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«-
------- |