Canada and set



forth the Commission1s jurisdiction and authority.



     This original Treaty was amplified and reinforced by a subsequent



Agreement, Between the United States and Canada, on Great Lakes Water



Quality which was signed -in 1972.  The new Agreement was specifically



concerned "about the grave deterioration of water quality" in the



lakes and its major thrust was "to restore and enhance water quality



in the Great Lakes System." In addition, general and specific "water



quality objectives" were set forth.  The specific objectives were



elaborated upon in Annex 1 of the Agreement where several caveats



concerning radioactivity were introduced.  The initial guideline was



that "Radioactivity should be kept at the lowest practicable levels



and in any event" should be controlled to the extent necessary to



prevent harmful effects on health." Furthermore, a procedure was



established for developing a "refined objective ... for radioactivity



(which would) be considered in the light of the recommendations of the



International Commission on Radiation Protection." Upon receipt of



this refined radioactivity objective, the International Joint



Commission is to recommend new or modified specific water quality

-------
objectives  and, with the  concurrence  of both Governments, these shall



be  incorporated into the  Agreement.



     As a consequence of  the Agreement, an  international working group



was formed  to consider  a  refined radioactivity objective for the Great



Lakes.  Co-chairmen were  from  the  United  States Environmental



Protection  Agency and the Canadian Department of National Health and



Welfare.  In September  of 1975 a draft of a "Refined Radioactivity



Objective"  was agreed upon  by  the  working group, consisting of members



representing National,  Provincial, and State governments, and



forwarded to the respective governments for their consideration.  The



U.S. State  Department published this  Objective for comment on April 5,



1977, 42 F.R. 18171.  The proposed objective is reproduced in Annex I.



PURPOSE AND SCOPE



     This paper describes a physical-mathematical model of the Great



Lakes system that can be  used  to obtain estimates of the doses



resulting from continuous ingestion of system waters as the



concentrations of radioactivity in the various lakes change as a



function of time.



     The model can be used  to  consider various source terms: fallout



from nuclear weapons tests, liquid effluents from nuclear power



stations, and liquid and  aerial releases  from nuclear fuel



reprocessing plants.  Present  radioactivity levels, due principally to



fallout, are relatively well known and, in  the absence of further



atmospheric tests, should continue to decline.  It is, therefore, the



cnange in radioactivity levels due to projected U.S. and Canadian



nuclear power generation  in the Great Lakes basin which is of prime

-------
concern.  From an environmental viewpoint, it is the long-term effects

which are of most consequence and the material presented  in this

report has concentrated on changes expected to occur over the course

of many years rather than on detailed descriptions of localized

phenomena which are seasonally variable in nature.

HISTORY AND TOPOLOGY

                                 FIGURE 1
                                                     THE GREAT LAKES
                                                      25 0  50 100
                                                       .Mill
     The Great Lakes basin, Figure  1, comprising  the  lakes  and their

tributary land areas, represents one of the  major natural resources  of

both the United States and Canada.  The international boundary passes

through all lakes but Michigan, which lies wholly within the United

S-cates.  Total area of the basin is about a  half-million square miles

which includes nearly a hundred thousand square miles of water

-------
surface.  Figure I  shows the  geographical details  of the  area lying



within the Great Lakes drainage basin.  This  is one of the most highly



industrialized areas in the nation  and a significant recreational



asset for the more  than thirty million population  presently residing



in the basin.  In addition, some  activities,  such  as commercial



fishing, depend directly on the water quality of the system.  About



sixty percent of the basin area lies in the United .States with the



balance in Canada.  While the Canadian portion of  the lakes lies



wholly within one province; Ontario, seven States; New York,



Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana,  Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan have



boundaries which touch one or more  of the Great Lakes.  Downstream of



the lakes, the St.  Lawrence River forms, for  a distance,  the boundary



between New York and Quebec.  The final outflow to the Atlantic Ocean



is entirely within  Canada.  Many  large metropolitan areas  (about 240



municipalities) situated on the lakes or connecting rivers use water



of the Great Lakes  for all or part  of their drinking water supply as



do various industries.



     The Great Lakes are part of  a  chain of inland waterways.  The



outlet rivers serving the lakes,  the St. Mary's, connecting Lakes



Superior and Huron, the st* Clair-Detroit, flowing from Lake Huron to



Lake Erie, and the  Niagra, from Lake Erie to  Lake  Ontario, along with



the Straits of Mackinac, lying between Michigan and Huron, allow



entrained material  from all- upstream lakes to' flow to the lower lakes.



The-only two,lakes  not interconnected are Michigan and Superior, both



of which empty into .Lake Huron.   The character of  the individual lakes



differs considerably due-to differences in usage,  position, in the

-------
chain, and particularly depth and surface area.  Many investigators1»z
have compiled data on the Great Lakes.
     In Table 1, published estimates of some of the pertinent physical
characteristics of the lakes are compared.  One of the controlling
features of each lake is the "residence time" of the water contained
in the lake - one of the major factors in determining the turnover of
material suspended and dissolved in lake waters,  in the simplest
approximation, this residence time may be taken as the ratio of volume
to outflow of the lake.  Values of this quantity for each lake are
included in Table 1, taken from reference (2).

                               Table 1
               Physical Parameters of the Great Lakes2
Name
of
Lake
Superior
Michigan
Huron
Erie
Ontario
Volume
V
10»«m3
12.221
4.871
4.6
0.458
6.636
Surface
Area
a
10»°m2
8.237
5.802
5.951
2.567
1.968
Mean
Eepth
h
Meters
148
84
77
18
83
Outflow
Rate
q
10 »* m3/yr
0.652
1.582
1.573
1.752
2.091
water
Residence

-------
Huron tends to improve the quality of water in Lake Huron.  Lake



Michigan, which is really a large bay on the west side of the chain,



is much more highly industrialized and, consequently, suffers from a



larger degree of pollution.  Under certain wind conditions the flow



between Michigan and Huron may  be reversed - in effect, backflushing



from Huron to Michigan.



     Huron, whose industrialization is concentrated at the southern



end, where it drains into Erie, is helped by the large flow of clean



water from Lake Superior.  The  general water quality of the lakes



chain deteriorates  markedly in the two lower lakes, Erie and Ontario.



Most of the industrialization in the basin is centered in this area.



For several reasons, pollution problems are worst in Lake Erie.   Erie



is the oldest and shallowest of the lakes but supports nearly half of



the entire population of the basin.  The amount of pollutants released



into the small volume of Erie results in its being classified



somewhere between mesotrophic and eutrophic.  One interesting



observation regarding Erie is that, although it contains only about



two percent of the volume of the lakes, it produces over fifty percent



of the total biomass in the Great Lakes and is also the largest



supplier of seafood.  The lowest of the Lakes, Ontario, receives the



outflow from all upper lakes but its water quality is improved by



several factors: the greater depth and larger volume of the lake allow



it to absorb more pollution with less effect and Niagra Falls, with



its large difference in elevation, acts as an aerator for the water



leaving Lake Erie.

-------
     The hydrology of the Lakes is quite complicated.  Michigan, for



example, may be regarded as three lakes: Green Bay and a northern and



southern portion split by an underwater ridge.  All three have



separate water circulation patterns which may increase the estimated



residence time of water in the southern basin, over the estimate given



in Table 1 for the Lake as a whole.  Current patterns on the other



lakes are similarly  complicated.  The north-south lakes, Michigan and



Huron have wave actions which differ markedly from that of the



remaining east-west lakes.  The situation is further complicated by



thermal stratification of the lakes during the warmer months of each



year.  The depth of the dividing line between the warmer upper layer,



the epilimnion, and the colder portion, the hypolimnion, differs only



slightly for each lake.  In the deeper lakes. Superior and Huron, it



is about 20-25 meters deep and in Ontario about 15-20 meters while for



Erie it approaches the bottom over most of the lake.  However, the



complicated current action and seasonal breakup of the thermocline



tend, on an annual scale, to insure thorough mixing of the lakes.



PHYSICAL MODEL



     1.  Radionuclide Concentrations



     From the foregoing discussion, it is obvious thar a detailed



analytical treatment embodying all geographical and hydrological



features of the Great Lakes would be extremely complex.  However, the



use of realistic simplifying assumptions results in a much more



tractable analysis.  The major assumptions are:



     1.  That the lakes comprise a set of five bodies of water



characterized by constant total volume, constant outflow and inflow,

-------
and constant surface area.  Since all these quantities are based on



averages, these assumptions are reasonable.



     2,  That each lake, on the time scale of interest here (decades) ,



is perfectly mixed.  For the reasons discussed in the previous



section, this assumption is expected to be nearly exact.



     3.  That the thermocline exists for one-half of each year at a



constant depth of 17 meters  (50 feet) in each lake.  All inflow and



outflow during this period is from the epilimnion only.  While this



assumption overestimates the period of existence of the thermocline,



it has little effect on the long-term lake concentration - since



perfect mixing is assumed at the end of each year - but is slightly



conservative in that drinking water is drawn from the epilimnion,



which has a higher nuclide concentration, during this period.



     For this model, the relatively simple governing equation is
          dC.(t)
                 = Ri -
where



     C- = concentration for ith lake [Ci/Cm3]



     R. = input rate into ith lake [Ci/y]
      Ix


     V. = mixing volume of ith lake [Cm3]



     X  = radioactive decay constant for this nuclide [y-»]



     X  = decay constant for physical removal (sedimentation,



etc) [y-»]



     q. = volumetric flow out of ith lake [Cm3/y]

-------
Because of the summation over j, a major difficulty in solving the



equation arises in that each C • term embodies the complete
                              j


differential equation for all preceeding lakes, thus complicating the



analytical expressions for the lower lakes.



     We have chosen to apply the Laplace transform in order to obtain



solutions to these equations.  The transformed equation for C, using s



as the transform variable, is
                                 (s +             S + k.)
                      -
where k =  (X + X +  -=-  )  depends on both the characteristics of the

                 "    i

lake and the physical properties of the radionuclide.  C°. is the
                                                        ^



initial lake concentration.  For Lakes Superior and Michigan, which




are assumed to have no tributaries, the C? term vanishes and the
                                         "Z-
equation reduces to
                          R-   r    i   n        c°
                           ^   \    1        ,     ^
     Although equation (3) is relatively uncomplicated, the general



equation (2) becomes increasingly more complex as we proceed down the



chain of lakes.  The transformed solutions to these general equations



comprise only terms of the form
                                       s                         (4)

                                      g(s)                        (
-------
in which f (s)  is constant and g(s) is the product of linear, non-
repeated factors g(s)  = (s+kt)  (s+k2) ... (s+kn).
     To  reduce the effort required in solving such expressions, a
variation of Heaviside's partial fraction expansion3, is applied.
                       -1  I    \      m
                                         7     2* +•
                                         •I    _ A» Is
                                                                  ta
                                         n
                                   n=l
Using  (5),  the solution to equation (3)  is
                      Ri
               C.(t)=+  |^ -
     For the  next Lake,  equation (2)  includes expressions for the
preceeding  Lakes.
                   E.
            C'.fsj = Y-
                    i.
                                   (
                                                                  (7)
fi               	
V. { art + k.>J  '  fa + k.,
where the summation over j indicates the presence of two terms, one
for Lake Superior  and the other for Lake Michigan, the C(s)  terms for
the lakes corresponding to the C. (s)  terms in equation (2) .
                                 «/
     It is evident that as the differential equation for each lake in
the progression is transformed, each term will contain an additional
                                   10

-------
factor  (s + k)-1. Again, solutions may be found using inverse



transforms.



     2.  The Time Dependence of the Dose to Reference Man



     The concentrations of radioactivity, calculated as shown above,



can be used to find the annual dose rate and cumulative dose to



reference man due to ingestion.Because the radioactivity in the lakes



may be a strongly varying function of time, due to the projected



growth of nuclear power, dose estimates cannot be based on a constant



intake of activity over the time necessary to reach equilibirum in the



body except for nuclides having a relatively short effective half-



life.  In order to illustrate their time dependence, the dose rate and



dose calculations presented here are based on equations and data



presented in ICRP 10s and ICRP 10A6.  This dose is different from the



committed dose equivalent from one year's intake considered in the



proposed objective which is defined in terms of the TED 50, the Total



Equivalent Dose to ICRP Reference Man integrated over 50 years, Annex



I.  Methods for calculating the TED 50 are outlined in Annex II.







     The ICRP equations for organ burden, b(t), and cumulated



activity, B (T), have been revised slightly to conform to program



usage.   Both dose and dose rate are predicated, at present, solely on



the assumed consumption by reference man of 2.2 liters of drinking



water per day.  This quantity is larger than usual to account for the



contribution from food pathways.



     Over a time interval short enough to treat the average



concentration as constant, the intake, I(t), is directly proportional
                                   11

-------
to the concentration.   Integration of the ICRP equations for organ


burden and cumulated activity  are straightforward if the retention


function, R(t), contains only  exponential terms.   For the isotopes of


interest here retention functions of this form are given in reference


5.  For ingestion at a  constant  average intake, I,




                                      /t


                                       R(t - i)di                  (8)


                                    o
     and



                                   * I*
                           B(T) = I   I  R(t - ^)dtdt                (9)
                                 (  I
                                = I   I

                                 -*    *
     Since the retention function,  R(t) ,  is the sum of a series of


exponentials.
                                   z
                            R(t) =   y   a, e pn                    (10)


                                    n=l






where a and ft are constants and each term in the integral defining the



organ burden will be of  the form
                               = !/  a  e"

                                  Jo   n
                           b(t) = J I  an e  V" "  L/
-------
at any time during the period,  beginning  at time  t ^ ,  of  ingestion.



The second solution gives the organ  burden
b(t) =-£
                          n
                                                  -  v
                                                                 (13)
at any time subsequent to t2, the end of  the  ingestion period.   The



dose rate depends only on the organ  content at  some  time  t.   However,



cumulated activity depends on the whole time  history of ingestion so



that the sum of equations  (12) and  (13) must  be used in evaluation of



the total dose over a period T.  T may correspond  to the  50-year ICRP



occupational exposure although longer periods are  more applicable to



the general population.  The cumulated activity is then
              B(T) =
1 -
                       - V
dt +
                          I,
          T
     - V -
                               ~ V
        dt
                                                                 (14)
where Tt, T2, and T are analogous to the t  values  used in the organ



burden equations.  Performing the integration  and  collecting terms.
          B(T) =
                anl
                  n
                                               (15)
                                   IS

-------
      3.    Computer  Program



      These solutions have been incorporated into a FORTRAN IV computer



program to facilitate parametric  studies.  Individual lake solutions



are  functions of time, lake and nuclide.  The time dependence is



usually solved  for in annual increments and, to account for the



existence of a  thermocline, the first half year uses the total lake



volume as the mixing volume while the last half year presumes a 17



meter depth for the  thermocline and uses the product of this depth and



the  lake surface area as the mixing volume.  Lake outflows remain



constant in the epilimnion, with  equilibration dependent on the



concentration above  the thermocline, but nuclides in the hypolimnion



are  removed only by  radioactive decay.  Where applicable,



sedimentation losses are also considered.



      Several options are available for specification of the source



terms.  Detailed assumptions regarding reactor types are required



since the liquid discharges from  each differ significantly.  These



releases also depend greatly on the degree of sophistication of the



liquid radwaste system employed by each type of reactor.  Since a



detailed examination of the radwaste system for each operating reactor



would be prohibitively time consuming and is not possible for plants



scheduled for future operation, it has been necessary to make some



assumption regarding these releases.  To this end, we have utilized



the results of  an in-depth environmental analysis* which presented



typical releases expected from four classes of both BWR and PWR liquid



waste system representing a range of treatment from minimum to



maximum.  This data  is incorporated into the computer program for use
                                   14

-------
as a source option.  Thus, the  simplest  option consists  of reading in

the number of BWRs and  PWRs  (nominal  1000  mWe)  on each lake along with

the.radwaste system type and  allowing the  program to internally

generate source terms for each  lake and  isotope.   Alternatively,  the

actual source terms for each  lake  and isotope may be directly entered

or the two options may  be combined.

     Basically the program determines the  concentration  at the end of

the first half period,  using  the actual  lake  volumes,  and then the

concentration at the end of the last  half  period,  using  the 17 meter

depth mixing volume.  The dose  rates  are determined for  each half

period using linear averages  of the respective concentrations.   To

begin the next time period, the concentrations in both parts of the

lake are combined, to represent dissolution of the thermocline,  and

obtain an average lake  concentration, C.


                                                                 (16)

This average concentration is then converted  to dose rates and doses,

using equations  (8) and (9),  in the following manner:

     Based on a consumption rate of 2.2  liters per day and a 365.25

day year, the intake, I, is
                              I = 8.04 x 10" C —                  (1?)
                                             L */ J
where C is the average nuclide concentration.   From equation (1)  of

reference 5, the dose rate and total dose  are  directly related to the

time integrals of radioactivity by the factor,
                                         Mev_
  3.2 x 10 dis  1.6 x 10   evq   ffm Tad      dis      1    365. 25d
    d \iCi           MeV        1n2       vad/vem  m gms     y
                              JL U
                                              m
                                   IS

-------
and the  dose rate for an interval having average annual concentration
C, is
D(t) = (1.87 x 1010  )  (8.04 x 105 ) C I  R(t - f)dt          (19)
                                            I
with  the  total dose,  over the residence time, T, of the nuclide in the
organ given by

        D(T) =  (1.87 x 1010 -^ ) (8.04 x 10S) ~C I  I  R(t - t)drdt [rem]    (20)
                                          o * o

      In order  to present results which are compatible with present
usage as  regards dose rates and doses, these quantities were
calculated  using the  methods and definitions of references 4, 5, and
6.  These dose rates  and doses were calculated using the ICRP
equations:
            D(t)  = 51. 2  -|  b (t)
      and
            D(t)  =51.2  j|  B (t)


Values for  t.r  the average energy absorbed per disintegration, and m,
the critical organ  mass,  are taken from Table 1 in reference 5.
      The  data  required to obtain solutions for five isotopes (H3,
Co6<>,  Sr  »°, Cs»3*, Cst")  are presently stored in the program bur
other radionuclides may easily be added.  At present, this data
includes  correction factors, in the form of the effective decay
constants indicated in equation (2), to account for equilibration of
                                   16

-------
tritium8 and sedimentation of cesium9.  A listing of the computer



program, along with the input instructions is contained in Annex III.



     The standard output consists, for each isotope, of the average



radionuclide concentrations for each year and Great Lake.   A summary



table giving annual dose rates and  cumulative doses by year for each



lake is also printed out.  The critical organ assumed for each isotope



is printed out at the head of each column.



PROBLEM DESCRIPTION



     The purpose of the analysis is to estimate the effect on the



Great Lakes basin of nuclear power plant operation through the year



2050.  To accomplish this it is necessary to consider both U.S.  and



Canadian stations.  Separate solutions were obtained for each of these



sources, described below, in order to compare the relative effects of



each.



Sources



A-   U.S. Light Water Nuclear Power Stations



     That portion of the total liquid effluent source discharged by



nuclear power plants is treated in two time steps.  In the first,



beginning in 1962, when the first reactor located on the Great Lakes



began operation, and running until 1980, the actual type (BWR, PWR)



and location, by lake, is used based on a compilation10 issued by the



ABC.  Known reschedulings and cancellations have been incorporated



into this list.



     For the time period after 1980, the number of nuclear power



stations is based on a an ERDA study11 projecting nuclear-power growth



through the year 2000.  In view of recent events this projection is
                                  17

-------
likely to be too high, see Annex II.  Since the study is not specific



as to type or location of plant, these were estimated in the following



manner: The number of reactors sited on the lakes was taken to be in



the same ratio to the total number in a given year as the actual



number  (approximately 18 percent) in 1980 to the study total in that



year.  As the ERDA study values are given in five year increments,



annual values were obtained by linear interpolation.  Apportionment of



reactors between the various lakes was assumed to be directly



proportional to that planned for 1980.  For reactor type, however, a



national ratio of 2 PWR to 1 BWR has been postulated and this ratio



has been assumed for this study.  Since the actual 1980 PWR/BWR ratio



deviates considerably from this average for individual lakes, this



ratio has been approached by interchanging reactor types, where



necessary, until the total generating capacity on each lake was



sufficient to attain the 2:1 ratio without disturbing the actual 1980



distribution.  In Table 2, the resulting incremental number of



reactors of each type becoming operational is given by year.
                                   18

-------
            TABLE 2
ANNUAL INCREMENTAL POWER  (MWe)
      GENERATION BY LAKE
           (x ID'3)
Starting
Date
1962
69
70
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
1980
81
-82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
1990
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
2000
AP (BWR/PWR)
M
• 070/

.497/
/.700
72.09
73.17


.660/.



1.86 /.222
.690/1.39
.700/1.38
.690/1.40
.690/1.38
1.06 /2.11
1.06 /2.11
1.05 /2.11
1.06 /2.11
1.05 /2.12
1.34 /2.86
1.34 /2.86
1.33 /2.67
1.34 /2.67
1.34 /2.68
1.55 /3.09
1.55 /3.10
1.54 /3.09
1.55 /3.10
1.55 /3.10
H










/.492
/2.06
.740
.600/.130
.250/.500
.250/.490
.240/.490
.375/.750
.375/.750
.374/.74S
.376/.7S2
.370/.746
.480/.954
.470/.940
.480/.954
.470/.940
.480/.950
.470/.950
.548/1.10
.548/1.09
.548/1.10
.548/1.10
E






/.906
1.12/


2.23/
1.10/
/I. 55
/I. 56
/1. 54
/1. 56
/I. 55
.786/1.57
.784/1.58
.790/1.58
.786/1.57
.784/1.58
1.00/2.00
1.00/2.00
.990/1.99
1.00/2.00
.990/1.99
1.15/2.30
1.15/2.31
1.16/2.30
1.15/2.31
1.16/2.31
0

.625/.490



.821/



1.80/


/.874
/.880
/.870
/.870
/.870
.445/.890
.445/.88S
.440/.885
.444/.8S8
.443/.8S6
.563/1.12
.560/1.12
.560/1.12
.560/1.12
.560/1.13
.650/1.30
.650/1.30
.650/1.30
.650/1.30
.650/1.30

-------
B.   Canadian Heavy Water Reactor Power Stations



     Source terms for these heavy water reactors were based on actual



releases furnished by Canadian utility operators12 for the Pickering



Station.  These releases were normalized for power level and Canadian



estimates of projected nuclear plant construction used to obtain time



dependent source terms.  While the most significant effluent from



these reactors is the tritium produced in the heavy water and



subsequently evaporated, the remaining major effluents are also



considered.  The estimated future magnitude of these releases is



believed to be high since there are cogent economic reasons for



reducing such losses.



RESULTS



     The program described has been run, using the standard options of



the previous section, for the period 1962 to 2050.  The nuclear power



plant sources were determined by reading in the numbers of nominal



1000 MWe plants, in one year increments, and assuming, as per



reference  (7), system 2 radwaste effluents until 1978 and system 3



thereafter.



     Results were obtained for the source terms described above using



two sets of boundary conditions.  In the first, it was assumed that



all sources in the year 2000 remained in operation at a constant rate



through the. year 2050.  In the second, it was assumed that all sources



were shut down in the year 2000 so that the period from 2000 to 2050



reflects only the effects of radioactive decay and lake turnover.



     Due to the large amount of information (i.e., results are lake,



isotope, and time dependent) generated in each run, no attempt is made
                                   20

-------
to show every aspect of the two calculations outlined above.   Rather,



some representative graphs indicating typical behaviour are shown in



Figures 2 and 3, respectively.  These give the tritium concentrations



for each lake and the dose rates in Lake Ontario, due to U.S.  nuclear



power generation, through the year 2050.



     Table 2 shows the dose rates in the year 2050 for each lake due



to both U.S. and Canadian reactors.  It should be noted that these



dose rates are based on continuous ingestion from the year of initial



operation  (1962) to the year indicated.  The only operating reactors



through the period 1962-1970 were on Lake Michigan.  Sources in the



remaining lakes during this period are due to flow from Michigan



through connecting rivers.  Subsequent to this period generating



stations begin to come on line in the other lakes until, by 1980,



operating reactors are projected for all lakes but Superior.   None of



the concentrations are significant until about 1980 after which there



is a sharp rise through the year 2000.



     Based on the model described in the text, by far the largest



cumulative dose is due to the concentration of tritium in lake waters.



The vast majority of the tritium present is due to the effluent from



Canadian heavy water reactors.  The remaining isotopes contribute far



less to the total dose.



     These results reflect ICRP methodology for calculating dose rates



to reference organs, as exemplified in the references given above.  As



noted previously, the dose calculation and the organs considered will



change when the new ICRP dose models are issued.  The radionuclide
                                   21

-------
concentrations calculated by this program are used to calculate the 50
year dose commitments according to new ICPP methods in Annex II.
                                     22

-------
                                          FIGURE 2
               TRITIUM CONCENTRATION  FROM U.S. POWER REACTORS
120
 1960
50
2060

-------
                           FIGURES
DOSE RATES* DUE TO U.S. POWER REACTOR EFFLUENTS
                       LAKE ONTARIO
     * TO CRITICAL ORGAN; SOURCES CONSTANT AFTER YEAR 2000
                                                                   2050
                 DOSE RATES* DUE TO U.S. REACTOR EFFLUENTS

-------
                             TABLE 2

         DOSE EQUIVALENT RATE IN THE YEAR 2050*

                        (MICROREM/YEAR)
ISOTOPE AND
CRITICAL ORGAN
TRITIUM
(BODY WATER)
COBALT-60
(TOTAL BODY)
STRONTIUM-90
(BONE)
CESIUM-134
(TOTAL BODY)
CESIUM-137
(TOTAL BODY)

1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
LAKE
MICHIGAN
6.402
0.007
8.778
0.635
0.995
LAKE
HURON
5.205
137.8
0.004
0.041
8.112
0.283
0.199
0.478
0.907
LAKE
ERIE
13.36
97.91
0.017
0.028
17.29
2.097
0.064
2.842
0.393
LAKE
ONTARIO
11.34
257.7
0.012
0.082
17.07
0.874
0.447
1.452
1.956
* SOURCES CONSTANT AFTER THE YEAR 2000.

1. U. S. NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS
2. CANADIAN POWER REACTORS

-------
                               REFERENCES
1.   Machta, L. ,  Harris,  D.  L. ,  and Telegados, K. ,  "Strontium-90
     Fallout Over Lake Michigan,"  J.  Geophys.  Res. , 75,  1092-1096,
     1970.

2.   Lerman, A.,  "Strontium-90  in  the Great Lakes:   Concentration -
     Time Model," J.  Geophys. Res., 77,  3256-3264,  1972.

3.   Churchill, R.  V.,  "Modern  Operational Mathematics in
     Engineering",  p. 44,  McGraw-Hill, New York,
4.   INTERNATIONAL  COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION.   Permissible
     Dose  for Internal  Radiation,  ICRP Publication 2,  Pergammon Press,
     N.Y., N.Y.  (1959).

5.   INTERNATIONAL  COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION.   Evaluation
     of Radiation Doses to  Body Tissues from Internal  contamination
     due to Occupational  Exposure,  ICRP Publication 10,  Pergamon
     Press, N.Y., N.Y.  (1968)

6.   INTERNATIONAL  COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION.   The
     Assessment of  Internal Contamination  Resulting from Recurrent or
     Prolonged Uptakes, ICRP Publication 10A, Pergamon Press,  N.Y.,
     N.Y.  (1971)


7.   U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY.  "Environmental  Analysis of
     the Uranium Fuel Cycle -  Part  II, Nuclear Power Reactors, EPA-
     520/9-73-003-C, Office of Radiation Programs, Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington,  D. C.  (1973) .

8.   Strom, Peter O. , "Method for Estimating Tritium (HTO)  in  the
     Great Lakes,"  USNRC, Unpublished.
9.   Wahlgren, M. A., and Nelson,  D.  M. ,  "Residence Times  for 2
     and i37cs in Lake Michigan Water," ANL-8060,  Part III,  85-89,
     Argonne National Laboratory,  Argonne,  Illionis (1973) .
     (Residence time estimates updated by telephone communication.)

10.  U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION.   "Reactors  in the Great Lakes
     Basin," letter dated November 30, 1973.

11.  U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION.   "Nuclear Power Growth  1974-
     2000," WASH-1139, p. 6, Case D, USAEC,  February 1974.

12.  Personal Communication,  K. Y.  Wong,  Supv. ,  Central Health Physics
     Services, Ontario Hydroelectric,  to  A.  H. Booth, Director,
     Radiation Protection Bureau,  Department of  Health and Welfare
     (Canada) dtd 11/26/74.


                                   26

-------
            ANNEX I
Refined Radioactivity Objective

-------
                 REFINED RADIOACTIVITY OBJECTIVE FOR THE
                   GREAT LAKES  WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

                                 SUMMARY

     This  document represents  the  joint recommendations of U.S.  and
Canadian advisory  groups on  a  radioactivity objective to preserve  the
water quality  of the  Great Lakes.   The objective is in terms  of  a  dose
equivalent  to  ICRP Reference Man from a standard annual intake of  the
Great Lakes water. The recommended objective  for the general water
quality in  the Great  Lakes is  that level of radioactivity which
results in  a whole body dose equivalent not exceeding one millirem.
Release of  radioactive  materials shall be as low as reasonably
achievable  and controlled by specific actions  at defined levels.

     The Canada-United  States  Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
specified  radioactivity as a constituent of water for which there
should be  an agreed Water Quality  Objective.  The relevant statements
in  the Agreement are  as follows:

     Annex 1,  Section l(h) states: "Radioactivity should be kept to
the lowest  practicable  level.   In  any event, discharge should be
controlled  to  the  extent necessary to prevent  harmful effects on
health."

     Annex  1,  Section 7(h) further states:  "for radioactivity, the
objectives  shall be considered in  the light of the recommendations of
the International  Commission on Radiation Protection."

     Further,  this section requires the parties to consult for the
purpose of  considering  "refined objectives  for radioactivity".

     Subsequently, advisory  groups were formed in Canada and  in  the
United States  to consider the  technical aspects involved in developing
such "refined  objectives"-   The present report was developed  following
extensive  consultation  between the two groups.

     To restore  and enhance  water  quality in the Great Lakes  System,
as  called  for  in the  Agreement, it is necessary to limit the  quantity
of  radioactive materials introduced due to  activities of the  United
States of America  and Canada.   An  acceptable quality for water in  the
system can best  be maintained  by a vigorous application of appropriate
control measures.   These controls  should be applied to radioactive
effluents  from point  sources as well as run-off, drainage, and seepage
from non-point sources,  including  aerial deposition.

     The Radioactivity  Objective for the Great Lakes Basin is based
principally on three  criteria:  (1)  Introduction of radioactive
materials into System Waters should be permitted only when it results
from socially  beneficial activities.

                                     28

-------
     (2)  The concentration of radioactivity in  the  System Waters  and
in biota should not constitute an unacceptable health  risk on  either a
long-terra or short-term basis.

     (3)  Since the ingestion of any amount of radioactivity may
involve some risk, additional controls should be instituted until
their cost is incommensurate with any further reduction  in potential
health risks.

     In keeping with these criteria, several recommendations have  been
agreed to.  These recommendations refer to an Ambient  Water Quality
Objective, the control of radioactive releases,  a defined hierarchy of
Action Levels and the surveillance of Lake Waters.   None of the
proposed levels, including particularly the lowest,  should be
interpreted as necessarily defining an acceptable dose to the
population using System Waters.  The acceptability of  any dose level
depends on whether the three criteria given above are  being met in a
responsible manner.  It is further proposed that these objectives  be
reviewed at least every five years to consider any necessary changes
and to determine if they continue to reflect "as low as  reasonably
achievable".

                         AMBIENT WATER QUALITY

     It is necessary to specify an ambient water quality level for the
Lakes as a whole so that contributions from all  sources  including
aerial deposition are taken into account.  This  water  quality  level is
expressed in terms of the total equivalent dose  to ICRP  Reference  Man
integrated over 50 years (TED).  It is proposed  that water quality
outside of any Source Control Area, as defined herein, shall not
result in a TED greater than one millirem to the whole body from daily
ingestion of 2.2 liters of Lake water for one year.  Therefore, even
for lifetime (50 years) ingestion, the annual dose rate will not
exceed 1 millirem per year.  The total equivalent dose to a single
organ or tissue shall be in proportion to the dose limit recommended
by the ICRP for that tissue.  Because levels in  the  lakes may
fluctuate as a result of uncontrollable releases, such as fallout  from
weapon testing, it is further recommended that the one millirem value
be reviewed at least every five years to ensure  that the contribution
from these uncontrollable releases does not constitute an unreasonable
proportion of the dose.

              CONTROL OF RELEASE OF RADIOACTIVE  MATERIALS

     Dumping of radioactive wastes or other radioactive material into
waters of the Great Lakes system is prohibited.  Dumping is defined as
any deliberate disposal of packaged or unpackaged wastes or other
matter from vessels, platforms or other man-made structures into the
System Waters, but dumping does not include the  release  of effluents
                                    29

-------
that are permitted  by  the  responsible  regulatory bodies.

     Both  the  concentration  and  quantities  of radioactive materials
released into  the Great  Lakes  System shall  be controlled  to the  extent
necessary  to protect public  health  and the  environment.   Releases  of
radioactive materials  from each  operation or  type of operation should
be controlled  so as to conform with the ICRP  recommendation that "all
doses be kept  as low as  is reasonably  achievable economic and  social
considerations being taken into  account"-   (ICRP Pub.  22  1973).

     Effluents should  be controlled by the  regulatory bodies having
jurisdiction,  taking into  account the  cost  of further reductions,  the
efficacy of available  additional control measures,  and the
significance of the potential  reduction in  public health  risk
associated with further  discharge limitations.

     A graded  scale of actions for  each identifiable source shall  be
implemented based on annual  average measurements of the TED in water
monitored  at the periphery of  each  source control area, in accordance
with the action conditions given below in Table  I.

                       TABLE  1  -  Action Conditions
Condition            Action Required               Action level
A                    Periodic  confirmatory        Less  than  1.
                       monitoring
B                    Source  investigation          Between  1
                       and corrective  action       and 5.
                       if releases  are not as
                       low as  reasonably
                       achievable.
C                    Corrective  action by          In excess  of  5.
                       responsible  regulatory
                       authorities.
     Action levels are  to be  calculated  in  accordance  with the  dose
models used by the ICRP.

     The annual average shall be based on the  average  value of  at
least 4 measurements in a year.  Since there  is  a  relatively high
probability of sampling error, measurements should be  verified  before
action is taken.
                                    30

-------
     When the concentrations of radionuclides  in  the  water  correspond
to condition A, no corrective action  is  indicated.  However,  periodic
monitoring is required to confirm  that the condition  does not  change.

     When the concentrations of radionuclides  in  the  water  correspond
to Condition B, an investigation must be conducted  to identify the
source and the cause.  If this investigation demonstrates that
releases are as low as reasonably  achievable no further  action is
necessary, otherwise, corrective action  shall  be  taken.

     Concentrations of radionuclides  in  the water corresponding to
Condition C probably reflect a failure of effluent  controls  and are
unacceptable on a continuing basis.   The responsible  regulatory
authorities shall determine appropriate  corrective  actions  to  minimize
the public health risk.

                              SURVEILLANCE

     Adequate, periodic monitoring  of  System Waters, sediment,  and the
appropriate food organisms contained  therein should be provided for
those radionuclides likely to be present in measurable
concentrations.  Such monitoring should  be conducted  under  the
direction of the responsible Federal, State, and  Provincial
jurisdictions and reported to the  International Joint Commission.  The
nuclides and food organisms investigated, and  sampling locations and
frequency should take into account the known effluent sources  and
particular nuclides released.

     The monitoring reports should include calculations  of  the TED5Q
to ICRP Reference Man from standard annual intake of  the water since
this is the parameter to be used in determining the applicable Action
Condition.  At present it is not necessary to  determine  explicitly the
dose equivalents due to the intake of food harvested  from the  Lakes as
they are relatively insignificant.

                              DEFINITIONS
     1.  Total Equivalent Dose (TEDso)-  For  the purpose  of  this
report, the total equivalent dose to a particular organ,  tissue or  the
whole body is the cumulated dose equivalent over 50 years  resulting
from the daily ingestion of 2.2 liters of lake water  for  one year.
where :
     TED5Q =   £  050 .  Qi N£ rem
           =  total absorbed dose integrated over a  period  of  50
                 years after intake of the radionuclide  "i".
           =  quality factor
           =  product of all other modifying factors
                                    31

-------
     ICRP report No.  lO     lists  the  dosimetric  data,  including the
TED5Q. for a number of radionuclides.

     2.  Reference Man:  For  the  purpose  of  this report,  Reference Man
refers to the definitions  and parameters  for adult  males  outlined  in
ICRP Report 23.<2)

     3.  Source Control Area:   It is  proposed that  the "source control
area" be defined as follows:   "The source control area shall be
bounded by a distance of 1 km radius  from the point of release or, in
those cases where the release point is  to a  narrow  channel  or river,
the boundary shall be a point 1 km downstream from  the source."

     It is further proposed that  the  operator of a  facility can
request a larger source control area  subject to  the approval of the
regulatory authorities and similarly  these authorities may  require a
more restrictive area from an operator.

     4.  Ambient Water:  The  water in the Great  Lakes  System outside
the source control areas.
          ICRP Pub.  10,  1968  Report  of Committee IV,  Pergamon Press
          ICRP Pub.  23,  1975  Report  of the Task Group on Reference
          Man, Pergamon  Press.
                                     32

-------
                      ANNEX II
Impact Assessment of the Proposed Refined Objective
        for Radioactivity in the Great Lakes

-------
       Impact Assessment of the Proposed Refined objective for
                   Radioactivity in the Great Lakes
     This assessment addresses two questions:
     1.    How do current levels of activity in the ambient water of
           the Great Lakes compare with the proposed objective?
     2.    In view of the anticipated increased discharges of
           radioactivity into Great Lakes water, how do future levels
           of radioactivity compare with the proposed objective?
     Because -the Refined Objective is part of an international
agreement, the two parties agreed to use models for dose equivalents
recommended by the International Commission on Radiation Protection
(ICRP).  The most recent ICRP recommendations were adopted in January
1977 (1) Some explanation of the new ICRP models is included below
because many readers may be unfamiliar with recent ICRP concepts which
are directly applicable to this assessment.
I.   The Dosimetric Basis for Action Levels in the Objectives
     In keeping with the new ICRP format, reference levels in the
Refined Objective are in terms of the committed dose equivalent (1).
In general, older methods of calculating dose based on the ingestion
of a maximum permissible concentration of radioactivity, cannot be
used to determine either dose commitments or compliance with the
Refined Objective.  Specific reference levels in the Objective are for
a 50-year dose commitment  (TED(50)), that is, the committed dose
equivalent received over a 50-year period by an ICRP reference man
consuming Lake water for one year at the daily race of 2.2 liters per
day.
                                   34

-------
     The TED(50) reference levels specified numerically in the Refined



Objective are for the total body.  For cases where only a part of the



body is exposed, dose commitments "in proportion to dose limits



recommended by the ICBP," are applicable (Annex I).  The new ICRP dose



equivalents for single organ exposure are based on the risk relative



to total body exposure, which is appreciably smaller.  For example,



the weighting factor for the dose to bone endost.eum is 0.03; to red



bone marrow 0.12 (1).  Organ doses, i.e., the TED(50) due to the



ingestion of Great Lakes water, must be multiplied by the appropriate



ICRP weighting factor before a comparison is made to the numerical



values in the Objective.



     The Refined Objective establishes three action conditions



(reference levels)  based on the TED (50) due to the ingestion of Lake



water at points beyond a source control area defined by the



appropriate National authority.  Action Condition A calls for



"periodic confirmatory monitoring" when the TED(50) for whole body is



less than one millirem.  Action Condition B is a reference level



requiring "source investigation and corrective action if releases are



not as low as reasonably achievable" when the TED(50) (whole body) is



between one and five millirem.  If the annual average concentration of



radioactivity in Lake waters is such that the 5 mrem TSD(50) (whole



body) is exceeded.  Action Condition C requires "Corrective action by



responsible regulatory authorities." It should be noted that



compliance with these conditions are to be implemented by the National



authorities in the U.S.  or Canada legally responsible for the



regulation of effluents.  In the U.S. this vould be the Nuclear
                                   35

-------
Regulatory Commission  (NRC) for facilities licensed under the Atomic



Energy Act.



     From the discussion above, it is seen that it is not the purpose



of the Objective to establish without exceptions a one millirem



reference level for the Lakes.  Rather, the Objective requires



investigative action when this level is exceeded.  Provided that



regulated releases are as low as reasonably achievable, as currently



required by both Federal Guidance and Regulations, a 5 mrem TED(50)



(whole body) is within the numerical objective.



     Because levels in the Lakes may fluctuate as a result of



uncontrollable releases, such as fallout from weapon testing, it is



further recommended in the Objective that the one millirem reference



level be reviewed at least every five years to ensure that the



contribution from these uncontrollable releases does not constitute an



unreasonable proportion of the 50-year commitment dose.



II.  TED(50) Due to Current Levels of Man-made Activity in the Lakes



     Radioactivity in the Great Lakes is mainly a residual from



nuclear weapons testing.  In addition, nuclear facilities and



naturally occurring radioactive material make small contributions to



the tctal equivalent dose.  Strontium-90, which entered as fallout



from weapons debris, is the major contaminant.  The reported range of



current levels in the Lakes are as shown in Table 1.
                                   36

-------
                               Table 1



        Strontium-90 in Ambient Waters of the Great Lakes (2,3)







           Lake                          Sr»° (pCi/l>      Date



           Superior                      0.5               1973



           Michigan                      0.8               1973



           Huron                         0.7               1976



           Erie                          1.0-1.1           1976



           Ontario                       0.8               1976
     The data shown in Table 1 indicate that concentrations of Sr-90



are about 1 pCi per liter in ambient waters.  Near the discharge areas



of nuclear facilities, i.e, within the source control where the



Refined Objectives do not apply. Strontium-90 levels may



intermittently exceed this level.  Tritium is also present in the



Great Lakes due, again, to weapons testing.  Current ambient levels of



retention are in a range of 300 to 500 pCi/1.  While these levels are



much higher concentrations than for strontium-90, the dose commitment



due to tritium ingestion is relatively small. Appendix A.  Unlike the



case for strontium-90 however, the concentration of tritium in some of



the Lakes is expected to increase with time so that it becomes the



more important pollutant, as discussed in Section III.
                                   37

-------
     Dose Due to Current Levels of Strontium-90

     As provided for in the Objectives, ICRP dose models are to be

used to determine the TED (50) from the ingestion of Lake waters.

Parameters in the new ICRP Committee II dose model for strontium-90

have been agreed on  (H).  These differ from older ICRP models, in that

they are for the endosteal surface of bone and the red marrow of bone,

not bulk bone as in the 1959 ICRP model  (5) and are based or the

retention functions for the alkaline earths given in ICRP #20 (6).

Using these parameters the 50-year bone marrow dose due to ingestion

of 1 pci/l of Sr-90 at the rate of 2.2 liters per day for one year is

0.7 mrem; the TED(50) to endosteal surfaces is 1.2 mrem. Appendix A.

These doses cannot be compared to the 1-5 mrem reference levels for

total body exposure until weighted by appropriate ICRP estimates of

risk following partial body exposure.

     Relative to the risk following total body exposure, the sum of

the risk to red bone marrow and endosteal bone due to current levels

of strontium-90 in water  (1 pCi/1) is 0.12 x 0.7 + 0.03 x 1.2 = 0.12

mrem.  This sum is a factor of about eight less than Condition B in

Refined Objectives and more than 40 times less than Condition C.

     Due to radioactive decay and the gradual exchange of lake waters,

the concentration of Sr-90 and tritium due to fallout occurring in the

1960fs will decrease.  By the year 2050 it is estimated that the

concentration of strontium-90 due to this source (assuming no further

fallout) will range from about 0.06 pCi/1  (in Lake Superior) to 0.008

pCi/1 (in Lake Michigan), compare with Table 1.  By the year 2050,
                                                   *
tritium concentrations due to fallout are expected to decrease to
                                   38

-------
about 3 pci/l in Superior and 0.3 pCi/1 in Michigan, the other Lakes



having intermediate, concentrations.



III. Future Levels of Activity in the GreatLakes Due to Planned Discharges



     In 1975, EPA began a study in connection with the development of



the Refined Objective to determine what influence present and planned



nuclear facilities would have on the level of radioactivity in Great



Lakes water.



     Based on past and projected discharges into the Lakes, the



concentration of strontium-90, tritium and other radionuclides in Lake



waters has been calculated as a function of time taking into account



the interchange of waters between Lakes in the Great Lakes chain, as



described in the main report and in reference 7.  Some of the results



of these studies are reprinted in Appendix E.



     Data on current plants, starting in 1962, and those scheduled to



be liscensed were supplied by the NBC.  Effluent releases from O.s.



plants are discussed in Appendix B.  Projections of the future number



of U.S. nuclear power plants to be sited on the Lakes were taken from



Curve D in the Energy Research and Development Administration (EPDA)



study, "Nuclear Power Growth 197U-2000  (8)." In retrospect, this



probably overestimated future impact since it led to a prediction that



193 gigawatts  (electric) of U.S. nuclear power generation  (about 200



reactors) would be sited near the Great Lakes by the year 2000.  This



is about two-thirds of the total U.S. nuclear power currently



projected for year 2000 by Robert Fri, Acting Administrator of ERDA



(9) .  It seems unlikely that such a large fraction of the nation^



nuclear reactors will be sited on the Lakes.
                                   39

-------
     Estimates of the projected growth in nuclear power plants

bordering Canadian Great Lakes waters and estimates of their effluent

discharges were provided by the Canadian representatives to the task

group that prepared the Refined Objective.  Canadian plans indicate

that 50.6 gigawatts  (electric) will be installed on Lakes Huron and

Ontario by the year 2000.  Since neither nation is currently plarning

nuclear facilities in the vicinity of Lake Superior, release of

effluents into this Lake is not assumed in the EPA model.  Again, this

leads to an overestimate of the projected TED(50).

     Based on the assumptions outlined above, estimates of the amount

of U.S. and Canadian effluents discharged annually into the Lakes

after the year 2000 are shown in Table 3.



                               Table 3

         Projected Rate of Radioactive Effluents Entering the
                   Great Lakes After the Year 2000

                       Strontium-90                  Tritium
                     (curi'es per year)           (curies per year)

     Lake        U.S.           Canada          U.S.         Canada

   Michigan    6.0 x 10-*      	         22,000           	

   Huron       3.8 x 10-*      	          7,400          387,000

   Erie        1.6 x 10-3      	         15,600           	

   Ontario     1.3 x 10-'      	          8,800          U60,000



It should be noted that almost all cf the tritium released by Canadian

heavy water reactors, which differ substantially from U.S. light water

reactors, is discharged into the atmosphere.  In estimating the amount
                                   40

-------
of Canadian effluents entering the Lakes, the Canadians assume that



half of its tritium enters the adjacent Lake in the form of rainout.



It is likely that this overestimates the actual impact of their



releases on Lake Waters.



     The EPA analysis indicates that except for tritium, effluents



from power reactors are of little interest compared to either current



levels due to fallout or the reference levels in the Objective.  For



example, the maximum strontium-90 concentrations due to power reactor



discharges are expected to be less than 0.0016 pCi/1 in the year 2000



and 0.0026 pCi/1 in the year 2050, Appendix E.  Compared to the



current levels of strontium-90 in the Lakes' (about 1 pCi/1) due to



fallout, the amount that will be contributed by future nuclear power



plants sited near the Lakes is negligible.



     Ur.like the case of strontium-90, the tritium concentration in the



lower Lakes is expected to increase from current levels by the year



2050; in Ontario by a factor of about five. Appendix B.  Most of this



projected increase is due to the rainout of tritium from atmospheric



releases in Canada.  U.S. operations are expected to increase current



levels of tritium by less than 20 percent.



     Fifty-year dose commitments to the total body due to the



discharges cf tritium following the anticipated growth of nuclear



electric power are shown in Tables 3A and 3E.  Table 3A lists the



TED(50) in the year 2000 after all of the projected plants have begun



operation.  Table 3B lists the TED(50) in the year 2050; that is,



after these  (or similar plants) have been in full operation for 50



years.  Dosimetric methods for tritium are outlined in Appendix A.
                                   41

-------
                                Table  3A
     TED(50) Whole Body Doses Due  to  Tritium  from  Power Reactors
               in the Great  lakes  through  the Year 2000
                 Lake               TED (50)  millirem
                 Michigan           0.002
                 Huron              0.05
                 Erie               0.04
                 Ontario            0.10
                                Table  3B
  TED(50) Whole Body Doses -Due  to  Tritium from  Power  Reactors  in the
      Great Lakes Assuming  244,000 Megawatt  Electric  Generation
                    Per  Year Through  the  Year 2050
                 Lake               TED (50) rrillirem
                 Michigan           0.002
                 Huron              0.06
                 Erie               0.05
                 Ontario           0.12
     Even though increased  levels  of  tritium  on the Great Lakes are
anticipated, the TED (50) due to one year's  ingestion of Lake waters is
expected to remain a factor of eight  or  so  below .the lowest reference
level in the Objective.  It is seen by comparing Tables 3 A and 3B that
continued operation of the  projected  facilities for a  50-year period
causes only a modest increase in the  TEE (50),  about 2055.  Operations
leadirg to the effluent discharges shown in Table  3 for an indefinite
                                   42

-------
period after the year 2050 would not lead a tritium concentration that



exceeds reference level A in the Refined Objective.



     It should be noted that these projections are based on levels of



effluent release that are the result of regulations previously imposed



by the respective national regulatory authorities.  Such existing U.S.



regulations have been found to be as low as reasonably achievable



(ALARA) taking economic and social costs into consideration (10).



IV.  Dose Due to Current Levels of Radium-226



     Radium-226, a naturally occurring alpha particle emitter is



ubiquitous in the environment.  However, it is seldom found in surface



waters at any appreciable concentration.  Heretofore, unusually high



concentrations of radium in surface waters have been traced to man's



disturbance of the natural environment.



     Uranium mining is a good example.  In the 1960fs it was shown



that the concentration of radium-226 in the Colorado River was



increasing and that this increase was due to the mining, storage and



treatment of uranium ores.  Subsequently, levels in the Colorado River



have dropped as the installation of effluent controls has become



commonplace.  A similar situation appears to have developed in Canada



where uranium mining operations have resulted in contamination of the



Serpent River which empties into Georgian Bay on Lake Huron.  Table U



lists measured concentrations of radium-226 in the Serpent River as a



function of time.  Clearly, the situation is coming under control.



More recent Canadian data indicate an average annual concentration of



5.3 pCi/1 (2) .
                                   43

-------
                                Table
       Annual  Summaries of the Current Status  of Radium-226  in
Serpent Harbour,  North Channel,  Georgian  Bay,  Lake  Huron, Lake  Ontario(3)
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
pCi/1
11.7
8.8
8.8
7.3
8.7
6.5
5.7
6.1
5.5
5.4
     Nevertheless, Canadian  environmental  authorities appreciate the
fact that these  effluents  result  in  50-year  dose commitments to bone
that exceed action Condition E  in the  Fefined Objectives  and that
remedial actions may  be required  (2).   Similarly, in the  town of Port
Hope in Ontario, the  processing of radium  bearing ores has resulted in
the localized contamination  of  near  shore  waters, via runoff from
contaminated land.  The most heavily impacted area has been the harbor
of Port Hope.  Recent monitoring  data  for  this harbor show Radium-226
concentrations ranging from  1 to  2 pCi/1  (2).  Concentrations in the
Port Hope water  supply have  remained below 1 pCi/1  (2,3).  Even though
                                   44

-------
Action Condition A has probably not. been exceeded, clean up of source

areas for radium contaminated runoff near Fort Hope is in progress.

     The conditions outlined above are exceptional and are not

indicative of the Lakes as a whole.  Unfortunately, radium

concentrations apart from contaminated areas are so low that little

effort has been made to routinely monitor for radium-226.x Instead,

gross alpha particle activity is measured to establish an upper bound

on the radium concentration.

     Radium-226 has been specifically measured in at least three of

the Lakes with the results shown in Table 5.  For the purposes of this

study 0.03 pCi/1 is, used as an estimate of the concentration of

radium-226 in ambient Lake waters.  Additional monitoring is needed to

verify this estimate and it is used here as an interim value.

However, the data are sufficient to indicate that the relatively high

levels found in the Serpent River and Fort Hope areas are not

affecting the Lakes as a whole.  Note that, if the ambient level of

radium in Huron approached 1 pci per liter. Lake Erie would not be

relatively free of radium, since a major fraction of Lake Erie water

is from Lake Huron.
Concentrations are so low as to be below the quantitative analytical
limit of most laboratories.
                                   45

-------
                               Table 5

                Reported Radium-226 Concentrations in
                  Ambient Waters of the Great Lakes

     Lake              pCi/1       References and Remarks

     Superior          	         no data

     Michigan          0.03        11

     Michigan          0.03        12

     Huron             	         no data except Serpent River

     Erie              <0.03       13 - Dunkirk  (raw water)

     Erie              0.03        14

     Ontario           <0.03       15 - Oswego  (finished water)


     The dose due to the ingestion of radium-226 is still being

considered by the ICRP Committee II.  The new ICRP approach is based

on Thome's Monte Carlo calculations of the average alpha particle

dose to tissue, 0-10 p from endosteal surfaces and to marrow within

the cavities of trabecular bone  (6,18).  Radium retention is based on

the results provided in' ICRP Report #20,  (8) Although this metabolism

model is not generally applicable to environmental sources of radium,

the use of ICRP models for occupational exposures is required in the

Draft Refined Objectives.

     The TED(50) from the ingestion of 803 pci of radium-226 in one

year will be about 16 mrems to bone endosteum and 0.3U mrem to marrow,

based on a quality factor of 20 for alpha particle irradiation (18,3),

see also Appendix A.  These dose estimates cannot be compared to

limits in the Objective until weighted by appropriate ICRP estimates

of the risk relative to total body irradiation.  Taking these weights
                                   46

-------
into consideration, ingestion of water containing 1 pCi/1 of radium-



226 at the rate of 2.2 liters per day for a year would result in total



body dose equivalent of about 0.5 mrem.



     Assuming the ambient concentration of radium-226 in Lake Waters



is something like 0.03 pCi/1, the TEE outside of areas of



contamination would not be expected to exceed 0.02 mrem.  This is a



factor of 50 less than Condition B and a factor of 500 less than



Condition C.



     Where radium contamination has resulted in concentrations as high



as 5.3 pCi/1 (mouth of the Serpent River) the TED(50)  due to radium is



estimated as about 3 mrem.  This may exceed the Proposed Refined



Objective and is one of the reasons Canadian officials are seeking to



impose as low as readily achievable effluent limits on mine wastes



entering this river.  Adoption of the Proposed Refined objective would



provide an added incentive for this effort.
                                   47

-------
                              REFERENCES
1-   Radiation Protection, Recommendations of the International
     Commission in Radiological Protection  (Adopted January 17, 1977)
     ICRP Publication 26, Pergamon Press, New York, 1977.

2.   Great Lakes Water Quality Annual Report to the Water Quality
     Board Implementation Committee, Appendix D, 1976.

3.   Great Lakes Water Quality Annual Report to the Water Quality
     Implementation Committee, Appendix D, 1975.

4.   Personal Communication, Walter S. Snyder

5.   Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation
     (1959), ICRP Publication #2, Pergamon Press, New York, 1959.

6.   Alkaline Earth Metabolism in Adult Man  (Adopted May 1972), ICRP
     Publication #20, Pergamon Press, New York, 1973.

7.   Sullivan, R, E. and Ellett, W. H., Radionuclide Transport in the
     Great Lakes, Proceedings of the Conference on Environmental
     Modeling and Simulation, April 19-22, 1976, EPA 600/9-76-016,
     Washington, D.C., July 1976.

8.   U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, "Nuclear Power Growth 1974-200",
     WASH-1139, p.6, Case D, OSAEC, February 197U.

9.   Nucleonics week, Vol 18, McGraw-Hill, May 19, 1977.

10.  10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, Numerical Guides for Design
     Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet  the
     Criteria "As Low As Practicable" for Radioactive Material in
     Light-Water Cooled Reactor Effluents, 40 F.R. 19442.

11.  Hursh, J. B., J. Am. Water Works Assoc., jl6:43, 1954.

12.  Lucas, H. F. and Ilcewicz, F. H., J. Am. Water Works Assoc.,
     50:1523, 1958.

13.  Radiochemical Analysis of Public water Supplies in New York
     State, November 1970 - April 1972, New York Department of Health
     Radiologic Science Lab.

14.  Hursh, J. B., University of Rochester Report UR-257.

15.  Thome, M. C., Aspects of the Dosimetry Alpha-Emitting
     Radionuclides in Bone with Particular Emphasis on *26Ra  and
          , phys. Med. Biol. 22:36, 1977.
                                   48

-------
                              Appendix A



                 ICRP Dosimetry for Internal Emitters



INTRODUCTION



     For -the last five years, ICRP Committee 2 has been working on a



dosimetry system for internal emitters to replace the Committee II



report of 1959.  This system of dosimetry has been described in part



in numerous annual reports from the Health Physics Division of the Oak



Ridge National Laboratory and is similar to the system of internal



dosimetry developed by the MIRD Committee of the society of Nuclear



Medicine.  Unlike the 1959 ICRP system which is based on dose rates



from long term ingestion or inhalation, the'new system is used to



calculate the dose commitment, over 50 years, from a single intake,



i.e., rem per jiCi intake.



     In order that the Refined Object: 9 would not become obsolete in



terms of ICRP concepts and terminology, the new ICRP dosimetry and



ICRP Reference Man (ICRP Report #23) have been used by the Working



Group that drafted the Objective.  This was done in anticipation that



publication of ICRP #26 and a new ICPP Committee 2 Report would



precede that of the Objective.  Unfortunately, a delay in the



publication of the Committee 2 Report upset this time-table*



Therefore, some explanatory notes are given below to outline ICRP



methodology for tritium, strontium-90, and radium-226.







     1.1  ICRP terminology and definitions



     H, the dose commitment to a given target organ, T, from



radioactivity in the source organ, S, is given by
                                    49

-------
     H  = 51.2  x  Us x SEE (T •<- S) x Q  rem.    (1)
where Ug is the -time integral of activity in MCi days accumulated in
the source organ, S, and SEE is the specific effective energy absorbed
(MeV) per gram in target organ per disintegration of activity in the
source organ.  For example, the SEE value utilized for bone seekers,
such as strontium-90 and radium-226 is proportional to the energy
absorbed by endosteal cells 0-10 p from bone surfaces due to
radioactivity in bone.  For tritium, T and  S are identical and the SEE
is simply the emitted energy per gram - disintegration.  The quality
factor, Q, is assumed to be unity for beta  particles and twenty for
alpha particles, ICRP-26.  ICRP retention functions for the Alkaline
Earths are taken from ICRP f20; for tritium, from ICRP #23.  When the
period of integration used to evaluate U  is 50 years, H  is the
                                        o
TED(50) for the target organ.

     2.1  Tritium.-50 year dose commitment per yCi
     The source and  target organs fcr tritium  are those organs which
contain body water.  This mass is 42 kg and the concentration of water
per gram is no greater than 8056  (ICRP #23). The average beta particle
energy from tritium  is .0057 MeV.
           SEE =  .0057 MeV x .8  =  1.09 10-*  MeV      (2)
                      42 x  103                  g dist.
           T    =10 days
           U  = 10 days   =  14.4 days  (for either 50 years or « time)
            S        In2
           H  (total  body) = 51.2 x DS x SEE x  Q                  (3)
                =  51.2 x 14.4 x 1.09-7 x 1 =  8 x 10-s rem
                                   50

-------
     2. 2  Eose equivalent: commitment for 1 ECi/1

     An intake of 2.2 liter per day containing a concentration of 1

pCi/1 corresponds to an annual intake for reference man of 803 pCi.

     Tritium     TED (50)    =  8.03 x 10-* pCi x 8 x 10~5  rem/pCi    (U)
                  pCi/1

               =  6 x 10— s mrem.

     Since this is a total body dose, the ICRP risk weight is 1 and

the weighted dose equivalent commitment =wH  =lx6x 10~s

= 6 x 10~s mrem
     3.1  Strontium- 90 - 50 year dose commitment per pCi in blood

     In the case of strontium-90 the source and target organs differ.

Two source organs must be considered: cortical bone, cr and trabecular

(cancellous) bone, t, and two target organs, endosteum cells and red

marrow.  ICRP SEE values are calculated by the method of Spiers.  ICPP

values for Sr-90 in bone provided by the Canadian Minister of Health

are as follows:

     For the endosteal cells, e

     SEE (e .«- c) = 2.5 x 10~5 MeV Sr-90  parent    Sr-90
                              g dis

     SEE (e + c) = l.U x 10-* MeV y-90  daughter   Y-90
                              g dis

     SEE (e + t) = U.6 x 10-s Mev Sr-90  parent    Sr-90
                              g dis

     SEE (e «• t) = 1.6 x 10-* MeV y-90  daughter   Y-90
                              g dis
                                   s:

-------
     For red bone marrow,  m
     SEE  (m •*• c) =  6.17  x  10-* MeV   Sr-90
                                g dis
     SEE  (m *• c) =  1.5 x 1C-' MeV    y-90
                               g dis
     SEE  (m «- t) =  4.5 x 10-' MeV   Sr-90
                               g dis
     SEE  (m •*- t) *  2.7 x 10-* MeV   y-90
                               g dis
     Fifty-year  retention  of Sr-90 in bone per pCi in blood including
retention on bone  surfaces ICRP 20 (Table 34 (b)).

     \3Q = 399  pCi  day
     Ut = 158  jiCi  day
     TED(50) endosteum = 51.2 x Q  E  DS x SEE (T t- S)         (6)
           Q = 1
     TED(50) endosteum = 51. 2 x  (399 x 1.6 x 10-* + 158 x 2.0 x 10-*)   (7)
           = 4. 9 rem per pCi
     Marrow TED (50)  = 51.2 x    (399 x 1.6 x 10-« «• 158 x 3.2 x 10-*)      (8)
     = 3 rem per
     3. 2  Dose  equivalent commitment for 1 pCi/1
     Fraction of  ingested strontium transferred to blood is 0.3.  One
year intake at  1  pCi/1 and 2.2 liters per day = 803 pci.
     Endosteum  TED (50)  for 803 pCi intake
     =  8.03 x  10-*  pCi x 0.3 x 4.9 rem =1.2 mrem       (9)
     Marrow TED (50)  for 803 pCi intake =
           8.03 x  10-*  x 0.3 x 3.0 rem/jiCi = 0.7 mrem.     (10)
                                    52

-------
Weighting these organ doses as prescribed in ICRP #26 yields the
equivalent commitment w H  + w H  =
                       e e    m m
     0.03 x  1.2  mrem + 0.12 x .7 mrem = .12 mrem as the weighted
(11)
     dose equivalent commitment,


     4.1  Padium - 50-year dose commitirent per pCi in blood
     The ICRP model for radium-226 is analogous to that for strontium-
90 in that the dose commitment to endosteal cells and red marrow from
radionuclides in bone is calculated.  It differs from the calculation
in ICRP Report #2 in other ways as well.  Not only is the quality
factor for alpha particles now 20, ICRP Report #26, but an increased
retention of radon and radon decay products in bone is likely to be
assumed also, so that the effective energy per disintegration is
somewhat larger than in the older model.
     Monte Carlo calculations of SEE values for compact and carcellous
bone have been prepared for the ICRP by M. C. Thome and are the basis
for their refined model.  His results  (multiplied by the constant 51.2
in equation 1) have been published, as referenced in the text.  For a
radon retention of 0.3, the average dose to endosteal cells between
0 and 10 p from bone surfaces is 0.05 rad per ^Ci day.  Increased
retention of radon decay products is not assumed in Thome's published
calculations, see below.
     The retention of radium on cortical and cancellous bone and bone
surface, integrated over 50 years, is  99.9 pCi days, ICRP #20.  For
Q = 20; H  = 100 rem per jiCi in blood-
                                   53

-------
TED (50) endosteum = 0.05 rad   x    99.9  pCi  day x  20  rem  =   100 rem    (12)
                       i day                        rad
     For alpha emitters, only trabecular  bone  is assumed to irradiate

red bone marrow.  The  50-year retention of  radium- 226  on trabecular

bone surfaces is  26  jjCi days.   Thome's Table  2 lists  0.0040  rad per

jiCi day as the average dose  to  marrow for a radon  retention of  0.3.

For Q = 20; Hm =0.0040 x 26  x 20  =  2.1 rem/pCi in  blood.      (13)



     4.2  Dose equivalent  commitment for  1  pCi/1.

     The fraction of ingested radium-226  transferred to blood is 0.2,

ICRP Report #20.  One  year intake at 1 pCi/1 and 2.2 liter per  day =

803 pci.

     endosteum TED (50) for 803  pCi  intake

     = 8.03 x 10-*  pCi x 0.2 x  100  rein =  16 mrem      (14)

     red marrow TED (50) for  803 pCi intake

     = 8.03 x 10-*  MCi x 0.2 x  2.1  rem/^Ci = 0.34  mrem   (15)

     Weighting these organ doses  as prescribed in  ICRP #26 yields



     (.03 x 16 mrem) «• (.12  x .34 mrem) = .52  mrem       (16)

     An increase  in the assumed retention in bone  of radon daughters

would increase this value  by a  factor of  about 1.4.  The  dose to other

organs from radiuin-226 is  very  small. For example,  the dose  to gonads

is about one-fifth  that of marrow,  UNSCEAR, Vol. I,  Table 9,  1972.
                                    54

-------
                              Appendix B

       Projected Concentrations of Radioactivity  in the Lakes

     This appendix summarizes the EPA studies, cited in the main text,
of radionuclide concentrations in the Great Lakes due to future
nuclear power operations.  Although the original study included fuel
reprocessing plants, this source of pollutants is not considered here
since the operation of such facilities in the future is doubtful and
the existing plant on Lake Erie is being decommissioned-
     U.S. reactor discharges into the Great Lakes were quantified by
calculating the number of one gigawatt(e) nuclear power plants needed
to produce the electric power projected for the year 2000 and
estimating the amount of activity in liquid form** released by each
plant.  The predominance of boiling water reactors on some of the
Lakes now, is not likely to continue.  Therefore, it was projected
that by the year 2000 the ratio of pressurized water reactors (PWR) to
boiling water reactors  (BViR) on all of the Lakes would be 2 to 1.  In
projecting effluent releases, it was assumed that U.S. plants will
conform to NRC design requirements by 1979.  Tritium releases from
PWRs are assumed to be 1200 curies  (Ci) per gigawatt year; from BWRS
200 Ci.  Prior to 1979, it was assumed that discharges of strontium-90
(Sr-90) per gigawatt year from PWR plants would be H.H x 10~2 Ci and
after that date 2 x 10~3 Ci.  For one gigawatt BWR plants the release
**Aer^-a^ release8 are mainlV noble gases and iodine.  Compared to
liquid releases, the amount of long half-life activity released into
the air pathway is small.
                                   55

-------
of Sr-90 is assumed to fce somewhat greater, 0.1 Ci/y before 1979 and



2.7 x ID*2 Ci/y thereafter.  In spite of the smaller number of BWRs,



their effluents determine the amount of Sr-90 entering the Lakes.  The



projected reduction of Sr-90 effluents after 1978 is not unduly



optimistic.  Recent final environmental statements  (e.g., NRC-NUBEG



0265) indicate design releases of 10~s Ci per year.



     The exact distribution between the various Lakes of sites for



U.S. power plants in year 2000 is unknown.  As a reasonable



approximation, the number of plants on each Lake in the future was



assumed to be in proportion to the total number of plants planned for



each Lake in the 1980's, based on applications -co the NRC for



preliminary construction permits.  Source terms for tritium in each of



the Great Lakes, at five-year intervals, are listed in Table B-l.  It



is assumed that the source terms are constant after the year 2000, 193



gigawatt(e) installed capacity.
                                    56

-------
                              Table B-l
          Projected Tritium Discharges into the Great Lakes
             As a Function of Time - U.S. Power Reactors
                          (curies per year)
Period
Endinq
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2050
Michigan

3.
3.
5.
1.
1.
2.
2.
—
6
7
7
0
5
2
2
—
X 103
X 103
X 103
x 10*
x 10*
x 10*
x 10*
Huron
-
-
1.
1.
3.
5.
7.
7.
^m
^»«
9
6
1
0
3
3
—
•-
x
x
X
X
X
X


102
103
103
103
103
103
Erie
—
—
8.8
3.3
6.6
1.1
1.6
1.6
—
—
X 102
X 103
X 103
x 10*
x 10*
x 10*
Ontario
3.6
a. a
5.5
1.9
3.7
6.0
8.8
8.8
X 102
X 10«
X 102
X 103
X ID3
X 103
X 103
X ID'
     Table B-2 lists the projected concentration of tritium in each
Lake at 10-year intervals through the year 2050.  It is seen that an
equilibrium tritium concentration is being approached after 50 years
of constant effluent discharges, indicating that consideration of a
long time period would not effect the TED(50) dose due to these
sources.
                                   57

-------
                              Table B-2

        Projected Concentration of Tritium in the Great Lakes
           As a Function of Time Due to U.S. Power Reactors
                        (picocuries per liter)
Period
Ending
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Michigan
8.1
3.7
1.1
2.7
3.9
4.4
4.6
4.6
4.6
x 10-3

x 101
x 101
x 101
x 101
x IQi
x 101
x IQi
Huron
1.4 x 10-3
5.9 x 10-i
5.8
1.7 x IQi
2.8 x IQi
3.4 x IQi
3.6 x 101
3.7 x IQi
3.8 x IQi
Erie
6.5
3.0
2.7
7.2
8.9
9.4
9.6
9.7
9.7
x 10-*

x 101
x IQi
x IQi
x 101
x 101
x 101
x 101
Ontario
1.8 x 10-i
2.0
1.6 x IQi
4.8 x IQi
7.2 x 101
7.9 x 101
8.1 x IQi
8.2 x IQi
8.2 x 101
     The temporal pattern of strontium-90 discharges into  the Lakes

is quite similar to that'for tritium. Table B-l, though, of course, at

a much lower level.  For example, in the year 2000 and thereafter;

0.38, 0.12, 0.28, and 0.19 curies of stroutium-90 are discharged into

Michigan, Huror, Erie and Ontario respectively.  The concer.tratior of

Sr-90 in the Lakes due to U.S. power reactors is shown in Table B-3

for projected discharges through the year 2050.  As was the case for

tritium, the Lakes are in a near equilibrium condition for Sr-90 by

the year 2050.
                                   58

-------
                              Table B-3

            Strontium-90 Concentrations in the Great Lakes
         Due to Projected Releases from U.S.  Reactors (pCi/1)
Michigan
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
20UO
2050
4.
7.
2.
6"
9.
1.
1.
1.
1.
6 x
2 x
5 x
°x
3 x
1 x
2 x
3 x
3 x
io-«
10-s
10-*
10-*
10-*
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
Huron
8.
1.
1.
3.
6.
9.
1.
1.
1.
1 x
3 x
2 x
8 x
9 x
2 x
1 x
2 x
2 x
10-7
10-5
10-*
10-*
10-*
10-*
10-3
10-3
10-3
Erie
4.2
2.7
7.3
1.6
2.0
2.2
2. U
2.5
2.6
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10-7
10-*
10-*
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
Ontario
1.7
2.7
6.8
1.3
1.9
2.2
2.4
2.5
2.5
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
10-5
10-*
10-*
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
10-3
     Canadian releases of tritium into the Great Lakes as a function

of time and the resulting concentrations are shown in Tables B-4 and

B-5 respectively.  As noted in the text the projected concentrations

are based on an assumed 50 percent deposition of aerial releases into

Lake waters.  Canadian authorities believe the projected releases

(based on current release rates) are apt to be high since the large

economic incentive for deuterium oxide conservation will lead to

improved containment in the future.  Current Canadian plans indicate

only Lakes Huron and Ontario will be the site of nuclear facilities.
                                   59

-------
                              Table B-4

           Tritium Effluents from Canadian Feactors Assumed
                  to Enter the Great Lakes  (Curies)
Year Huron







1975 3.3
1980 5.3
1985 1.2
1990 2.4
1995 2.9
2000 3.9

x 103
x 10*
X 105
x 105
x 105
X 105
Table B-5
Ontario
3.3 x 10*
4.2 x 10*
1.3 x 105
1.7 x 105
3.9 x 105
4.6 x 105

Concentrations of Tritium Due to Releases
Canadian Reactors (pCi/1)
Year
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Huron
6.0 x 10»
3.6 x 102
7.2 x 102
9.1 x 102
9.7 x 102
9.9 x 102
1.0 X 103
1.0 x 103
Erie
2.9 x
2.0 x
4.6 x
6.3 x
6.8 x
7.0 x
7.1 x
7.1 x

10»
102
102
102
102
102
102
102








From
Ontario
1.0 X 102
5.1 x 102
1.5 x 102
1.7 x 103
1.8 x 103
1.9 x 103
1.9 x 101
1.9 x 103
     Analysis of Canadian liquid effluents indicate that the discharge

of Sr-90 is very low, less than that of Co-60, and this source term

has rot been considered in the study.  It should be noted, also, that
                                   60

-------
the Canadians do not reprocess nuclear fuels from commercial power



reactors.



     The data listed in Tables E-2, B-3, and B-5 and the dosimetric



information in Appendix A were utilized to prepare Tables 3A and 3B in



the main text.
                                   61

-------
          ANNEX III
Great Lakes Computer Program

-------
                              ANNEX III



                        Input to GIA-1 Program



                                Card 1



IVOL,  IOPT,  ISTP,  IPRT,  IDLP, ICON                (615)


IVOL       -1  =  Read in 10 values of V(,T) .


     The first 5 are used in the first half of BELT and


the second 5 for the latter half.


            0  =  Use real lake volumes in first


     half of DELT and 17 meter depths in second half.  These values


are calculated internally.


           +1  =  Use the real volumes in both halves


     of DELT.


Also internally calculated.


IJ0PT       -1  =  Print out all calculated


     sources and concentrations.


            0  =  Do not print sources or concentrations


           +1  =  Print out only concentrations


ISTP       -1  =  Use the last source read in as the total


     source for that time period (NYLST    to NYLST )


            0  =  Last source read in is added to


     previous sources - source is cumulative.

           +1  =  Same as -1.


IPRT       -1  =  Print out both sets of doses/dose rates.

                                t
            0  =  Print only doses/dose rates for ICP.P 10 and 10A treatment.


           +1  =  Print only doses/dose rates based on ICRP 2.
                                   63

-------
IDLP       -1



     interval.



             0



           +1
=  Print out results every DELPth time







=  Print out results every year.



=  Print out results every 10th year.
                                 Card 2
NYST,  NYND,  DELT,   DELP
                                 (2110, 2F10.4)
NYST       =  Starting year  for  complete calculation.   First results



     are for NYST  + DELT.



NYND       =  Last year of entire calculation.



DELT       =  Time increment for calculation,  usually  one  year.



     Problem is done  in steps of 1/2  DELT.   First step uses  first  5



     V(J) and second  step last 5 V(J).



DELP       =  Time interval  at which  to print  out results.   First



     printout will be  for the year which is  an integral multiple of



     DELP.
                                 Card 3



                       Use only if  ICJ0N  =  1,  -1







C0(L,J) [Ci/cm3J                                (5E12.5)



C0(L, I) = Initial concentrations.   Same  order as  card  6.   Read  in  25



           values.
                                   64

-------
                                Card H



                        Use only if IVJBL = -1







V(J)[cm3]                                             (5E12.5)



V (J)  =  Lake volumes in order: Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie,



     Ontario.  Read in 2 sets  (10 values) to be used  as described



     under DELT.
                                Card 5
NYLST, ISRC, ISYS             (3110)







NYLST      =  Last year in which these sources are to be used.  First



     time period is from NYST to NYLST.



ISRC       -1  =  Read in sources for each lake  (see card 6).



            0  =  Read in number of nominal 1000 MWe plants of each



      (BWR, PWR) type on each lake.



           «•!  =  Same as 0 but read in additional source terms  (see



     card 7) for each lake.



ISYS       =  1        Radwaste system indicator



           =  2        based on EPA-520/9-73-003-C,



           =  3        the number of plants (see card 7)



           =  4        will be used to internally calculate source



                       terms for each lake and isotope.
                                   65

-------
If ISYS<0, set previous  Sources =0.0 and use new source for next time
     period.
                                 Card 6
                        Use  only if ISRC = -1

R(L,I) [Ci/yrl                                        (5E12.5)
R(L,I) = the source terms  for  each lake (in card 4 order).   For each
     lake the isotopic  (H3,  C0««,  Sr»°, Cs*3*.  Cs137)  concentrations
      (Ci/yr); one  lake  per card.  Total number of source terms is 25.
                                 Card 7
                       Use  only if ISRC = 0, 1

NB (L) , NP (L)                                                (10F5. 2)
NB (L), NP (L) = the number of  1000 MWe plants (BWR, PWR)  on each lake
      (in card 4 order), e.g.,  BWR (Superior), PWR (Superior),,..   BWR
      (Ontario), PWR  (Ontario) .
                                 Card 8
                         Use  only if ISRC = 1
                                   66

-------
FRP  (L,I)                                             (5E12.5)



FRP  (Lrl) = Additional source terms  (as on  card  6) to  be  added to



     those specified on card 7.
     Return to Card 5 to specify source terms for next  time period.



Repeat cards 5-8 until NYLST = NYND.
                                   67

-------
FORTRAN IV 6  LEVEL   21
                                        MAIN
                                                           DATE = 77133
                                                                                 20/00/00
                                                                                                      PAGE 0001
 0001
 0002
 0003
 0004
 0005
 0006
 0007
 0008
 0009
 0010
 .0011
 0012
 0013
 001nSCON,DnS=XP/5000«3.0/
               flH/25*0.0/
               N8,NP
      DATA
      DATA
      DATA
      RFAL
      HR!TF.{6,1010)
 1013 FORMAT(lHl)
C     IDUP  •    PCI  INT      RrAH IM/EVER-Y YEAP/FVERY  10
C     DFLP  ALSO  CDNTPTLS nPT AND IPRT
      RE AD (5, 1000 I  I VOL, I OPT, !STP , IP'.T , !DLP, ICON
 1000 FDRMAT( 615)
      IF(IOPT.NF.-l) G3  -~l 10
      WRITE (6 ,1100)  IVOL,IOPT,ISTP,TPRr , IDLP, ICON
 1133 FTRMATt IH  , 6X, 4HI VOL , 6X.4HI DPT ,6X, 4HI .CTP, 6X.4HI
     1ICON//I9.5HO//)
   10 RF.AD1 5,2000)  NYST,NYND,0=LT ,n=LP
C     (NYND - NYST1/DELT MUST Bc AM I\I*EGRAL  NUMBER.
 2000 FPRMAT(2I10,?F10.4|
      FMYST = FLDAT(MYST)
      CMYND = FLOAT INY^O)
      IF(IOLP.EQ.O)  0=LP=1.3
      IF( IDLP.FO.l)  3:LP=10.0
      IF(PFLr.LE.O.O)  nELT = 1.0
C     ICON      RFAD  INIT COMS/MO RFAH/RFAt) IMIT CONS
      IFIICON.-^Q.O)  G1  T]  13
      RFAO(5,2010)  I(CO(L, I) ,1=1 ,5) ,L=1,5)
 2010 FDRMATJ 5F12.5)
   13 ITY = 0
      YOX = FNYST
      KF =  IFIXI (PNYN3-FNYST)/DELT)
      DO 15 K =  l,KF
      YOX = YDX  *  TFLT
      IF(AMOD(YOX,na<').NF..O.O) G9 TO 15
      ITY = ITY  +  1
                                                     ,6 X.4HI HLP.S X ,4H

-------
:OPTRAN IV G LFVFL  21

                   TYUTYI
                                                             E = 77139
                                                                                20/00/00
                                                                                                     PAGE  0002
0043
0044
0045
0046
0047
0048

0049
0050

0051

0052
00?3
0054
0055
0056
0057
00? S
0059
OOSO
0061
0062
0063
0064

0065
0065

0067
0068
0059
0070

0071
0072
 0073
 0074
 0075
 0076
 00*7
 0078
 0079
 OORO
 OOP1
 OOS2
 0093
 0084
 0085
 0086
 OOF 7
 0088
                              VOX
                15
                        n  ITY
                   If  (MITY.GT.103)  GH Tn 25
                   HRITC(6»2020J  NYST,MYMD,D£LT
              2933 CORMAT(32X,24HTHIS CALCULATION  TS  "OM,I5,3H TO, I5.19H USISG INTE«
                  IVALS 0=,F6.2,7H YFARS.//1
                   WPITFC6, 2030!  n?LP
              2030 FORMAT(1HO,33X,?!>HRFSULTS WILL  B?  PPTMTF.D ! M, Fi. 2, 16H Y5AR ISTERVA
                  1LS.//// )
                   NY1LP =  NY.ST
             C     IVHL  -/0/»     RFAD 10 VOLS/5 "EAL VOL*5*1?  METE'S/10 HEAL V3LS
                   ?F( IVOL 1111,222,333
               111 R?AO(5,3000)  (V{JI, J=l, 101
              3000 FHRMAT(5ei2. 5)
                   GO  TO 350
               222 DC  232  J=l ,5
                   V(J*51  = 1.7?+3*SA< J!
               232 CONTtNJE
                   GO  Tn 350
               333 DP  343  J=l, ?
                   V(J*51  = V(J)
               343 CONTINUE
               350 HOTT«:(6,3030)
              3030 FnRHAT<14X,33HTHE V»HJMfS USFD  FOR THE FIRST HALF 3F THE TIM?  INTE
                  1PVAL A'.F, IN  CU3IC Cr^TI METERS ,/// 1
P IIP , 12X , 9H«II CHI CAN, 12X,
                  SFCONO  HALF  !>F THE TIHS IMT
              3040  FPRMATUH
                  IX,
                    WRITES ,30501 'AT(li,X,S4HTHF V"LUMFS USED  FOR  T
                  1FRVAL  ARE, !N CUBIC CFNTT MFT5" S,///)
                    WRITES, 30401
                    WPIT?(6,3050) (Vf J+5! ,J=1,5)
              C      MOrf  HO SO'J'C? OPTIONS
              C      TP S'APT  FACH TTM^ PEPino, READ IM  C3NTS3LS AND SHURCE.
              1      MAY  CHANG? SYSTEM RAOWASTE FACH TJME  PFRIOO.
              C      CI/YP  SniJPCFS A?^ REAP  IM     =1R!=T  LAKE,  ALL ! STnPIJS, rTC.
                    ITI  =  0
                444  C3NT!NUF
                    REAn (5,53^0) NYL^T, ISRC, ISYS
              5000  ^PRMAT(3I10)
              C      IS°C  -/0/t       READ  S1URCES/REAO >!B NP/P.KAO NB NP * FP.P
              C      IF TSYS  LT 0, STT ANY PREVIOUS  S3URC? rO  Tl 0 AN1 USE NEW O
                    IF (ISYS.GE.OI GO TT  553
                    HO 513 L  = I, 5
                    DO 513 I  = 1  ,5
                    PCML.Il  = 0.0
                513  CHNTINUE
                553  IF (ISRC) 555,bSS,ibi
                55S  PF.AD (5,6060) ( ( ? { L , I 1 , T =1, 5) ,L = 1 , 5)
              6063  FORMAT(5F12.51
                    Gn TO 300
                665  REAOI5, 5050 K (MB(L),NP(Ll,L = l,5)
               5050  =OR1AT(10F5.? 1
                    IF ( IS'C.Lc.O! 33 TO  888
                                                                          15X,4HE9ie, 14

-------
FORTRAN IV G LEVEL  21
                                        MAIN
                                                          OATE =  77139
                                                                                20/00/00
                                                                                                     PAG3 J003
 0089
 0090

 0091
 0092
 0093
 0094
 0095
 0096
 0097
 0098
 0099
 0100
 0101
 0102
 0103

 0104
 0105
 0106
 0107

 0108
 0109
 0110
 0111
 0112
 0113
 0114

 0115
 0116

 0117
 0118
 0119
 0120
 0121
 0122
 0123
 0124
 0125

 0126

 0127
 3128
 0129
 0130
 0131
 0132
 0133

 0134
4000

 833
 777
 303

 363
      RFAOt 5,4000) ( (c*P( L, I ) 1 1 =1 .5) fL=l , 5)
      FORMAT (5 El 2. 5)
      ISTP        NEW is TOTAL/CUMULATIVE  SOURCE/NEW is
      00 777 L=l,5
      00 777 1=1,5
      R(L,I) = NB(L)*SYSB + RO(L,I)
  363 CONTINJF
  375 IF(IOPT.NE.-1 ) GO TO 20
c     PPINT OUT SOUR:? TERMS DEPENDING  ON IOPT.
      WRITF(6,606S)
 6065 FORMAT! 1H1)
      W»ITF(6,60TO) NYLST
 5070 FORMAT(1HO,14X,50HTHF SOURCE  TERMS  (CI/Y°)  THR1UGH THE PERIOD CNDI
     ING, I 5,5H ARE,//)
      WRIT£(6,3040)
      WRITEJS, 60801
 6080 FORMAT! 4X, 7HISTTOPr /)
      00 5090 1=1,5
      WRITF(5,6032) I , I R (L ,1 ) ,L=1 ,5 )
 6032 FORMAT! 13, 2X, 1P5E 20. 5/1
 6093 CONTIMJE
C     SAME SET OF RU,!) IS USED  THROUGH  NYLST.
      HPITF(6,7003)
 7003 FORMATdHl )
C     DFLT IS FULL  TIM- INTERVAL,  RUN IS  IN ONE-HALF DELT STEPS.
   23 YFAR = FLOAT(NYTLO)
      YINT = FLOATINYLST - MYOLD)
      MINTS = IFTX( 2.0*YIMT/TELT)
      IFCNINTS.LT-.300) GO  TP 35
   25 WRITE(6,6091)
      GO TO 50
 6091 FORMAT(1HK,14X,71HMUMBFR  OF T I M;  INrEPVALS  'tOUeSTEO EXCSF^iS THE "
     1AXI1UM (150)  P?^MITTED./I
C     ^TART TIME LTdP.
   35 OH 800 NTIM = 1 .MINTS
      IFtMODINTIM^I.-Q.O) ITI  =  I TI  *  1
C     NOW LAKE LOOP.
      00 700 L = 1,5
C     NOrt ISOTOPE LOI^
      LVX = L
      IF (MOD(NTIM,2).EQ.O) LVX = L * 5
      00 500 I = 1,5
C     NOW THE EQUATIONS. HFAVIS IOF  PARUAL FRACTION) =XPAMSIOM USED FOR
C     INVERSE TUNSFUMS.  CHECKED  WI TH FALTUNG  IMTEGRAL.
      RTU,I)=<0.693/HLF( I))ttQ(L )/V (L/X ) ) t ( AOL ( L, Til
      COEF(L,I)=R(L,I)/V(LVX)
      FXPOIL, I)=OEXP(-RT(L,I)*nELT/2.0)
      FACl(L,U=l .0/PT(L,I I
C     FUST TERM.
      Tl = FACKL.I)

-------
                    21
                                       MAIM
                                                                               20/00/00
                                                                                                    PAGF. 0004
 013?
 0136
 0137
 0138
 0139
 OHO
 0141
 0142
 314.3
 0144
 0145
 01 46
 0147
 014B
 0149

 0150
 0131
 0152
 0153
 0154
 0155
 0156
 0157
 0158
 0159
 0160
 0161
 0162
 0163
 0164
 0165
 0166
 0167
 0168
 0169
• 0170

 0171

 0172

 0173

 0174
 0175
 0176
 0177

 0178
 0179
 0130
 0181
 0182
                                T2) <• COIL, I)*  T3
T2 = -FXPnT(M,i)+PTu,n)
T3 = ?XP1+RT (K,I) )*(-RT(L, I )+RT(L -2, I ) )*<-*!{ L , I )
   H-RT(L-1,I)M
    CONC(L, !)=CONC(L,I)+(Q(L-l)/V(LVXI*Q{L-2)/V(LVX-l)*Q
-------
FORTRAN IV G LEVE.   21
                                        MAIN
                                            DATE = 77139
                                                                 20/30/00
                                                                                                      PAGE  0005
 0183
 0184
 0155.
 0166
 0187

 0188
 0189
 0190
 0191

 0192
 0193
 019*

 0195

 0196
 019T
 0198
 0139
 0200
 0201

 0202
 0203
 0204
 0205
 0206
 0207
 0208
 0209
 0210
 0211
 0212
 0213

 0214
 0215
 0216
 021?
 0218
 0219
 0220
 0221
 0222
 0223
 0224
 0225
    CO(L,II=CONC1AT( 1H-,51X,11H?ND  OF CAS?)
    CALL  EXIT
    ENO
                                                        ENDING, F8. 2 //)
     DO SOT DESTR3Y CBA*.   IT  IS  USED IM ALL DOSE SUBROUTINE?.
     CONC(L,I»=l .05*15*CBAP(L,I I
     IN 1UTSIOE  (L,I)  LOOP.
 775 CONTINUE
     COMING TO FND OP  T  LOOP.
     IF{ IOPT.E3.0) 3d  TO  790
     IF
-------
FORTRAN TV 6 LEVEL   21
                                        DOSDCF
                                                           DATE
                                                                  77133
                                                                                20/00/00
                                                                                                      PAGE 0001
 0001
 0002
 0003
 0004
 0005
 0006
 0007

 0009
 0009
 0010
 0011

 0012
 0013
 0014
 0015
 0016
 0017

 001S
 0019
 0020
 0021
 0022
 0023
 0024
 0025
 00?6
 0027
 0028
 0029
 0030
 0031
 003?
 0033
 0034
 D035
 003 f.
 0037
 0033
 0039
 0040
 0041
 0042
 0043
 0044
 0045
 0046
 0047
 0048
 0049
 0050
 0051
 005?
 0053
     SURPOUTINE DOSDCFCITI,CBAR,DOSRAr,DOSSUM)
     DIMENSION  CBA<*< 5, 5 I .r'CF X<5 )
     DIMENSION  D1SRAT(150,5,5),DDSSU1(150,5,5)
     COMMON     NITY,IPRT,IOPT,OF.LT,DELP,YPAR, FNYST, FNYND
     DATA         0:=X/l.ir-7,5. OF-6,2. 0'-3,6.lE-5,3. 9F-5/
     CBAR IS CJPP^NT  (FND  OF  YFAR) AVERAGE IF HALF-DELT  AVERAGES.
     ITI IS CURRENT VALUE  OF  NUMBER 01= YEARS PROCESSED.
     00 735 I=i, *
     00 725 L=l,5
     PUT DOSE IN PCI/L  *  U P.6M.
     OOSRAT(ITI,L, I)  =  1.0F+21*DCFX< I ) *CBAAT( I Tl , L , I )
            = 0.0
     r»n 6660 i =  1,5
     IF (!.NE.3)  DOSWR  =  DOSWB
6660 Ic (I.^Q.3)  OOSBM  =  D3SBM
     IF(AMOD(YJK,'JELP).NE.O.OI  GO Tfi S563
     WRITF( 6, 7590)  YUK, ( 30$RAT(I Tl ,L,I) ,1 =1 ,5 I , DOSWB, D-1S BM
6653 CnNTIMJc
6650
     YUK
     WRITE  (6,7530)
     DO 7650  IT2=2, ITIT
     YUK =  YUK  +  DJLT
     DOSWB  =  0.0
     OOSBM  =  0.0
     30 7660  1=1,5
     IF (T.NF.3)  DOSWB =  OOSWB
     IF (I.F0.3)  OOSBH =  DOSBM
                                  DOSSUM( I TP ,L , I )
                                  DOSSUM ( IT2,L , I )
     TF(AMOO(YUK,[)FLP).NF.n.O)  GO TO 7663
     WRIT *(6, 7590)  YUK, (03SSUMI IT2, L, I ) , 1=1 , 5) , DOSWB,
7653 CONTINUE
7650

-------
FORTRAN IV G L^VEL   21
                                               ? = 77138
                                                                  20/00/00
                                                                                                         ;  JOJ2
 0054
 0055
 0056

 0057

 0058
 0059
 0060
 0051
 0062
 0063
 0064
 0065
 0066
 0067
7710
7450 FORMAT (1H1)
7501 FORMAT(1H-,20X,33HCUMULATIVE ms* RATES AND DOSES FT» EACH LAKE  AN
    ID ISOTOPE AR = 3IVEN  ON  SUCCEEDING PAG^S.///)
7503 FORMAT(1HK,38X,32HTHFSE RESULTS C3VER THE INTERVAL ,c 3. 2, 2H -,CB.2,
    11H.///)
7520 FORMATUH1,57X,17HFOR LAKE SUPERIOR/)
7533 FORMATdHl ,57X,1 7HFPP LAKF MICHIGAN/)
7540 FORMAT! !Hl,57Xil4HFPR LAKE HURON/ )
7553 FORMAT(1H1,57X| 13HF^R LAKE 3RI7/I
7560 FORMAT11H1 ,57X,15HFOR LAKE ONTARIO/)
7570 FORMATJ 1HO, 49X, 34H30SF  (MICROREM) TO CRITICAL ORGAN./)
75PO FORMAT (1HO,2X,6HPERI OP, 8X, 7HTR ITIUM, 9X ,9HCOBALT-60 , 7X, 12H STRONTIUM
    1-90, 6Xt 10HCESIUM-134,7X,10HCESIUM-137,15X,9HSUMMATTON/ IN ,2X,6H£ND
    2INGt6X, 12HITOTAL  BDOY) , 5X, 12H( TQTAL BODY) ,5X, 13H ( BONE MARROW), ^X,l
    32H(TOTAL  BODY) ,5X ,12H (TOT AL BODY) , SX, 12HITTT AL BODY ) , 4X, 13H( BDNE  "
7590 FO«MAT(1H3,F8.2,IX, 1P7E17.5/)
9000 RETURN
     FNO

-------
FORTRAN IV 0 LF.VFL   21
                                                           DATE = 77138
                                                                                 20/00/00
                                                                                        PAGE  0001
 0001
 0002
 0003
 0004
 0005
 0006
 0007
 0008
 0009
 0010
 0011

 0012
 0013
 001*
 0015
 0015
 9017
 0019
 0019
 0020
 0021
 0022
 0023
 0024
 0025
 0025
 0027
 0023
 0029
 0030

 0031
 0032
 0033
 0034
 0035
 0036
 0037
 0038
 0039
 0040
 0041
 0042
 0043

 0044
 0045
 0046
 0047
COMMON
DATA
DATA
PAT A
                    DATA
                    DATA
              E DTSE31  (TV , CBAR ,OOS CON, DOS CXP)
     DOUBLE PRECISION   FST, SNO.COE , QLC,QUC,FR.ST,LAST
     DIMFNSION  Frf(5),EPS (5),COM(5),J>(T(5),A(5,5),B( 5,5)
            ON  TYtlOO) , CBAR (5, 5) ,DOSCON(100,5 ,5) , DOS EX P( 100, 5, 5)
                "ITY, IPRT, TOPT,DELT ,t) = LP, YEAR , FNYST.FNYNO
             FW/1 .0,0. 3, 0.30, 1.0,1. O/
             EPS/0.010,1.50,5.5,0.59,0.59/
             COM/4.3E+4,7.0E+4, 7.0E+3, 7. OE+4, 7.0F+4/
             A/1.0,0.0,0.3,0.0,0.0,
               0.54,0.32,0.036,0.054,0.0,
             0.10,0.17,0.73,0.0,0.0,
             0.15,0.35,0.0,0.0,0.0,
             0.15,0.85,0.0,0.0,0.0/
             B/25. 3633 ,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.3 ,
             973.664,140. 7?4, 18. 2121,1. 87790,0.0,
             5.77675,0.08734,84.3968,0.0,0.0,
             253.443,2.53103,0.0,0.0,3.0,
             253.141, 2.22413, D. 0,0. 3.0.0/
             JNT/1,4,3,2,2/
     DO THIS FO*  EACH TARGET YEA1* (TY) ONLY.
     nn 900 ITY = I, \IITY
     TF( TY(ITY) .LT.YTAqi  GO  TO 930
     00 300 ! = 1,5
     JFNO  = JNT(!)
     QLC =0.0
     QUC = 0.0
     DOSCOF = 1 .37003F+lb*FPS(I )/COM( T)
     on 600 J = 1,-JFND
     Cn= = A(J, I)/B(J,I)
     PST = -B(J,I)*(TY(ITY)  - YEAR)
     SN9 = -B( J,I )*X,'+5HRPSULTS 8ASSD ON IC^P  PUBLICATIONS  10 AMD 10A//)
     WRITE! 6,3000)  ='>JYST,FNYNr>
3003 FORMAT (1HK,41X,32HTHESE RESULTS :3VE° THE I NT
-------
          G LCV?L   21
                                       oos=no
                                                          DATE = T7139
                                                                               20/00/00
                                                                                                     P4GE 0002
00*8
00*9
0050
0051
0052
005?
00?*
0055
0055
00*7
0058
0059
0060
0061
0062
0063
006*
0065
0055
0057
0068
 0069
 0070
 0071
 0072
 0073
 007 ft
 0075
     IF(L.EQ.2) rfRIT?  (6,4002)
     IF(L.F.Q.3) WRTTP  (5,4003)
     IFU.E3.4) WUn  (6,4004)
     IFIL.EQ.5) /IRI^  (6,4005)
4001 FORMAT(1H1 ,57X,17HFOR LAKF SUPERIOR./)
4002 Ft>^AT(lHl,'5rX, 17HFOR LAKC MICHI3AM/I
4003 FORMAT (1H1,57X',14HFOR LAKE HURON/)
4004 FORMAT! 1H1,5TX,13HFOP LAKH =RI5/)
4005 FORMAT UHU 5 7X, 16HCOR LAKir 1NTARIO/J
     WP!TE(6,5000)
5000 FO*«AT( 1HO,44X,42HOOS5 RAT= ( MIC".nR^M/ YR) Tn CRIHCAL  ORGAN./)
     HRITF(5,6300)
bOOO FO"MATHHO,19X,5H?cPIOD,8X,7HTRITIUM,9X,9HCOBALT-60, 7X, 12HSTRONTIU
    1«-
-------