-------
32
The radionuclides that we have studied is ^Zn. we found
concentration factors ranging all the way up to 105 for different
organisms from the water into the organism (Figure 3). So, even
though the concentrations of some radionuclides aren't measurable in
water, if you have concentration factors as high as 105 in an environ-
mental medium, they may well become measurable in that medium.
Another important consideration is the role of seasonal effects.
The Columbia River temperature and flow rate at Hanford change according
to a pattern such as shown in Figure 4. The effect of these natural
variables on the concentration in fish is also shown in Figure 4.
Let's talk for a minute about the different ways in which man is
exposed to radioactivity. To begin with,let us introduce some radio-
activity into an environment, as shown in Figure 5. We are concerned
about man living in the environment and we have to worry about dose
to man. We have to worry about the external dose that he receives
from this radioactivity as a result of simply existing in the environ-
ment where the radioactivity is present and the internal dose that
results from radioactivity being introduced into many dietary pathways.
The complicated transition from an amount of radioactivity
measured in an environment to a calculation of the total dose is
shown in Figure 6. This total represents the sums of all internal
and external exposure pathways.
When we are evaluating the impact of radioactivity on the environs,
we need to have answers to several questions, e.g., what kinds, quantities,
-------
33
Zn CONCENTRATION IN SEA WATER
10-5 g/kg
PLANKTON 10"lgZn/hg
C.F. = 10,000
OYSTER FLESH
10-1 g zn/kg
C.F. -10,000
FISH FLESH 10~2g/kg
C.F. = 1,000
Figure 3. Concentration Factors for Zinc and Sea Water to Organisms,
JAN F M A M J J A S 0 N DEC J F
TIME
Figure 4. Seasonal Variation in Phosphorus-32 Concentration
of Columbia River Fish.
-------
"INTERNAL DOSE
RETENTION TIME
ZZZZJZZ
FRACTION
ABSORBED
CONCENTRATION
AND TYPE OF
RADIOACTIVITY
"1
AMOUNT
CONSUMED
t
FREQUENCY
OF CONSUMPTION
DIET
MILK
MEAT
VEGETABLES
FRUIT
CHICKEN
EGGS
GAME BIRDS
FISH
WATER
SEAFOOD
ETC.
^3-ORCHARDS $ GARDENS
AfFECTBO
OPG-AMS
TOTAL BODY
BONE
6.1. TRACT
THYROID
LUNG
FRESHWATER
FISH
"EXTERNAL DOSE"
WORK
RECREATION
RESIDENCE
ETC.
HOME
BUILDINGS
ROADWAYS
AIR
EARTH
VEGETATION
WATER
ETC.
IMPORTED FOOD
RADIOACTIVITY
figure 5. Dose Calculations of People Living in an Environment
Containing Trace Amounts of Radioactivity.
-------
DOSE CAICULATIOH MODEL
DIET HABITS DOSE CALCULATION
ANNUAL DOS£ SUMMARIES
CO
Figure 6. Dose Calculation Model.
-------
36
and concentrations of radioactivity are present; at what rates are
particular foods and beverages consumed by people living in the environ-
ment; also, what fraction of that radioactivity is absorbed and how
long it is retained in the person's body.
Finally, we can come up with doses for various organs resulting
from a particular body burden of radionuclides as a result of this
particular set of pathways. We can then add that to the external
dose which results from the activities that a person undertakes.
To estimate the external dose a person receives, we have to know
how frequently he goes swiiuning in the river if there is radioactivity
in the river. Also, we need to know how many periods of the year he
spent fishing or how many times he digs clams by the beach. Activities
such as these in the environment determine his external dose.
There have been numerous examples of exposure pathways that have
been studied. The one shown in Figure 7 has been studied rather
extensively at Hanford. We have found that a release rate of about 50
curies of 32P per day to the river results in a concentration in the
iTesh of fish of about 250 picocuries per gram. We have had to know
something about how many fish are caught and eaten by people so that we
can then calculate (not measure) the resulting dose to bone or other
tissues as a result of this particular pathway.
Another example of an exposure pathway that has been extensively
examined is found at the Bradwell Power Station in England (Figure 8).
It has to do with zinc-65 released into estuaries. For the organisms
-------
37
DIRECT COOLED
REACTOR
DOSE TO BONE
0.3REM/YEAR
(20% OF LI MIT)
~0.15 pCi32P/ml
RIVER WATER
WATIRTOFISH
CONCENTRATION FACTOR
WINTER <1
SUMMER ~ 5,000
200 MEALS
(40 kg) FISH/YEAR)
-250 pCi/g
(FLESH)
JAIHITEFISH
^
AVERAGE
CONCENTRATION
IN SPECIES EATEN
IN GREATEST
AMOUNTS
-40 pCi32P/g
Figure 7. The Phosphorus-32 Exposure Pathway
at Hanford, Washington.
GAS COOIED
REACTOR
WATER TO OYSTER
CONCENTRATION
OYSTER'iliSH
~5 pCi/g
FUEL COOLING
(BASIN)
RELEASE RATE
65Zn~50mCi/
MONTH
CONSUMPTION
75 g/DAY
DOSE TO WHOLE BODY
~1 mrem/YEAR
(0.2% OF LI MIT)
Figure 8. The Zinc-65 Exposure Pathway
at Bradwell Power Station, U.K.
-------
38
that may be taken from the estuary as a source of food for man, we need
to know how much is eaten by man and absorbed by his tissues. Then,
an estimation of the body burden as well as the dose that results to
various organs therefrom as the result of this experience can be made.
There are several things that one has to know about people and
the radioactivity that may be present in their body. You have to
know the effective half-life such as for 65Zn. If a person were to
consume a quantity such as shown in Figure 9, yu percent (according
to ICRP) would not be absorbed at all. It would pass through the
person's body right away. The remaining 10 percent would be absorbed
and would be excreted with an effective half-life of 194 days. Many
months later, we ould find a rather low body burden, as shown in
Figure 9.
If this person were, on the other hand, consuming ^5Zn regularly,
the body burden would accumulate with time, as shown in Figure 10.
Very simply, you would have a meal today and it would decay off slightly.
By continuing this consumption pattern for many months, the 65Zn body
burden will gradually build up until the resulting body burden of this
radionuclide would equal the rate of decay, i.e., an equilibrium
condition would be established. In other words, the Maximum Permissible
Body Burden (MPBB) is directly related to the Maximum Permissible
Rate of Intake (MPRI).
The MPRI can be calculated from concentrations (maximum permissible)
and consumption rates. These are usually based on an assumed constant
-------
39
1000 nCi
UliCi)
o
c
ce:
13
CO
Q
O
CO
EFFECTIVE HALF-LIE = 194 DAYS
900 nCi
EXCRETED 1
INITIALLY
100 nCi
THROUGH
INTESTINE
TO BLOOD
•0 i
6 9 12 3 6
TIME IN MONTHS
9 12 3
Figure 9. Fate of Zinc-65 in the Body.
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
MAXIMUM PER BODY BURDEN 6000 nCi
RATE OF INTAKE
-6 li Ci/MONTH
EQUILIBRIUM
RADIOACTIVE DECAY
+ BIOLOGICAL ELIMINATION
T/2 = 194 DAYS
ASSIMILATED - 0. 6nCi/MONTH
J i i i i
J L
J L
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
TIME IN MONTHS
Figure 10. Accumulation of Zinc-65 with Sustained Intake.
-------
40
metabolism rate. That is, the method is the same for all food stuffs.
If you are going to eat Zn, it wouldn't matter much whether it comes
from game, birds, fish, or clams, etc. This, at least, is the
assumption made by the ICRP and others in calculating maximum permissible
rates of intake so that you can end up with a maximum permissible dose
or risk. These parameters have been defined for use by the International
Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The body burden is based
on an assumed dose rate to a given tissue.
The external exposure on the other hand, is sometimes more
difficult to come by. For example, water skiing, fishing, and boating
habits must be considered. Hunters using the river shore and other
areas for hunting game birds and those using river water for irrigation
and as a drinking water supply must also be considered. All of these can
contribute both to internal and external dose. A study of the environment
in terms of habits of the people and sources of food for the people living
in the environment is a must if you want to come up with this dose calculation.
At Hanford, we started monitoring our environment when the plant
was first built in 1944. When we first went on the line in 1944, we
had only electroscopes as a means of measuring radioactivity. In those
days, no one even dreamed of such sophisticated techniques as an isotopic
analysis.
In 1958, we found ourselves monitoring the environment of Hanford,
collecting filing cabinets full of numbers which represented concentra-
tions that we had measured for many years in the environment, but nobody
-------
knew how to comprehensively evaluate the data.
Starting in 1958, we began this process of evaluating Hanford's
environment in terms of dose to people. We did this because we decided
that dose was the most meaningful end product, and that what we were
trying to protect was the people and the organisms that lived in our
environment.
We have been calculating environmental radiation doses at Hanford
for thirteen years. These dose estimates have been made for two
population segments - a Maximum Individual and an Average Richland
Resident. The actual doses estimated for these two population segments
for a recent year, as well as the primary sources of these doses, are
shown in Figure 11.
As is shown in this figure, reactor effluents are the principal
source of radiation doses in the Hanford environs, although the
separations areas and fallout from nuclear weapons testing contribute
to a small extent.
The maximum individual is not someone we can go out and identify
and say meet Mr. Maximum Individual. He is our hypothetical guy who
does everything in a maximum way to maximize the dose. He spends the
most hours on the river shoreline fishing, he eats the most fish and
the most game birds. He also eats the most meat from local farms and the
most vegetables from gardens irrigated with Columbia River water and
so on to result in maximizing every pathway. The Average Richland
Resident, on the other hand, represents real individuals. He resides
in the primary population center downstream from Hanford and has no
-------
wu
REACTORS-
(Hill
REACTORS-
LASS
1968 ESTIMATED DOSE
TO MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL
All OTHER NOCLIDES
131,
133,
ft|C£,W OF Lj_^n_
,?0 40 60" SO'
1
1 1 1 . i
I'.- • t • !•:'-• '
r ..Qs,|. f 1500 &RCM
PER Y E A R
j
i
!
WHO 11
BODY
IKAC!
. 1
.[
THY
(j \
S010
:AM1s .
BOO MfiFM
1968 ESTIMATED DOSE
TO HIGHLAND RESIDENT
rt A •'•?•• it i.
SCPARATIO.NS
RFA.CICKS-
RCACTORS'
LABS
*
All
•Hi
11.4CT
fWftOIS
Figure 11. Dose Estimates for Maximum Individual and to Average Richland Resident.
-------
43
unusual dietary or living habits.
We have made at Hanford what we call surveys of population groups.
Now, a population survey is simply an effort conducted by us to obtain,
from a certain population group, some of the "blanks" that we need to
complete in the logic process that I have been describing to you to
calculate doses.
We go to specific groups that have a specific kind of information
to contribute. We have used our own employees over the last ten to
eleven years to obtain much of the needed information. We wanted to
find out how many of them eat fish caught in the Columbia River, how
many of them eat game birds and seafood, and how many of them eat locally
i
produced beef and drink locally produced milk. We also wanted to define
their water consumption, as well as any other dietary habits. All of
this information was collected as a part of the routine whole-body count
for these people.
We also have a mobile whole-body counter with which we can go out
and measure radioactivity in school children. About fifty-five hundred
such measurements were made on elementary school children throughout
the Tri-City, Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick area. A similar survey
was conducted with a small group of teenagers.
Another survey involved specific studies of the fishing habits of
local fisherman because fish happens to be a very important pathway
in our dose calculation. One such study had to do with just how much
fishing is done on the river. This was based on the statistical model
and took us a full year to accomplish. We moved our truck out to the
-------
44
riverbank and selected people who derive a large part of their diet from
the Columbia River in the form of fish. Eighty-five individuals participated
in the study.
We have also studied farm populations where Columbia River water
was being used for irrigation and residents of seafood-producing areas
along the Pacific coast. Still another study involved a definition of
serving sizes (an important parameter for dose calculations) for a sample
of the Richland population. You can see, from what I have just described,
that many special population surveys have been conducted at Hanford in
support of environmental dose calculations.
I am not proposing that each of you should necessarily repeat
these studies for your own plant's environs. This is the kind of thing,
however, that we found was needed in order to improve our estimates of
dose. It was knowledge such as this that we were lacking. The fisher-
man's surveys involved a statistical model of time and space. We chose
twenty-one areas along the river and divided the year up into four-hour
periods and we hired a man to spend a full year sampling the times,
spaces, populations that we had randomly chosen.
We learned, for example, what kind of fish they caught and how
many. Our statistical model permitted .us to take our sample and
extrapolate it to the whole population. It resulted in some calculations
of the fishing pressure of the whole population of the tri-city area
as a result of knowing something about the fishing habits.
The diet questionaire we asked our adult employees to fill out
-------
JlATTtLllJ/0»THWtgT- ^g. INFLUENCE Qp DIET ON RADIOACTIVITY IN PEOPLE
RICHLANO. WASHINGTON
THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IS TO OBTAIN DIET INPOR
SCIENTIFIC VALUE TO HELP US UNDERSTAND T
ED IN THEIR BODIES. WE CAN DO THIS BY MELA
TO INDIVIDUAL DIETS. WHEN A LARGE NUMBER
EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. TRY TO AVERAGE VOU
AL FACTORS. IT MAY HELP VOU TO UNDERSTAI
CONSUME 1C
NAME
MATION TO SUPPLEMENT VOUR WHOLE-BODY COUNTING RESULTS. Tl
HE WAV PEOPLE TAKE UP RADIOACTIVITY PROM THEIR POOD. AND K
TING THC MINUTC AMOUNTS OF RADIOACTIVITY MCASURCO BY THC W
OP THESE RELATIONSHIPS ARE OBTAINED WE CAN DETERMINE SIGNI
PRECISE ANSWERS. WE APPRECIATE VOUR GIVING THE BEST ESTIMA
R DIET THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WITHOUT BEING UNDULY INPLUENCI
JO THE QUESTIONS IP VOU REMEMBER THAT WE SIMPLY WANT TO PIN
AND WHERC THCSC FOOD! WCRC PRODUCED.
SOC. SEC. NO. DATE
HE DATA ARE OP REAL
OW LONG IT IS RETAIN-
HOLE-BODY COUNTER
PICANT AVERAGES.
TES VOU CAN TO THC
ED (V RECENT SEASON-
D OUT VOUR AVERAGE
HOME ADDRESS PAYROLL NO. OCCUPATION
AGE
HEIGHT WEIGHT BEX EMPLOYED BY BLDG.
[|M f"")F
1 RESIDENCE HISTORY
1 HAVE LIVED IN MY PRESENT COM-
MUNITY FOR YEAR*.
BEFORE THAT 1 LIVED IN
FOR
CITY
YEARS.
4 MILK
HOW MANY GLASSES OF FRESH MILK
DO YOU DRINK PER DAY?
GLASSES
WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR
FRESH MILKT
[^COMMERCIAL 1 1 LOCAL FARMS
WHICH BRAND OF COMMERCIAL MILK
DO YOU USUALLY DRINK?
(DO NOT INCLUDE CANNED OR
POWDERED MILK)
ABOUT HO
YOU EAT 1
FRCBH OY
FRESH CB
FRESH CL
(DO NOT
OR COMMI
INCLUDE (
PACIFIC S
W MANY TIMES A YEAR DO
rME FOLLOWING SEAFOODS?
«-rrn« TIMES
M.m TIME*
INCLUDE FISH OR CANNED
ERCIALLY FROZEN SEAFOOD.
>NLY THAT FROM NEARBY
OURCES.)
FOR SECTION USE ONLY
IDENTIFIC
ABC
NA-Z4
CS-117
K— 40
ATlnU COOC
0 E F G H
BB-li-IO»
2 DRINKING WATER
WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF DRINKING
WATER IN YOUR HOMCT
| IwgLL- QjMUNICIPAL SYSTEM
HOW MANY GLASSES OF WATER OO
YOU DRINK PER PAVt
GLASSES
ON A WORKDAY HOW MUCH OF THIS
WATER OO YOU DRINK WHILE AT
WORK?
f~V.ITTLS I~UOME INMOST OF IT
5 MEAT
FOR HOW MANY MEALS A WEEK OO
YOU EAT FRESH MEAT (OTHER THAN
CANNED OR CURIO)?
IB* HOT HtCLUH PRIPAMB MIATt S«C« AS WSIK-
IDS, Iliac* MEAT. AM TV BUMS**)
MEALS
HOW MUCH OF THIS FRESH MEAT
IS BEEF? PI NONE PI LITTLE
ll MOST fl ALL OF IT
WHERE DO YOU OBTAIN YOUR
FRESH BEEF? Cj MEAT MARKET
LJ LOCAL FAR. MS
8 GAME B. 1 R DS
HOW MANY TIMES ftJYEAfl Do VOU
EAT THE FOLLOWING GAME; BlRDSt
BUCK TIMES
neuter TIMES
QUAIL TIMES
CHUKKAR. OR
10 OTHER QUESTIONS
PRINCIPAL. PART OF A MEAL?
AREA
3 OTH E R LIQUIDS
HOW MANY CUPS OP BEVERAGE MADE
FROM TAP WATER (COFFEE, TEA,
SOUP, KOOL-AID, ETC.) DO YOU DRINK
PER PAY?
CUP*
HOW MUCH OTHER LIQUID DO YOU
DRINK (BOTTLED SOFT DRINKS, JUICE,
SEER, ETC.)?
6 FRESH VEGETABLES
FOR HOW MANY MEALS A WEEK OO
YOU EATFRESH VEGETABLES (OTHER
THAN CANNED OR COMMERCIALLY
FROZENT MEALS
FRESH FRUIT?
TIMES
WHERE DO YOU OBTAIN MOST OF
YOUR FRESH VEGETABLES?
Q GROCERY CD LOCAL FARMS
WHERE OO YOU OBTAIN MOST OF
YOUR FRESH FRUIT?
CHoROCERY LZlLOCAL FARMS
MOW MANY TIMES A YEAR DO VOU EAT
FISH CAUGHT IN THE COLUMBIA RIV-
ER BELOW HANFORO (OTHER THAN
COMMERCIAL FISH?)
ABOUT . TIMES
WHAT KINDS OF FISH WERE THEY?
~~ SSfiSfe^esj
SALMON
•TUMttON
•AM
TROUT
CATFISH
^^Gj^sSf*^*
ITEILHCAQ|
WHITCFISM
"»""
PIMCM
OTMO
SEAFOOD (OTHER THAN FISH) AS THE
WHICH SEAFOOD WAS IT?
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ATE FISH FROM THE COLUMBIA RIVER?
WHEN YOU OBTAIN SEA FOOD OR LOCAL FISH DO YOU USUALLY PRESERVE
IT BY FREEZING? 1 — IVES 1 INO SMOKING? 1 — 1YES 1 INO
CANNING? OYES [_JNO
Figure 12. Questionnaire Used in Conjunction With Whole-Body Counting,
-------
46
when they came in to get a whole-body count is shown in Figure 12.
Figure 13 is a picture of a man getting a whole-body count. As a
result of this whole-body counting program, we were able to obtain
body burden measurements and relate them to the consumption of particular
foods and beverages. In Figure 14, 5Zn body burdens and drinking water
concentrations are shown for Richland residents. This example is shown
because drinking water happened to be one of the major sources of this
particular radionuclide. We were able to determine that at the time
the city of Richland started using the Columbia River for a source of
drinking water. Of course, there were other sources of 65Zn in the
diets of Richland residents, but you can see the buildup as a result
of the drinking water source.
The mobile body counter we have taken around to various Tri-City
schools is shown in Figure 15. The kids really respond to this kind of
a program. The whole body counter has a large sodium-iodide crystal,
under which the children move on a traveling bed during the whole-body
count (Figure 16). With the large, sensitive crystal in our whole
body counter we can easily measure the body burdens of radionuclides
of fallout and Hanford origin and all natural radioactivity such as ^%.
Each child fills out a diet questionnaire which they hand in to us
prior to their whole-body count (Figure 17). At the end, they get a
little certificate saying that they have participated in the study.
We have obtained, as a result, distributions of consumption levels of
various foods and beverages which we have used in making dose calcula-
-------
Figure 13. Whole-Body Counter.
^ 8.0
t/l
C
V
f, 4.0
I"
CO
0
< Indicates Results less than
the Value Shown
5
ID
"n«n
M
- .
3 f
^ 1
m ' \M \ M
J
I
A S 0 N
1963
1 1 Body Burdens
Body Burdens -nCi
.*• P°
0 0
K^a Drink
TIP
u
M
ng W
ii
r Con
:
tration
m , M
1
A S 0 N
1964
C
200 '
M
8
Water Concentration
D J F M A
1964
J i_t
Water Concentrations -pCi
0 J F M A
1965
Figure 14. Average Zinc-65 Body Burdens and Drinking Water
Concentrations in Richland, Washington Residents.
-------
.50JVCWTKIABORATORV
Figure 15. Mobile Whole-Body Counter Used for School Children.
Figure 16. Interior of Mobile Whole-Body Counter.
-------
Figure 17. Questionnaire Used in Conjunction
With Mobile Whole-Body Counter.
-------
50
tions for children as well.
In the case of the rural population I mentioned earlier, we are
able here to express what fractions various pathways contribute to the
dose. The exposure pathways contributing to the whole body dose as a
function of age is shown in Figure 18. You can see that eggs, for
instance, contribute a surprisingly large fraction. This, we belive,
is because many of these people have chickens that live on insects
originating from the Columbia River.
On the other hand, the contribution by these same pathways to the
bone dose is quite different (Figure 19). When we try to compare the
calculated versus measured body burden of radionuclides, we should find
a ratio close to 1.0 (Figure 20), if we are doing a good job. You can
see how far we are missing it. The difference is partly due to the
peoples' inability to give us diet information and also to our inability
to get a representative sample from the population. So the calculated
ratio is always low.
The external dose can also be broken down into terms of where it
comes from, i.e., how much is obtained from swimming (immersion) versus
that contributed by shoreline (surface) exposure. This comparison is
shown in Figure 21.
The dietary data obtained from the seacoast studies I mentioned
earlier are shown in Figure 22 and 23. The consumption patterns were
quite different because Rockaway was primarily a crab producing area
and Ilwaco was an oyster producer. We used these data to calculate the
-------
ADULTS
(OVER 17)
TEENAGERS
(12-17)
CHILDREN
(UNDER 12)
ADULTS
(OVER 17)
TEENAGERS
(12-17)
CHILDREN
(UNDER 12)
FRESH LEAFY VEGETABLE?
OTHER FRESH VEGETABLES
GAME BIRDS
COLUMBIA R. FISH
CHICKEN
RED MEAT
DRINKING W,ATER
I
1
J
— LJ_
n
EXT
y
< : '---. rT ,
•
EGGS ;
7//f/rf/f77
MILK4
f^iiftjfi/t
.-:
166
1.20
1.14
NUMBER OF PERSC.
AVERAGE PERCENT OF
PERMISSIBLE DOSE
(170 mRem/YEAR)
MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL
PERCENT OF
PERMISSIBLE DOSE
(500 mRem/YEAR)
Figure 18. Sources of Environmental Whole-Body
Dose from Hanford Rural Population - 1969.
1.59
.2.07
2.91
2.57
FRESH LEAFY VEGETABLES-
OTHER FRESH VEGETABLES
GAME BIRDS
COLUMBIA R. FISH-I
CHICKEN—I
RED MEAT
DRINKING WATER-
NUMBER OF PERSONS
AVERAGE PERCENT OF
PERMISSIBLE DOSE
(500 mRem/YEAR)
MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL
PERCENT OF
PERMISSIBLE DOSE
(1500 mRem/YEAR)
166
1.11
2.19
1.71
3.83
2.52
3.79
Figure 19. Sources of Environmental Bone Dose
from Hanford Rural Population - 1969.
-------
52
-•
-
:•
•
'•<
10
S
5 Q
O
3 30
I 20
10
Z
LU
oe 0
30
20
Ll
CHILDREN
(UNDER 12)
TEENAGERS
(12-17)
ADULTS
(OVER 17)
RAT|0 _ MEASURED 63Zn BODY BURDEN
CALCULATED 65Zn BODY BURDEN
Figure 20. Comparison of Measured and Calculated
Zinc-65 Body Burdens •- Rural Population Survey.
4.0
at.
-
2.0
1.0
- M
0-5
M
6-11
IMMERSION WHOLE BODY DOSE
(O.lOmR/hr)
SURFACE WHOLE BODY DOSE
(0022mR/hr)
12-17
AGE
18-35
>35
Figure 21. External Exposure from Hanford Radioactivity
from Recreational Use of the Columbia River.
-------
53
POUNDS
EATEN
PER YEAR
IAVERAGEI
so r
0
10
CLAMS
CRAB
OYSTERS
SHRIMP
CLAMS
CRAB
OYSTERS
SHRIMP
CLAMS
CRAB
OYSTERS
SHRIMP
NUMBER
AVER AGE FRACTION
OFI.C.R.P. :5Zn
BODY BURDEN LIMIT
NEAH-KAH-NIEHIGH
SCHOOL STUDENTS
155
0.00075
SEAFOOD COMPANY
EMPLOYEES
14
0.0025
CHILDREN OF SEAFOOD
COMPANY EMPLOYEES
2
0.0017
CLAMS
CRAB
OYSTERS
SHRIMP
OTHER COMMUNITY
RESIDENTS
18
0.00065
Figure 22. Dietary Data Obtained from Rockaway,
Tillamook County, Oregon - 1970.
POUNDS
EATEN
PER YEAR
(AVERAGE)
10
CLAMS
CRAB
OYSTERS
SHRIMP
CLAMS
CRAB
OYSTERS
SHRIMP
CLAMS
CRAB
OYSTERS
SHRIMP
NUMBER
AVER AGE FRACTION
OF I.C.R.P. 65Zn
RnnY BURDEN LIMIT
ILWACO SR. & JR.
HIGH STUDENTS
219
0.0012
SEAFOOD COMPANY
EMPLOYEES
14
0.0042
CHILDREN OF SEAFOOD
COMPANY EMPLOYEES
0.0314
CLAMS
CRAB
OYSTERS
SHRIMP
OTHER COMMUNITY
RESIDENTS
...
0.0024
Figure 23. Dietary Data Obtained from Ilwaco,
Pacific County, Washington - 1970.
-------
54
fractional uptake of Zn from four different kinds of seafood and we
found that apparently Zn isn't absorbed at a constant fraction of
ten percent, as suggested by the ICRP. We found that from oysters,
for instance, only about one percent was absorbed, while from shrimp
as high as twenty-two percent was being absorbed. The difference is
largely, I think, due to the natural Zinc content of the different
food stuffs. We need more studies of this kind, however, in order to
be sure.
In conclusion, I would like to show you an animal which can digest
all of the basic data we have been gathering in our environmental studies
and give us environmental dose. Such an animal is the computer program
diagrammed in Figure 24. The doses this program calculates are, of
course, only as good as the basic data which we have generated to feed
to the program.
DISCUSSION;
SPEAKER: Did the maximum individual drink the water coming out of
the plant effluent? You mentioned who ate the most fish, but did he
also drink the water coming out of the plant? We talked sometime about
calculating dose to a man that drank the water coming out of the dis-
charge canal.
MR. HONSTEAD: He drank water from a community that was using the
Columbia as its source of water.
-------
ANNUAL DQ$£ SUMMARIES
Figure
Dose Calculation Model.
-------
56
SPEAKER: So your maximum individual did not take the fence post
approach?
MR. HONSTEAD: That's right. It was where water was being drunk.
Our plant is a big area and there is no communities that close to the
reactor.
SPEAKER: What sort of nuclides do you measure and in what levels
recently in your whole blood count?
MR. HONSTEAD: The only Hanford radionuclide that we have recently
been measuring in our body count measure is Zn.' We can measure one
nanocurie fairly readily. If it gets below one nanocurie, we can tell
that it is there, but our calibration is not sufficiently adequate to
be sure of it. But one nanocurie is fairly evident. This would be
a very small peak compared to the natural potassium anywhere in a
person's body.
We used to be able to occasionally measure I and ^Na in rare
(
individuals, not in everybody. These are the only Hanford generated
nuclides that I have ever detected except for a small amount of 60Co, in
employees but not the general public.
MR. PROUF: I am Dr. Prouf from Middle South Utilities. Could
you give me a rough estimate of the annual budget for this type of
program?
MR. HONSTEAD: This is a hard question to answer, because we are
talking about parts of several programs. This data has been collected
over a period of about seven years. It isn't something that was done
all in one year.
-------
57
The program does not pay for any of the concentration data for
Instance. One scientist and one technician were required to run the
whole body counter survey. So eventually what it is going to cost to
do this would be an amortization of that piece of equipment plus those
two peoples' salaries. That was the size of this program. There was
a small additional charge for computer services, because we were using
the computer to formalize our output. That is, the analyzer output
data was fed into the computer. I am afraid I can't break it down any
finer than that. The whole body counter can be pretty expensive. It
costs on the order of several tens of thousands of dollars to put
together.
-------
58
REGION IV RADIATION OFFICE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE
NATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL DATA MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Mr. Douglas H. Reefer
Region IV Representative
Environmental Protection Agency
As the concluding speaker in this particular session, I would,
first of all, like to tie together what you heard this morning relative
to environmental radiation data. You heard Dr. Beck speak about AEC's
interest in the State data relative to the limit and compliance
responsibility of AEG, and you heard Dr. Martin discuss the dose
assessment interest and responsibilities of the Office of Radiation
Programs. Breaking down the responsibilities and activities a little
further, the Office of Radiation Programs has a staff under the
direction of Dr. Paul Tompkins, who is working specifically in the
area of evaluating dose assessment. The collection of data for this
evaluation of dose is the responsibility of the Division of Surveillance
and Inspection. This division is in the process of developing a
National Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program (NERMP). The
program, which is currently being refined, will present the approach
which the Office of Radiation Programs will be using to collect
environmental radiation data throughout the country.
My particular project in Atlanta, which is being referred to as
the State Radiological Data Management Program, is designed as a
pilot study for the development of NERMP. State health departments
and other new State environmental agencies which have been created
-------
59
for the purpose of looking at environmental problems, will be preparing
radiological data of specific interest to us. These data are the source
of intelligence for the NESMP. The sole purpose of this particular
project in Region IV is to assist in developing techniques for the
preparation and management of these data so it can be better utilized
by both State and Federal agencies, but more specifically by the
State agencies themselves in meeting their own program objectives.
The Region IV Radiation Data Management Project actually was
started in Florida in 1964, when I was assigned to Orlando as Technical
Director of the Florida Radiological Laboratory. A specific project
in this assignment was to develop a basic program called, "A State
Radiological Data Processing System for Environmental Radiological
Analysis," for use by all State agencies. This was completed and
made available to several States within the Region, and Florida has
been utilizing this particular approach until just recently when their
increased environmental responsibility required them to be more
extensive in their investigations. Other regional States have drawn
from this approach to develop their own systems.
Last summer, the eight Region IV States, which are all agreement
States, requested of the HEW Regional Representative that they be
given some assistance in managing their radiation data which they
had been collecting over the last 8 or 10 years. This is not just
environmental data, but also data from medical X-ray surveys and
radioactive material inspections. This resulted in my assignment to
-------
60
Atlanta for this particular project and enabled me to continue my
relationship with Florida while expanding the approach on a broader
base to provide assistance to the other States within the Region.
Since September, Florida has increased environmental surveillance
activity relative to the Crystal River Station, Turkey Point facility,
and Hutchinson Island site. This extensive program of environmental
analysis around these particular plants has generated a considerable
quantity of data, placing greater emphasis and need on improved data
management.
I have been assisting Mr. Wallace Johnson, who is directing the
environmental activities in Florida, in the development of a data
management system which would assist them in meeting the responsibility
they have to the people of Florida, the power companies, AEG, and EPA.
Mr. Johnson will go into greater detail tomorrow concerning the
advancements Florida has made in this direction. The other States
within the Region and also outside the Region have observed Florida
in their activities and have benefitted by their experiences.
Therefore, you can see that one of the primary functions of this
regional project has been the interaction between the States enabling
another State confronted with surveillance responsibilities around a
particular nuclear facility to expedite their program development.
In my course of travels throughout the Region, I have reviewed
and made recommendations to each of the State health departments or
State environmental agencies relating to the development of their
-------
61
laboratory and environmental programs. In meeting with these people
throughout the Region, I have had the opportunity to evaluate their
needs, relative to the increasing nuclear activities within the
States, including the pending site selections and construction of
various nuclear facilities, and the resources that these States have
to meet specific environmental surveillance data requirements.
In doing so, I have tried to assist them in such a way that they will
be prepared for these responsibilities, both in handling the quantity
of data being prepared but also being able to assure that these data
are being prepared in a quality manner.
I have encouraged each of these States to relate as closely as
they possibly can to the regional radiation office, Eastern Environ-
mental Radiation Laboratory in Montgomery, and the Western Environmental
Research Laboratory in Las Vegas.
These EPA laboratories have, through their activities for many
years, been maintaining quality control activities, and one point that
I think cannot be overemphasized is that as these data are being
acquired for purposes of dose assessment, every effort should be
maintained to keep these data as high quality as possible. We know
that there is great difficult in calculating dose assessments and,
therefore, every effort that can be maintained to minimize data error
would increase the credibility of the dose value when it is ultimately
obtained.
-------
62
Specific attention is being given by this regional project to
South Carolina which is at the present time planning or has planned
for the construction of a considerable number of nuclear facilities,
not just power plants, but fuel reprocessing plants and fuel fabrication
plants. As part of our responsibility within the Region, I plan to
provide them with as much assistance in the near future as I possibly
can. We have recently held a Data Radiation Data Management Symposium
in Mobile, specifically for the Region States. One of the primary
purposes was the interaction of the activities of these States within
the areas of data management.
A good example of this interaction was Florida's need for a Least
Squares Gamma Spectrum Analysis Computation Program last year. This
program is operational at the TVA Environmental Laboratory in Muscle
Shoals, and therefore, readily available for use by other environmental
programs.
Dr. Oppold's staff provided me with the program, and in turn I
made it available to Florida. The Florida Data Center staff discovered
that this program was not compatible with their present equipment
system and in turn gave permission through the administrative structure
of Florida for the Radiation Laboratory in Orlando to obtain the use
of a minicomputer for the calculation of this type of analysis.
The use of Least Squares Analysis should be considered by
everyone in the environmental field. It has several additional
advantages over other techniques, one of which is that it enables
you to compute confidence limits on your reported value. This is a
-------
63
tremendous help since the promulgation of the errors involved in
determining these limits in the case of a multinuclide analysis can
be very complicated.
The National Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program's
acquisition of data for the purpose of dose assessment calculation
will be requesting data from both State and nuclear facilities programs.
Confidence limits on all data will be required to enable the determination
to be made that the quality of data is credible. The acquisition of
confidence limits is dependent upon the computation capability of each
State and each nuclear facility to provide these values and be able to
show that these are reliable. How can we approach the credibility of
dose assessment values if we do not start by accumulating the best
quality values when the individual environmental analysis is predefined.
We have to start with quality because we are going to find out that
the promulgation of errors is fantastic. I emphasize this because
the Office of Radiation Programs is interested in obtaining these
values, thereby enabling an estimate of confidence to be made on
dose values.
I am working primarily with the State programs at the present
time; however, I am sure nuclear facilities requesting assistance
from the regional radiation office relevant to data management and
EPA request for data would be provided consultation.
On a broader scope than just Region IV State radiological data
management, I recently conducted a survey of all the States in the
country attempting to obtain an inventory of the current ADP equipment
-------
64
which is available to the States. Also included was a brief cursory
look at their environmental program activities and also to their X-ray
data management. I inquired into the use of optical scanning equipment
in both the environmental and X-ray fields.
It might be interesting to note that one of the major problems
associated with getting intelligence from the field—in this case, we
are talking about environmental laboratory analysis data—is obtaining
data in a manageable form. In many States, this has become quite
a problem. Radiological health, I am sorry to say, in many States
is a very low priority program. You find that you are waiting for every
other program in the health department to receive service. This may
seem to be a very small problem, but when a man has to wait 3 or 4 weeks
just to get a stack of cards punched, it seriously delays his program.
In one State, they train their key punch operators on the radiation
data forms. Well, right there you begin to realize that radiation
does not have top billing. It is very important to be able to have
a system that will take radiation intelligence, quality intelligence,
and put it in a manageable form so that the agency can evaluate this
data in light of their own program objectives, to meet their own
responsibilities.
The collection of data for data sake is something which has been
done for years. If you ask a question relative to a particular piece
of data and you say "why have you collected it," the reply is usually,
"well, we have always collected it." This does not hold true anymore.
-------
65
You have got to clean the files, see what is worthwhile, and if it is
not, it should not be collected any longer. If it is worthwhile data,
you should be able to utilize it toward your program objectives.
As many of you are aware, these are hard times financially,
particularly at the State level, and great is the need to justify our
radiation program's expenditure of public funds. You cannot count
bodies in the environmental field, thank goodness. The only thing
you have got to turn to or draw from is the radiation data bank which
you have developed. This data bank has go to be clean, manageable,
and it has got to be of quality. What I am emphasizing is the need
to develop radiation management information systems to provide you
with this capability.
The Region IV Environmental Radiation Branch stands ready to
assist any radiation program in better management of its data. Please
let us know if we can assist you in responding to EPA's National
Monitoring Program requests or any other data application.
-------
66
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Roger M. Hogg
Senior Engineer
Proposal Engineering
Power Generation Division
Babcock & Wilcox
Introduction
Waste management is defined as the handling and control of wastes.
It is based on law, shaped by experience, and limited by cost. This
paper deals with waste management in a light-water reactor and describes
new equipment designed to further reduce the already low waste discharges
from a nuclear steam system (NSS),
The waste handling systems currently used with an NSS provide
controlled handling and disposal of radioactive liquid, gas, and solid
wastes. The equipment in these systems collects and discharges waste
liquid and gas under controlled conditions to meet the limits of
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20 (10 CFR 20). In fact,
these systems discharge only a small fraction of the amount allowed in
10 CFR 20. Operating experience in 1969 shows that out of 13 operating
plants, eight released less than 0.1% of the limit, three released
less than 1%, one released 3.6%, and one released 317,.
B&W now offers a waste retention system consisting of the
standard waste disposal system plus add-on components to further
reduce environmental discharges. The add-on components are designed
for maximum recycling of materials within the plant and for purification
-------
67
of waste gas. Solid wastes are concentrated in special drums, which
also serve as shipping containers. This arrangement reduces the number
of drums as well as the time required to package,solid wastes. Thus,
B&W's waste retention system will restrict NSS waste discharges to
"as low as practicable."
Discharge Limits
The U.S. Government's limits for radioactive waste discharges
are listed in 10 CFR 20. These values were previously set by the
Federal Radiation Council (FRC) until the newly formed Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) took this responsibility on December 2, 1970.
The basis for these limits is that the concentration of radionuclides
in air or water will not result in doses greater than one-tenth of the
occupational dose limit.
Liquid discharges for an NSS are set to maintain concentrations
below 10 CFR 20 values as measured at the point at which the liquid
stream leaves the plant's boundary and enters an unrestricted area.
Limits on gaseous releases are individually set for each plant on
the following basis: calculation of the release rate, which at the
point of highest radiation level averaged over a year, would result
in exposure to an individual equal to FRC radiation protection guide
limit of 500 mRem if the individual stood at the site boundary for
the entire year.
Sources,
Under normal operating conditions, the sources of radioactive
wastes are fission products and activated corrosion products. Fission
-------
68
products in the reactor coolant result from uranium contamination on
fuel cladding surfaces and from fuel pin defects. The NSS is designed
to operate normally with up to 1% fuel defects. The corrosion of
NSS surfaces exposed to primary coolant causes some corrosion products
to be dispersed into the reactor coolant. These corrosion products
then pass through the reactor core and are irradiated to form activated
corrosion products. The portion that is not dissolved tends to settle
in low-flow areas and produce undesirable high-radiation areas.
Activated corrosion products that are dissolved in the coolant are
removed by purification demineralizers, and solids are removed by
purification filters. One reactor coolant volume is processed through
the demineralizers and filters daily. Further activity is removed
during normal feed and bleed operations which are performed to change
the concentration of boric acid in the primary coolant. One typical
plant operation that produces radioactive wastes is as follows:
Waste Generation from Chemical Shim and Maneuvering--Power level
changes produce xenon transients which are then compensated by changing
the concentration of boric acid in the reactor coolant. This change
is accomplished by diluting (deborating) or concentrating (borating)
the reactor coolant. As the concentration of boric acid is decreased
during core life to compensate for fuel depletion, the amount of water
that the makeup and purification system must process increases because
the change in boric acid concentration for a given transient is constant.
The makeup and purification process water requirements also increase
-------
69
as the magnitude of power level changes increases. Both of these points
are illustrated in Figure 1.
Borated reactor coolant letdown to the makeup and purification
system results in liquid, solid, and gas waste. Boric acid is
separated from the reactor coolant by evaporation or ion exchange.
Either process produces solid wastes. As the borated reactor coolant
is depressurized, waste gas is released from solution. This gas must
then be processed for ultimate disposal. Thus, the total quantity
of process waste over one fuel cycle is a function of the number of
power level changes. By reducing the magnitude and limiting the number
of changes late in life, waste generation can be minimized.
Operating Experience
Experience has shown that proper waste management and reasonable
safety precautions lead to low environmental discharges. Three boiling
water reactors (BWR) and five pressurized water reactors (PWR) have
been selected to illustrate this point (Table 1).
The PWRs using boric acid fin the reactor coolant have higher
environmental discharges of tritium than do comparable BWRs. Table 2
compares BWR-PWR tritium discharges. At present there are no economical
tritium separation methods.
BWRs do not have a secondary system between the reactor and the
turbine as PWRs do. Without this secondary system, radioactive gases
dissolved in the primary coolant are continuously discharged from the
condenser air ejectors to the environment via the gaseous waste
system. Consequently, gaseous releases from BWRs are much larger
-------
70
V)
c
o
(U
o>
ro
o
o
>
120
100
80
60
40
20
100-0-100%
Transient
100-50-100%
Transient
100-85-100%
Transient
800
600 400
Boron, ppm
200
0
Figure 1. Chemical Shim Volume and Flow Requirements for
Power Transients over One Fuel Cycle - 1000 MWe Plant.
-------
71
TABLE 1
GENERAL INFORMATION FOR COMPARISON FACILITIES
Facility
FWRs
Ship p ing -
port
Yankee
Indian
Point-1
San Onofre
Connecticut
Yankee
BWRs
Dresden-1
Big Rock
Point
Humboldt
Bay
Power
Level
Net, MWe
90
175
265
430
573
200
71
68
Stack
Exhaust
Rate, cfm
9,000
15,000
280,000
40,000
70,000
45,000
30,000
12,000
Condenser
Water for
Dilution
Flow Rate, gpm
114,000
138,000
300,000
350,000
372,000
166,000
50,000
100,000
-------
72
TABLE 2.
1968-1969 AVERAGE TRITIUM DISCHARGE IN LIQUID WASTES
Reactor
Pressurized Water
Shippingport
Yankee
Indian Point -1
San Onofre
Connecticut Yankee
Curies
Reactors
30.13
1456.00
577.25
2925.00
2387.00
% of Limit
0.005
0.145
0.057
0.155
0.160
Boiling Water Reactors
Dresden-1 4.45 0.002
Big Rock Point 31.00 0.011
Humboldt Bay 86.50 0.001
-------
73
than releases from PWRs. Gaseous discharges from operating plants
are given in Table 3.
Based on these data, liquid waste discharges do not seem to be
related to the type of reactor or the power level. The amount of
liquid waste generated depends largely on the integrity of the fuel
cladding and the corrosion of the reactor coolant system's surfaces.
Table 4 lists liquid waste discharges for the two types of plants.
Off-Site Disposal
The AEG has the regulatory responsibility for controlling,
handling, and disposing of radioactive waste material. A land burial
site may be established only on land owned by the government (federal
or state). The AEC also has authority to enter into agreements with
individual states to transfer its regulatory responsibility for the
disposal of radioactive wastes within a state. The AEC has entered
into 22 such agreements. Two commercial radioactive waste disposal
companies are in operation in the United States; their five commercial
burial sites are shown in Figure 2 .
The cost of waste management is increasing because of the
increasing number of nuclear plants and the more stringent disposal
requirements. The cost for NSS waste burial is about $l/cu ft except
for resin, which is about $50/cu ft. Figure 3 shows the cumulative
quantities of NSS waste buried since 1962. It is estimated that the
annual volume will reach 6 million cubic feet by 1980,
-------
TABLE 3. ANNUAL GASEOUS WASTE DISCHARGED
Reactor
Shippingport
Yankee
Indian Point-1
San Onofre
Connecticut Yankee
Dresden-1
Big Rock Point
Humboldt Bay
Curies
Pressurized Water Reactors
0.058
4.57
109.40
89.60
64.58
Boiling Water Reactors
395,266
191,826
389,241
% of Limit
0.143
0.068
0.003
0.016
0.340
1.16
1.11
24.60
TABLE 4. ANNUAL LIQUID WASTE DISCHARGED, GROSS LESS TRITIUM
Reactor
Shippingport
Yankee
Indian Point-1
San Onofre
Connecticut Yankee
Dresden-1
Big Rock Point
Humboldt Bay
Curies
Pressurized Water Reactors
0.158
0.019
21.74
3.31
5.37
Boiling Water Reactors
5.22
5.75
1.84
% of Limit
0.70
0.047
17.50
5.60
2.25
15.10
31.60
1.04
-------
Nuclear Engineering Co
Richland, Washington
Beatty, Nevada
Sheffield, Illinois
Morehead, Kentucky
Nuclear Fuel Services
West Valley, N.Y.
Figure 2. Commercial Waste Burial Sites.
-------
76
3
O
4.0
rH 3.0
rH
O
>
-H
E
O
1.0
1962
1966
1970
Figure 3. NSS Waste Burial Quantities.
-------
77
The Atomic Energy Commission is studying methods for the disposal
of gaseous krypton-85. One proposal suggests storage in pressurized
gas cylinders located in salt mines. This method is estimated to cost
about $2000 per fuel cycle for a 1000-MWe plant. This is burial cost
only and does not include the cost of separating krypton from other
waste gases.
Tritium-water separation equipment has not been developed for use
in the nuclear industry, but it may be on the market soon. Such
equipment will probably be a multistage device similar to that used
to separate heavy water from ordinary water. The current cost of heavy
water is about $425 per gallon. Although no cost figure for tritium-
water separation is given here, it is obvious that the cost will be
extremely high.
Additional restrictions will further increase the cost of NSS
waste systems. For example, if we had to eliminate the NSS containment
purge during refueling, a new generation of equipment would be required.
TMJ Waste Retention System
This system comprises the standard waste disposal system plus
add-on components designed to restrict environmental discharges to
"as low as practicable." The equipment is designed to process wastes
due to plant operation with 178 failed fuel.
Solid Waste--
Solid wastes accumulate from spent resins, evaporator bottoms,
plastic bags, paper, etc. A conventional waste compactor is used to
-------
78
drum low-activity waste such as plastic, paper, and the like. The
unique drumming device shown in Figure 4. is used to process spent
resins and evaporator bottoms. After being automatically loaded into
drums containing an internal filter, the waste is filtered by gravity.
The drums are automatically refilled, as water passes through them,
until the filter contains a cakelike mass of solid waste. The top of
the drum is then sealed, and the package is ready for shipping. Thus,
the drum serves as a collection tank and as a shipping container, and
handling and shipping operations are minimized.
The drumming station operates automatically and utilizes a
series of drums that are classified according to the radioactivity
level of the contents. The probability of spillage occurring during
loading is not nearly so great as with the cement-vermiculate technique.
Portable shielding around the drums further protects operating personnel
from exposure.
Liquid Waste--
Liquid wastes are collected from operations such as coolant
sampling, sluicing and regeneration of resins, backflushing filters,
primary coolant leakage, and equipment decontamination. To lower its
activity, liquid waste is collected and processed through standard
filters, evaporators, and demineralizers. The resultant water is
recycled for reuse.
Gaseous Waste—
Figure 5 gives a block diagram of the gaseous waste tanks. Gaseous
wastes are collected in two separate vent headers—one nitrogen rich
-------
79
Fill
Vent
High Level
Probe
Drain
Figure 4. Solid Waste Drum which Serves as a
Collection Container and Shipping Container.
-------
80
N2 COVER
GAS
RECLAIMED
WATER
SURGE TANK
H2 VENT GAS
COMPRESSED
STORAGE
H2 REMOVAL
Xe Kr
REMOVAL
RECOMBINER
DECAY
ABSORBER
Xe Kr BOTTLE
STORAGE
Figure 5. Waste Retention System - Gas
-------
81
and the other hydrogen rich. The nitrogen vent header collects cover
gas from the liquid storage tanks, and the gas is recycled as required.
Thus, the nitrogen-rich vent gas is recycled in a closed system to
minimize the generation of waste gas.
The hydrogen vent header collects hydrogen-rich waste gas from
depressurized reactor coolant. The header feeds into a compressor
and surge tank, where the hydrogen gas is temporarily stored. After
a sufficient quantity has been collected, the hydrogen gas is transferred
to a decay tank, which contains enough nitrogen to dilute the hydrogen
to about 3%. The decay tank is then valved to the hydrogen recombiner
and recycled to remove hydrogen. This equipment uses a catalyst to
chemically combine hydrogen and oxygen to form water, which is recycled
to liquid storage for plant use. This process is repeated until the
xenon-krypton concentration in the decay tank warrants processing with
the xenon-krypton absorber. The contents of the decay tank may be
allowed to decay further, or they may be promptly directed to the
xenon-krypton absorber shown in Figure 6. The absorber removes xenon
and krypton from the waste gas by contacting it counter-currently
with Refrigerant-12 in the absorber column. The xenon-krypton rich
Refrigerant-12 is then directed to a fractionating column, while the
xenon-krypton lean gas is returned to the decay tank. In the fraction-
ating column, the Refrigerant-12 is heated to drive off the xenon and
krypton for storage. The Refrigerant-12 is then returned to the absorber
column and the cycle is repeated.
-------
00
Recycle
Com- Absorber
pressor Column
L
N2 Feed
Xe Gas
Kr
Absorber Gas
Feed Cooler
Con trol
Volume
Pump
Stripper
Feed Gas
Heater
Stripper
Column
Absorber
Solvent
Feed Cooler
Solvent Storage
Tank
Figure 6. Xenon Krypton Absorber.
-------
83
The hydrogen vent header gas treatment equipment may be used to
process the nitrogen vent header gas.
Problem Isotopes
Of the many isotopes produced in a light-water reactor, only two
may be considered as problem isotopes: Both krypton-85 and tritium
have long half-lives and are difficult to separate from waste streams.
They create problems mainly in fuel reprocessing plants rather than in
power plants because both are fission products that largely remain
within the fuel.
Even without failed fuel, krypton-85 exists in the primary coolant.
This fission product is produced from "tramp uranium" left on the
surface of fuel pins during manufacture. The level of krypton-85
activity in the primary coolant from this source is about 0.003%
of the level expected with 1% failed fuel. One fuel pin is equivalent
to about 0.003% of the total number of fuel pins and would thus produce
about the same degree of primary coolant activity as the tramp uranium
would. Krypton-85 is separated from waste gas using the xenon-krypton
absorber and is then stored in gas cylinders. Less than one cylinder
of storage capacity is required per year if the xenon-krypton absorber
is used.
It has been estimated that the amount of krypton-85 in the
earth's atmosphere will reach the 10 CFR 20 limit of 3xlO~7 |uCi/cm3
by the year 2050 assuming the following:
1. Essentially all electricity (50 billion kWe) is produced
by nuclear power plants.
-------
8U
2. All the krypton-85 is released and diluted in only
one-fourth of the earth's total atmosphere.
This amount of krypton-85 would result in a dose of 7 tnRem to
the whole body, 500 mRem to the surface of the body, and 300 mRem
to the skin. The dose of 7 mRem may be compared to the whole body
dose limit of 500 mRem/year given in 10 CFR 20.
This information is presented neither to justify nor to disqualify
the need for krypton-85 separation equipment, but to provide a
"worst case" result. Note that more than 997, of the krypton-85 discharged
will be from fuel processing plants, while less than 17. will be from
nuclear power plants. The xenon-krypton absorber will be readily
adaptable to fuel processing plants as well as to nuclear power plants.
Tritium in the primary coolant is produced from ternary fission
and neutron irradiation of boron-10, lithium-6, and deuterium. The
major source of tritium in the reactor coolant of a PWR is boron-10
in the soluble poison, boric acid. Since tritium cannot be readily
separated from water, it tends to concentrate in the reactor coolant.
The concentration becomes a problem when the level of tritium in the
containment air (from water vapor) approaches the 10 CFR 20 limits;
tritium in the reactor coolant must then be diluted. Figure 7 shows
the increase of tritium in the containment building for various values
of fuel cladding leakage. Assuming a 1% leakage of tritium from fuel
cladding, the reactor coolant would have to be diluted once or twice
during the lifetime of the NSS.
-------
85
O
0
0
I
+»
ro
M
+j
c
0)
O
0
O
10'4
10-5
ID'6
10-8
40th cycle with
recycle bleed
40th cycle,
without recycles
bleed
0.1 1 10
Tritium Diffusing Through Cladding,
100
Figure 7. Tritium Concentration in Containment Air.
-------
86
We must then consider the possibility of increasing the risk
of exposure to the operating staff during refueling. Much work has
been done to assess the biological effects of tritium; the biological
concentration of tritium, the concentration of tritium in the protein-
building blocks of the DNA molecule, and the concentration of tritium
in the food chain have been studied. The results indicate that these
factors do not significantly increase the dose that might be expected
from a given concentration of tritium in the environment.
Assuming that refueling takes about 20 days and that the tritium
in the refueling water is at the maximum level, an operator could
expect to receive about 1% of the annual dose limit during refueling.
It has been estimated that the probable dose to the population
from tritium produced by nuclear reactors will be about 0.001 mRem/year
in the year 2000; the comparable dose produced from weapons testing will
be 0.1 mRem/year. These values may be compared with the current whole-
body dose limit of 500 mRem/year.
-------
87
PWR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SYSTEMS
FOR REDUCING RADIOACTIVE RELEASES
H. J. Von Hollen
Manager, Systems Engineering
PWR Systems Division
Nuclear Energy Systems
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Introduction
In practice, releases of radioactive products from nuclear power
plants to the environment have been carefully controlled and well below
plant design levels. This paper describes further system improvements
in the control of radioactive products in Pressurized Water Reactor
designs. These designs are based on the philosophy of concentration
and long-term storage, as opposed to dilution and release to the
environment. This advanced Pressurized Water Reactor design represents
an integrated systems approach to the control of reactor effluents
within the plant and the eventual processing of plant effluents. The
Pressurized Water Reactor is uniquely qualified to achieve a substantial
minimization of releases of radioactivity to the environment.
The fissioning process which provides the heat in nuclear reactors
also produces radioactive byproducts which are confined and controlled
to ensure the safety of plant personnel and the general public. From
the beginning of the nuclear power industry, great emphasis has been
placed on plant design features and plant operating procedures affecting
radioactive releases to the environment.
-------
88
Such releases are also the subject of federal regulations. The
basic philosophy governing radioactive releases is derived from national
and international guidelines set by the Federal Radiation Council, the
*
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and the
International Commission on Radiological Protection. Definitive
requirements are set by the Code of Federal Regulations of the United
States Atomic Energy Commission which establishes both the limits on
radioactive releases and the objective that every reasonable effort be
made to keep releases of radioactivity "as low as practicable."
It is the joint responsibility of the nuclear plant designer and the
plant operator to not only assure control of radioactive releases to
the environment to within permissible levels but to endeavor to maintain
actual releases significantly below such levels.
Reactor operating experience in the United States has been
outstanding. Actual releases to the environment from reactors have only
been a fraction of the permissible levels set by federal regulations,
The United States Public Health Service, for example, carried out
extensive long term studies of the environs of three power reactors,
including the Pressurized Water Reactor of the Yankee Atomic Power
Station at Rowe, Massachusetts. This report concludes that after
10 years of operation, no evidence can be found that operation of the
plant has increased the exposure of the surrounding population above
that received from natural sources. In fact, the entire industry has
an exceptional safety record. There have been no instances of a
-------
89
radiation casualty of any member of the public or any plant worker
due to operation of a commercial nuclear power plant. This record has
been established while producing billions of kilowatt-hours of
electricity and while accumulating over 75 reactor-years of commercial
operation. No other industry in history, beginning from scratch, has
chalked up such an impressive record.
qystem Concept
Industry has not stood on this record but has continued to monitor
reactor experience and to innovate improvements. Last year Westinghouse
announced the development of an improved system for reducing radioactive
releases from Pressurized Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants. This
system has variously been referred to as the "minimum release" plant,
the "essential zero release" plant and the "environmental assurance
system." But regardless of the name, the concept of the new system
represents a basic change to waste management philosophy applied to
nuclear power plants. Where here-to-fore all nuclear power plants, both
pressurized and boiling water reactors, handled liquid and gaseous
radioactive wastes on a dilution and dispersion basis, the new system
processes liquid and gaseous radioactive wastes on a concentration and
storage basis.
During normal operation of a Pressurized Water Reactor Plant with
this new system, there is essentially no intentional release of radio-
activity to the environment. With the new system, radioactive wastes
are concentrated into manageable quantities and retained within closed
lant systems for extended periods of time. The system has the potential
-------
90
for retention of radioactive liquids and gases within the plant over the
entire operating life of the plant.
The key features of the new design are a basic change in the
method of handling boric acid and changes to the waste liquid and waste
gas processing systems to achieve recycle of radioactive liquids and
gases within the plant. Boron concentration changes in the reactor
coolant are effected by using a new development called boron thermal
regeneration. Thermal regeneration refers to the use of ion exchange
resins to either retain or release borate ions as a function of tempera-
ture. Thermal regeneration ion exchangers in effect act as a sponge to
soak up or release borate ions.
The new Waste Gas System is designed to concentrate and store
radioactive gases. The system also includes a new feature which
maintains a significantly low level of dissolved gases in the Reactor
Coolant System than in previous designs. These functions are performed
by use of hydrogen as a carrier medium for the small quantities of
radioactive gases.
The Waste Liquid System is designed to process and recycle radio-
active liquids back into the plant systems. Since in previous designs
liquid wastes were to be ultimately diluted and discharged, they were
usually collectively gathered. Utilizing experience from operating
plants, liquid wastes are now collected on a strictly segregated basis
by radioactive and non-radioactive sources. In this manner, tritium
can be retained and stored within the plant on a long term basis.
-------
91
This waste management philosophy and the processes for handling
adioactive liquids and gases are tabulated in outline form on Table 1.
Thermal Regeneration
In the Pressurized Water Reactor, any activation products or fission
roducts, which may be released in the event of clad defects, are initially
retained within the Reactor Coolant System. Ionic and particulate
ctivities are removed in the Chemical and Volume Control System, which
cesses a S£de stream from the Reactor Coolant System by demineralization
and provides for the addition of hydrogen to the reactor coolant for
corrosion inhibition.
The reactivity of the core with long term burnup and load follow
riations is controlled by changing the boron concentration in the
Reactor Coolant System. Reactor coolant discharged ^rom the Reactor
Coolant and Chemical and Volume Control Systems is processed and
ecovered by the Boron Recycle System. This sub-system consists of holdup
ranks demineralizers, and an evaporator which separates and concentrates
the boric acid from the reactor coolant stream. The distillate and
oncentrates from the evaporator are reused in the Reactor Coolant
System to change the coolant boric acid concentration. The inter-
elationship of these systems is shown schematically on Figure 1.
A principle development in the new design is the incorporation
of boron thermal regeneration, wherein the boron changes in the reactor
oolant required by load follow operations are achieved by the use of
Ion exchangers.
-------
92
TABLE 1
WASTE MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY AND PROGRESS
Previous Design
New Design.
Radioactive Gases
During Normal
Operation
Containment Purge
for Refueling
Radioactive Liquids
Tritiated Liquids
Solids
Separated from coolant
by evaporation, heldup
for decay, diluted and
released to environment.
Diluted and released
to environment.
Intentional dilution
and release to
environment.
Waste ion exchange
resins, filters and
waste evaporator
concentrates shipped
offsite.
No intentional release
to environment.
Retained with systems.
Concentrated and long
term storage.
Same process but
activity less because
of lower coolant
activity.
Operating experience
demonstrates lower
tritium in coolant
with Zircaloy cores.
Segregated drains
and recycle. Long
term storage feasible.
Additional waste
resins from boron
thermal regeneration
shipped offsite.
This system is based on the fundamental property of ion exchange
resins that ionic capacity varies with temperature and that the process
is reversible. The system is capable of handling boron changes associated
with load follow cycles comparable to those previously accommodated
by large evaporators.
Figure 2 is a plot of boron concentration versus resin capacity
for the operating temperature range of the system, 50°F and 140°F. In
-------
93
PURIFICATION
DEMINERALIZERS
STEAM TO TURBINE
STEAM
GENERATORS
\
/
OR
^V
TO VW
HYDF
fs^i
(s^J
I
r^ s\ ^
£3-
REACTOR
COOLANT
SYSTEM
FEEDWATER
TO WASTE GAS SYSTTM
BORON THERMAL
REGENERATION
VOLUME
CONTROL
TANK
CHEMICAL AND
VOLUME CONTROL
SYSTEM
CHARGING PUMPS
TO WASTE GAS SYSTEM
HOLDUP ( ^.
TANKS
DEMINERALI2ED WATER
RECYCLE
EVAPORATOR
DEMINERALIZERS
BORON
RECYCLE
SYSTEM
CONCENTRATED BORIC ACID
Figure 1. PWR Schematic Flow Diagram,
-------
1
o
5
a
I-
UJ
O
u
o
oc
O
m
O
8
Figure 2. Thermal Regenera-
tion. Boron Concentration
versus Resin Capacity.
BORON STORED ON RESIN (LB/FT*)
the operation of these ion exchangers the resins are essentially
saturated with boron and the difference in capacity at these temperatures
provides the boron increment for control of the load follow transients.
With respect to the plant process systems, the boron thermal
regeneration equipment is provided as an in-line function within the
Chemical and Volume Control System processing train. When boron changes
are desired in the Reactor Coolant System, the letdown flow is routed
through the boron thermal regeneration equipment. During base load
operation, thermal regeneration is bypassed.
Figure 3 shows a process flow schematic of the boron thermal
regeneration equipment. This equipment consists of a series of three
heat exchangers to control the temperature of the letdown stream going
to the ion exchangers to either 140°F for the boron release cycle and
50°F for storage. A chiller unit is provided to cool the fluid to
50°F through one of the heat exchangers for the boron storage cycle.
Operation of the system is simple and straightforward.
-------
95
LETDOWN FLOW
FROM REACTOR
COOLANT SYSTEM
LETDOWN HX
PURIFICATION
DEMINERALIZERS
REACTOR
COOLANT
FILTER
TO
HOLDUP
TANKS
TO
GAS
HANDLING
CHILLER
MODERATING HX
VOLUME
CONTROL
TANK
RETURN
TO REACTOR
COOLANT SYSTEM
CHARGING
PUMP
LETDOWN CHILLER HX
LETDOWN REHEAT HX
THERMAL REGENERATION DEMINERALIZERS
Figure 3. Chemical and Volume Control System,
Boron Thermal Regeneration.
-------
96
As indicated on Table 1, thermal regeneration does increase the
amount of waste resins shipped offsite. For an 1100 MWe plant,
approximately 25 additional 55 gallon drums of waste resins will be
generated per fuel cycle.
What advantages have accrued from adoption of this system? First,
there is a substantial reduction in the amount of coolant which must
be processed by the Boron Recycle System. The Boron Recycle System,
fundamentally, only needs to process those liquids associated with
long term fuel depletion. The amount of liquid to be processed in the
Boron Recycle System has been reduced by a factor of 10 over previous
designs which utilized evaporators only. The resulting reduced
requirements on evaporator capacity and tankage is apparent.
Waste Gas System
The second major addition to the plant systems has been the
incorporation of an additional function to the Waste Gas System.
Since the fission product gases are retained within the Chemical and
Volume Control System, it is possible to provide for more efficient
and continuous removal of fission gases from the reactor coolant.
Fission product gases accumulate in the volume control tank. A
continuous purge of hydrogen into the tank results in transport of the
fission product gases from the tank to the Waste Gas System. This
system, shown schematically on Figure 4, consists of a recombiner,
compressors, and gas decay tanks provided to accumulate the fission
product gases. The hydrogen purge is used as a carrier gas and is
-------
97
FROM VOLUME CONTROL TANK
AND RECYCLE EVAPORATOR
GAS COMPRESSORS
(2 UNITS)
HYDROGEN
RECOMBINER
(2 UNITS)
T t
H20
SHUTDOWN
DECAY TANKS
(FOR SHUTDOWN
OPERATIONS)
^/
TO
VOLUME
CONTROL
TANK
GAS DECAY TANKS
(FOR NORMAL POWER
OPERATION)
Figure 4. Waste Gas System.
-------
98
removed by the recombiner within the Waste Gas System resulting in only
a small volume of fission product gases requiring storage. The gas decay
tanks are filled with nitrogen at essentially atmospheric pressure.
The nitrogen is circulated through the system and provides the diluent
for the hydrogen which is burned in the recombiner.
With operation of this system, it is possible to collect virtually
all of the Kr-85 released to the reactor coolant and to achieve a
reduction by a factor of approximateLy 7 in the fission product gas
inventory in the Reactor Coolant System. Provisions are made also to
collect any residual gases stripped out of solution by the Boron Recycle
System evaporators. This general reduction in reactor coolant activity
substantially reduces the effect of any leakage from the plant.
The system has been provided with sufficient tankage to accumulate
all the gases released to the reactor coolant with the very conservative
assumption that the plant operates with a 1 percent failed fuel level
throughout 40 years of plant operation. Rather than provide means for
shipping these gases offsite for disposal during the operation of the
plant, Westinghouse recommends that these gases be continuously stored
for the life of the plant since the volumetric quantity of gases is so
stna 11.
The bulk of the activity in the gas decay tanks is Xe-133 with a
decay half life of 5.3 days. The total gas inventory in the plant is
predominately Xe-133 during power operation of the plant with defective
fuel. If all the gases are stored for 40 years and it is assumed that
-------
99
the plant operated with defective fuel during every cycle, the amount
of Kr-85 present at the end of this time will be approximately equal
to the Xe-133 present during any fuel cycle with 1% fuel defects.
Therefore, the total gaseous activity if stored for 40 years will be
less than twice that present during any fuel cycle with 1% fuel defects.
The question is often raised as to whether storage of this gaseous
activity constitutes an additional hazard to the plant operator? The
answer to this question is negative on two counts. First, the amount
of activity stored with the new design is of the same order of magnitude
as with previous designs. Secondly, and more important, the amount of
activity within the reactor coolant and in the plant process systems
is appreciably less than with previous designs.
Liquid Waste System
With respect to the Liquid Waste System, the various plant
process streams and collection drains are segregated to maintain
separation of tritiated and highly radioactive fluids from non-tritiated
water. The process systems and equipment and building drains are designed
to insure that as much as possible of all tritiated liquids are recycled.
A general process diagram is shown on Figure 5 and indicates these
various process streams. The principle methods of removing any
activity present is still conventional evaporation, filtration and
ion exchanger.
The major impetus to this strict liquid segregation philosophy has
been the very high tritium retention experienced with Zircaloy cores.
-------
100
LAUNDRY &
HOT SHOWER
TANK
l
t
*
i
f
k
WASTE
MONITOR
TANK
RECYCLE
TO WASTE
HOLDUP TANK
OR WASTE
EVAPORATOR
TO DEMINERALIZER
CLEANUP & RETURN
FLOOR
DRAIN
TANK
a
F
i
i
1
r
WASTE
MONITOR
TANK
DISCHARGE
NON-TRITIATED EFFLUENT HANDLING
TRITIATED EFFLUENT HANDLING
AERATED
EQUIPMENT
DRAINS
TO DEMINERALIZER
CLEANUP & RETURN
TO
REACTOR
COOLANT
SYSTEM
DRUMMING
STATION
FILTER
RADIATION
MONITOR
Figure 5. Waste Liquid System.
-------
101
With lower quantities of tritium released to the reactor coolant, long
rm storage of tritiated liquids is feasible. The only discharges
om the Liquid Waste System are those liquids with very low activity
for which additional processing is impractical. These effluents are
diluted with plant condenser cooling water prior to discharge. Ultimate
d'sposal of the radioactivity collected in the waste evaporators,
pent resins and filters is drummed for shipping offsite.
r-^n elusions
The systems described have been developed as part of a continuing
gram to improve nuclear power plant operation based on operating
erience and the current emphasis on environmental considerations.
The new systems can significantly reduce already acceptable radioactive
leases to the environment from Pressurized Water Reactor Plants.
-------
102
REGULATORY EXPERIENCE AND PROJECTIONS
FOR FUTURE DESIGN CRITERIA
Carl C. Gamertsfelder
Assistant Director for Radiological Protection
Division of Radiological and Environmental Protection
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission
Recent Experience
Nuclear power reactors and their associated waste treatment systems
are designed so that actual emissions of radioactive materials in
aqueous and gaseous effluents are at small percentages of the limits
identified in 10 CFR Part 20 at the locations where these are released
to the unrestricted environment. Beyond these locations dilution in
the water bodies and the atmosphere occur so that persons located at
larger distances are exposed to levels very much lower than those
already low levels which exist at the plant boundaries. Recent
experience with these releases to the environment will be discussed.
LIQUID EFFLUENTS
A summary of the releases in liquid effluents for 13 operating
nuclear power plants for the calendar year 1969 are shown in Table 1.
The upper limits for concentrations in liquid effluents at the discharge
point are given in Appendix B of 10 CFR 20. The concentration limit
for any one nuclide must take into account the other radionuclides
that may be present. This of course requires that the concentrations
of each of the nuclides present be determined. The licensee has had
the option of foregoing these analyses if he uses a more restrictive
limit based on the assumption that all the unidentified radionuclides
-------
TABLE 1. RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVITY FROM POWER REACTORS IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS, 1969
Facility
DRESDEN 1
SAN ONOFRE
HUMBOLDT BAY
NINE MILE POINT
BIG ROCK
OYSTER CREEK
SAXTON
INDIAN POINT I
CONN. YANKEE
GINNA
LA CROSSE
YANKEE
PEACH BOTTOM
Mixed
Released
(Ci)
9.5
8
1.5
0.9
12
0.48
0.01
28
12
0.02
8.5
0.019
<0.001
Fission & Corrosion
Concentration
Limit I/
(10-7 uci/ml)
1
1
1
1
22
1
1
37
12
1
300
1
1
Products
Percent of
Limit 27
22
14
8.7
8.2
5.6
4.1
2.5
1.5
1.4
0.4
0.11
0.07
0.002
Released
(Ci)
~ 6
3500
<5
1
28
5
< 1
1100
5200
< 1
~25
1200
• 40
Tritium
Percent of MPC 3/
< 0.001
0.2
< 0.001
<0.001
0.01
0.001
0.008
0.07
0.24
<0.001
0.003
0.14
0.031
-------
104
FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 1
_!/ Facility licenses require that the release of radioactive liquids
in plant effluents be in accordance with 10 CFR Part 20, "Standards
for Protection Against Radiation." For mixtures of radionuclides
in the effluent, Part 20 provides two alternatives for determining
permissible concentration limits. If the identity and concentration
of each nuclide is known, Appendix B, Note 1, prescribes a formula
for calculating the limiting value. Note 3 prescribes a method for
selecting one of a series of values if it can be shown that certain
radionuclides are not present in the mixture. The values calculated
or selected by licensees may vary from year to year.
One of the limits specifically mentioned in Note 3.c. of Part 20 is
1 x 10-7 ^Ci/ml, which is sufficiently restrictive that it can be
used for any mixture of fission and corrosion products in water from
any nuclear power reactor without any identification of the radioiso-
topic composition of the mixture. Typical isotopic compositions of
radioactivity in water from power reactors are such that limits higher
by two orders of magnitude or more are expected to be available to
the licensee if he wishes to support them with adequate radioisotopic
analyses. The percent of limit given in this column generally repre-
sents upper bounds to the value that would be applicable on the basis
of a complete analysis of the composition.
.37 The maximum permissible concentration of tritium in water is 3 x 10"3
1
-------
105
in the mixture have the same concentration limit as does the most
estrictive radionuclide which has not been determined to be absent
from the mixture. The limit of 10"7 [id/ml used by most licensees suits
this requirement. Typical radionuclide mixtures which have been identified
in power reactor effluents would have a gross activity limit for drinking
ater of perhaps a factor of 100 or more larger than the 10"7 |iCi/ml
alue. The new requirements for analysis of monitoring samples given in
the recent amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 will allow more realistic
stimates of potential offsite exposures from liquid effluents. Rough
ssessments of these exposures based on the relative quantities of
the following radionuclides (e.g., Cs-134, Cs-137, 1-131, 1-133, Sr-89,
-QO BaLa-140, Co-58, Co-60, Mn-54, Mn-56, and Cr-51) which have been
. ntified and their approximate reconcentration factors in salt and
h water organisms, indicate that an individual could eat 150 grams
f fish, shellfish and crustaceans each day and obtain his whole drinking
r supply (if fresh water is involved) without exceeding the exposure
its of 10 CFR 20 even if the gross concentration in the water was
EFFLUENTS
External exposure from gaseous releases is due almost entirely
isotopes of the noble gases of xenon and krypton. In deriving the
lease rate limits, "annual average site meteorology" based on site
, *.„ -i«3 determined and a total dilution factor is derived from the
data *-°
teorology, topography, stack air flow and elevation and site boundary
-------
106
distance. The limiting release rate is derived so that the annual
average exposure rate at the site boundary or at the point of maximum
ground level exposure offsite (whichever is more restrictive) is no
more than 500 millirems per year from external radiation. This means
that if the reactor were releasing radioactive gases at the limit, an
individual present outdoors on the site boundary or other point of
highest exposure rate offsite 24 hours a day, 365 days a year is not
likely to receive an external whole body exposure in excess of 500
millirems per year.
Nuclear power reactor waste treatment systems are designed to limit
releases of radioactivity in effluents to small percentages of AEC limits.
It is not expected that actual releases will approach the upper limits
during normal operations. A summary of the releases in gaseous effluents
for 1969 and their relationship to the release limits which are identified
in the manner just described are shown in Table 2. Eight of the plants
released less than 0.1 percent of the limit; three released 1 percent or
less; one released 3.6 percent; and one released 31 percent.
It is of interest to examine estimates of the annual average
radiation dose that the population living in the vicinity of nuclear
power plants receive from the emissions of noble gases identified in
the table.
Values of the dose from zero altitude releases of beta-emitting
isotopes typical of pressurized water reactors (PWR) and 100-meter
stack releases of gamma-emitting isotopes typical of boiling water
reactors (BWR) normalized for a dose rate limit of 500 millirems per
-------
TABLE 2. RELEASES OP RADIOACTIVITY FROM POWER REACTORS IN GASEOUS EFFLlffiNTS - 1969
Noble and Activation
Facility
DRESDEN 1
SAN ONOFRE
HUMBOLDT BAY
NINE MILE POINT
BIG ROCK
OYSTER CREEK
SAXTON
INDIAN POINT 1
CONN. YANKEE
GINNA
LA CROSSE
YANKEE
PEACH BOTTOM
Released
800,000
260
490,000
55
200,000
7,000
1
600
190
<1
480
4
72
Curies
Permissible I/
22,000,000
567,000
1,560,000
25,800,000
31,000,000
9,450,000
3,750
5,360,000
18,900
360,000
480,000
6,600
189,000
Gases
Percentage of
Permissible
3.6
0.045
31
< 0.001
0.65
0.075
0.035
0.01
1
<0.001
0.1
0.062
0.038
Halogens and Particulates
Released
0.26
< 0.0001
0.65
<0.001
0.2
0.003
< 0.0001
0.025
0.001
-------
108
FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 2
\l Where the technical specifications express a release limit in terms
~~ of a constant factor time the 10 CFR Part 20 concentration limits,
the MPC used is 3 x 10-8 |aCi/cc. This MFC is based on typical noble
mixture releases with less than two hours holdup. (For a holdup
longer than two hours the MPC is larger).
£/ Where the technical specifications do not state an annual limit for
the iodines and particulates, values of 1 x 10"10 |j.Ci/cc and 3 x KT11
uCi/cc, respectively, were used. These MFC's are based on the most
restrictive isotopes normally found—1-131 and Sr-90. The annual
limit was reduced by a factor of 700 to account for reconcentration.
-------
109
ear at a site boundary distance of 500 meters (.31 miles) are shown
in Figure 1. The dose rates shown are for outdoors. Gamma dose rates
indoors would be less, perhaps by a factor of two, depending on the
shielding properties of the building. The dose rates become smaller
with increasing distance from the source. At a distance of 15 miles
the theoretical dose rates for the example are about 2.5 millirems
per year for a BWR and about 1 millirem per year for a PWR. At distances
beyond 30 miles and 20 miles, respectively, the dose rates are less than
1 millirem per year.
The estimated average annual doses to the populations living in
the vicinity of these power plants are functions of the population
distribution with respect to the wind direction frequency distributions
nd the distance from the emitting point from the site boundary where
the controlling dose rate of 500 millirems per year exists (dose rates
t other locations on the site boundary would be equal to or less than
500 millirems per year). Using realistic population distributions and
wind frequencies for the 13 different power reactor sites along with an
verage mix of meteorological conditions, the average annual dose rate
t the site boundary and for the whole population included within circles
ith radii of 4 and 50 miles of these plants have been calculated and are
shown in Table 3 for the emissions identified in Table 2.
The average exposures to the total population living within a
adius of 4 miles of these plants were about 1 millirem and for those
ithin 50 miles the average is about one-one hundredth (0.01) of 1
millirem.
-------
110
id1
10
E
01
u
Ul
u
t/>
o
a
10
10'
-i
10
10
2 3457
10
I 3457
10
2 3457
10
Ti j i ii r TITT
-BWR WITH 100 m STACK
(PRIMARILY '-y EMITTERS)
10J
PWR WITH NO STACK
(PRIMARILY REMITTERS)
10
10
c-1 * 3
7 10°
4 5 7
jo"'
DISTANCE (miles)
Figure 1. Dose Rates as a Function of Distance
for a BWR and a PWR Normalized to give
500 mrem/year at 0.31 Mile.
-------
TABLE 3. CALCULATED ANNUAL RADIATION EXPOSURES TO UNSHIELDED INDIVIDUALS AND
POPULATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF WJCLEAR POWER PLANTS
BASED ON GASEOUS EMISSIO. "TR 1969
Reactor
Site
DRESDEN
HUMBOLDT BAY
NINE MILE PT.
BIG ROCK
OYSTER CREEK
SAN ONOFRE
SAXTON
INDIAN PT.
CONN YANKEE
GINNA
LA CROSSE
YANKEE ROWE
PEACH BOTTOM
ALL (Total or
Type
BWR
BWR
BWR
BWR
BWR
PWR
PWR
PWR
PWR
PWR
PWR
PWR
HTGR
average)
Max. at
Boundary
Db
(mrem)
18
155
.005
3.25
.375
.23
.030
.055
5
.005
.5
.11
.19
14.1
Within Circle of
4-Mile Radius
p
(units)
2,577
18,940
1,310
1,430
3,619
5,470
3,774
38,740
5,062
5,001
934
1,180
3,343
88,380
D
(man rem)
11
68.5
.001
.570
.082
.047
.015
.130
1.150
.0011
.042
.0217
.048
81.61
^
(mrenu
4.26
3.69
.0008
.4
.023
.0095
.0041
.0035
.227
.00022
.045
.0184
.0143
.924
P50
(thousands)
5,715
101
533
100
1,158
2,696
837
13,324
2,682
953
328
1,209
4,405
33,841
ALL except Humboldt Bay
(Total or
average)
2.33
69,440
13.11
.189
33,740
Within Circle of
50-Mile Radius
050
(man rem)
360
107
.012
3.64
.606
1.02
.05
1.94
15.56
.0077
.301
.70
1.79
492.6
385.6
DSO
(mrem)
.063
1.06
. 000023
.036
.00052
. 00037
. 00006
.000145
.0058
. 000008
.00092
. 00059
.00041
.0145
.0115
-------
112
RADIOIODINE AND PARTICULATE AIR RELEASES
To control exposures from airborne radioactive materials that may
enter terrestrial food chains, the calculations of stack release limits
for halogens (primarily radioiodines), and particulates with a half-life
greater than 8 days include a reduction factor of 700 applied to Part 20
air concentrations. These materials are released in such small amounts
that they contribute very little to external exposure or to exposure by
inhalation of the materials in the air. Although this factor of 700 was
derived for iodine-131 in milk, it is applied as a measure of conservatism
to all radionuclides in particulate form with a half-life greater the
8 days. The release rate for iodine-131 is sufficiently conservative
that an individual could receive his entire milk supply from cows
grazing near the point of highest iodine deposition. The radiation
exposure to the thyroid of such an individual would be less than
1.5 rems per year. Experience has shown that actual releases of
iodine from power reactors have been less than a few percent of limits.
Environmental monitoring programs around power reactors have shown no
measurable exposures to the public from iodine-131 or particulates.
Pro lections for the Near Future
Dr. Beck has discussed the recent changes to 10 CFR Parts 20 and
50 which incorporate the requirement that exposures be kept as low as
practicable and identified design objectives for equipment to be
installed to maintain control over gaseous and liquid effluents. The
changes also incorporated operating, monitoring and reporting require-
ments. The Statement of Considerations which accompanied the amendments
-------
113
as published in the Federal Register noted that a substantial number of
comments were received following the initial publication which suggested
that the AEC develop more definitive criteria for keeping releases as
low as practicable and indicated that discussions with the nuclear power
industry and other competent groups would be initiated to achieve this
goal.
During the month of January 1971, members of the Commission's staff
held discussions with representatives of six reactor suppliers, conser-
vation and environmental organizations, architect-engineers and consultants,
and nuclear power utilities. During February, there were meetings with
officials of State health organizations. These meetings were generally
structured around a list of questions prepared in advance and sent to
the attendees.
The discussions brought out that, while not unanimous, a large
majority of those attending favored some more definitive criteria and
that the criteria should be based on some kind of performance require-
ment and not on a requirement for specific kinds of equipment. The
opinions were more divergent in discussing the form that the performance
requirement should take. Some favored release quantities and concentrations
at the release point and others preferred limitations based on doses to
individuals and groups of individuals located offsite, while a subjective
majority of others preferred that the specification be identified as
quantities and concentrations but that they be based on the site
dependent variables such as meteorology, boundary distances, and
-------
dilution in water streams. It was noted that some present leakage
paths currently not routinely monitored which now amount to a few tenths
of a percent of the total release could become relatively more important
if the main release streams are substantially reduced. It was also
brought out that systems which require in-plant storage of waste may
increase the in-plant exposures so that the desired minimization of total
population exposure may have some built in limitations.
At the present time the Commission staff is considering numerical
guidance as more definitive criteria and it is to be expected that at
some not too distant date these will be presented for comment by the
industry and the public either as guides or as new amendments to
10 CFR Part 50.
Projections for the More Distant Future
The Commission expects to continue to evaluate the releases of
radioactive materials by the nuclear power industry and as an aid in
this evaluation, the Commission through the Division of Reactor
Development and Technology is supporting a study by WADCO at Richland,
Washington, to develop a computer model which will enable the AEC to
estimate potential dose commitments to individuals and population
groups caused by radioactivity additions to the environment from nuclear
power reactors and fuel reprocessing plants. This computer program
is being applied initially to the upper Mississippi River Basin for the
nuclear facilities which may be in that region by the year 2000. The
model is sufficiently flexible so that the effect of changing input
-------
115
parameters such as radionuclide release rates, site locations and
numbers of facilities can be studied.
The program includes models for the transport of radionuclides
through air and water routes, living pattern models, exposure pathways
and dose calculation. At the present time the individual models have
all been operated and some modifications are being made to make the
models compatible with the computers available to the AEC. Tests are
being run to determine the sensitivity of the program to the input
data so that the unimportant provisions may be modified or eliminated
to simplify the overall program.
It is expected that the program can be extended to other areas
of the country by the addition of special features to cover bays,
estuaries, large lakes, and sea coast areas.
-------
116
WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR NUCLEAR POWER
Ernest B. Trammel, Director
Division of Industrial Participation
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Tonight I am going to show a series of slides on the nuclear
industry. I have taken out all the slides on how good nuclear energy is
for the environment, because we have experts here who will tell you that,
I am sure. I am going to tell you what the future looks like for power
in general and a little bit about the nuclear industry that is in
existence today.
The AEC has had a very significant role in bringing the nuclear
industry into being. In addition to its primary function of developing
and producing nuclear weapons, Congress gave it responsibility for develop-
ing peaceful uses within the framework of our free enterprise system
(Figure 1). One of my jobs has been to help get this into private
industry in this country.
I also thought we ought to take just a brief look at how the
Commission is made up. It is made up of five Commissioners, appointed
by the President, who direct the two principal activities of the
Commission.
The first is under a General Manager who runs our research and
development activities and our weapons program. The second is under
a Director of Regulation who has responsibility for licensing the
commercial (or peaceful) uses of atomic energy (Figure 2). This has
been one of the areas in which the AEC has been criticized, because we
-------
ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954
SECTION t. DECLARATION - ... .IT IS ....
THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES THAT -
. . . .SUBJECT AT ALL TIMES TO THE PARAMOUNT
OBJECTIVE OF MAKING THE MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION
TO THE COMMON DEFENSE AND SECURITY
THE DEVELOPMENT, USE. AND CONTROL OF ATOMIC
ENERGY SHALL BE DIRECTED SO AS TO PROMOTE
WORLD PEACE, IMPROVE THE GENERAL WELFARE,
INCREASE THE STANDARD OF LIVING, AND STRENGTHEN
FREE COMPETITION IN PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.
AEC OPERATING BUDGET
FISCAL YEAR 1971
RAW MATERIALS
SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS
WEAPONS
REACTOR DEVELOPMENT
Civilian Power
Naval Reactors
Space
$142
132
76
82
Safety 4 Other
PHYSICAL RESEARCH
BIOLOGY 4 MEDICINE
ISOTOPES DEVELOPMENT
EXPLOSIVES (PLOWSHARE)
OTHER (INCLUDING ADMINISTRATION)
1
I
I
I
I
Millions
18
349
842
432
it UNITED STATES *
ATONUC ENERGY COMMISSION
1 —
I
GENERAL
MANAGER
FIVE COMMISSIONERS
— ASSISTANT
GENEIAl MANAGERS
OPERATIONS
ADMINISTRATION
MILITARY APPLICATION
PLANS and PRODUCTION
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT
W^
t
1
I
DIRECTOR of
REGULATION
1
1
— CONTROLIES «-l
1
_ PUBLIC
-------
118
are accused of both developing nuclear applications and licensing them
under the same Commission.
Referring to our budget (Figures 3 and 4), you will note that
almost half our funds are being spent for peaceful uses. You can see
from the slides that defense gets a big portion of the budget, but that
the amount devoted to peaceful uses such as biology and medicine,
isotopes, peaceful explosives, and reactors has been increasing over
the past several years.
I am going to devote most of my talk today to nuclear power for
civilian purposes, because this is the area of peaceful uses of atomic
energy that is receiving the most attention. But before I do, I want
to talk a little bit about why we need nuclear power and, of course,
it goes back to the basic need of man for energy.
Figure 5 shows how each of us are asking for more and more.
Figure 6 is interesting because it shows what would happen to our
population if we decided to limit every woman in this country to two
children and we stopped all immigration. We would have the lower line
and our population would level out somewhere around the year 2040. You
can see that we have a built-in growth in our population, and we really
can't do too much to stop it for some time to come.
Figure 7 shows a projection for total energy use in the United States.
You can see how rapidly energy needs for electric generation are rising,
and you can imagine how rapidly it would continue to rise if we carried
this projection beyond the end of this century. I think it is also
interesting that with only 6 percent of the world's population, we
-------
Btu X10°
500
400
300
200
100
WNU CONSUMPTIOH
OF ENERGi (u.s.
\
MILLIONS
400
300
U.S.
POPULATION
ESTIMATES
HIGH ^ i
y
"
'7
275 in.ILl
in 2037
IMMIGRATION
200
185O
19OO
1950
2OOO I
100
1950
1970
2000
2020
2040
ESTIMATED
ENERGY
CONSUMPTION
RATE OF ENERGY USE-O/YR.
0.20
n
• -
0.05
D
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
•
I
I
GROWTH IN
THE U.S.
ELECTRICITY
POPULATION
1930
1950
_J
1970
L_
2000
-
-------
120
use 36 percent of all the electricity generated throughout the world.
Figure 8 compares growth rates for population, GNP, energy and
electricity, and you can see that demand for electricity is growing much
faster. This probably results, at least in part, from the unit price
of electricity remaining steady over the past 30 or 40 years, while the
price of other items has gone up. I would like to think that this stems
from the fine job that our American utilities have done, along with the
competitive system in our country.
Now, let's take a look at the projections through 1990. What kind
of fuel is going to supply this demand for electric energy? You will see
that as we get out to 1990, nuclear power is expected to be supplying
about half of the capacity in the country (Figure 9). Figure 10 shows
projected use of fossil fuels over the next 10 years in more detail.
Use of oil and gas is not expected to increase much more. But as we see
in the forecast, demand for coal will continue to rise.
What has happened to the United States is that orders for nuclear
power plants have increased pretty fast over the last 5 years (Figure 11).
We call this the surge to nuclear power. Actually, the Commission didn't
even anticipate that we would be moving into nuclear power plants this
fast. Back in 1965 we were starting to sell some nuclear plants, but
in 1966 and 1967 orders really picked up. In 1967 we hit a real peak of
31 plants in one year and that is what we call the real "surge to
nuclear power." Orders fell off in 1968 and in 1969, but then they picked
up again in 1970, and this year (1971) looks like a good year. Nine
-------
ELECTRVC GENERATING
IN T.Ht UNITED SIMfS
15
THOUSANDS OF Mw
40 r
XUCIEAR
[PUMPED STOIWE
\ 6iS TUIIIIE
[MIEIIAI COM
HYDRO
COAL OIL AND GAS
30
[HCOAl., OIL, GAS
ES] NUCLEAR
-
«l
10
1
7/////////////////////A
i
'
1
•
0 65 66 67 68 69
^
1 1 1
70 71
ORDERS
FOR
STEAM
SUPPLY
SYSTEMS
-I
SOUICf EEI
ELECTRIC
UTILITY
FOSSIL
FUEL USE
KEYSTONE
FORECAST
HUNDRED
MILLION
IONS
COAL
EQUIVALENT
COAL
GAS
1970
1975
1980
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS in THE UNITED STATES
The nuclear power plants included in this map are ones whose power is
being transmitted or is scheduled to be transmitted over utility electric
power grills and for which reactor suppliers have been selected
NUCLEAR PLANT CAPACITY
5.095.700
KING IUI.T 39.288.200
PIANNED nucTon gmcjKi 33.374.000
UCTOB nr oncm SJOOJOO
10TAI 86.157.MO
-------
122
plants have been contracted for by the utilities already, and we know
a good many more that will be ordered this year.
Now, as far as supplying these plants, one of the things we watch in
the Commission is what kind of industry we have created, and we try to
encourage a competitive situation. There are now four light water reactor
suppliers very actively competing and a fifth supplier is now entering
the market with a gas cooled reactor.
As of this year, we have granted about 16 operating licenses.
Twenty more are in process. And there are about 53 construction permits
in effect and about 23 more in process.
As for the number of plants operating, Figure 12 shows where they are
are and where additional units are under construction or on order.
Figure 13 shows the most recent projection of nuclear capacity
expected to be in operation in the United States. This shows about
150,000 megawatts of capacity by the end of calander year 1980 and
300,000 MW by the end of 1985.
We are optimistic that there will be more than sufficient orders
placed by electric utilities to meet this projection.
There is a great deal of concern, however, on bringing these plants
into operation on schedule. There have been delays. But people are now
learning how to build nuclear plants and are allowing more time for the
construction activity. The only reason that I see for not meeting this
projection would be because of licensing delays due to holdups that
fossil plants are not exposed to. Utilities can still build fossil
plants and not have public hearings.
-------
123
Now, actually I am kind of proud of the United States and again, I
like to think it is because of the free enterprise system. We have left
the rest of the world behind on nuclear power plants for capacity. This
is shown a little better on Figure 14. Actually the British like to tell
e that they are generating a lot more nuclear kilowatts than us. But
vou will see that our country will soon leave Uie rest of the world
behind on nuclear generation.
Figure 15 shows what the possible break-even point could be for
nuclear power in comparison with fossil fuels. This is for plants that
would come into operation in 1975. If these figures are correct, and
believe they are, it is more economical by far to build a nuclear
lant. Also, with the necessity of burning low-sulphur fuels, we are
finding all around the country that the cost of fossil fuel is going up
very rapidly. In fact to a point where we think that utilities will be
buying nothing but nuclear plants for base-load operation before long.
So the outlook is very promising right now for nuclear power plants.
Looking to the future, we have reactors of advanced design—the gas-cooled
reactor--and, beyond that, the liquid metal cooled fast breeder reactor
(LMFBR) which now has the highest priority in the Commission's research
d development program. The LMFBR, since it generates more fuel than
burns will greatly reduce our requirements for uranium.
Figure 16 shows what the breeder reactor means to fuel. The imp or-
nt thing here is the effect introduction of the breeder has on the
mount of uranium required many years in the future. That is why we
onsider it so important to develop a commercial breeder reactor.
-------
NUCLEAR ELECTRIC GENERATING CAPACITY
MILLION KILOWATTS
estimated growth of -
NUCLEAR ELECTRIC POWER
COMMUNIST
COUNTRIES
u,. » iv— J«o«
OPUATtNG
CONSTRUCTION,]
OR M.ANNEO
1*70 71 71 73 74 75 76 77 71 79 10 II l> 13 14 •}
CALENDAR V-AR (END) MUCH 1971
ELECTRIC POWER-
COST COMPARISONS
FUEL
GAS
OIL
COAL
AVG. PLANT
PLANT SIZE COST
Mwe
$/KW
600
600
1,000
NUCLEAR 1,100
95-120
140-180
180-210
230-260
BREAK EVEN
FUEL COST
^/MILLION BTU
45-50
30-40
25-35
16
OCTOBfl 1970
16) EFFECT OF LHFBR INTRODUCTION ON URANIUM COMMITMENTS
2.5 U
V
2.0
I §
'»)5/lb or III!
oddi)iona|
uranium r«(»rv«s
$10/lb or l«i>
70
19«0
2010 aizu
:
-------
125
There are three companies working on it now. At this time the AEC and
the Edison Electric Institute have been working to raise money to build
the first demonstration plant.
Looking even further into the future we see the possibility of
demonstrating a fusion power reactor toward the end of this century with
a commercial plant following early in the next century. Figure 17
illustrates the rapidity with which we are using up our economically
recoverable energy sources, and points up the importance of fusioti
power to our future well-being.
Now, I want to show you why American industry is so interested in
nuclear power: the dollars that are involved get quite large. Figure 18
shows projected expenditures for nuclear electric power plants out to
1985 where the annual figure is $10.6 billion. The nuclear steam
supply systems alone for these plants are shown in Figure 19 which
indicates 1985 expenditures at close to ;one and one-half billion dollars.
Figures 20 and 21 show projected expenditures for fuel for nuclear
power plants and the distribution of these costs to the various parts of
the fuel cycle.
%
Summing this all up, cumulative expenditures through 1985 for plant
construction are projected at $100 billion and for the fuel cycle at
$23 billion (Figure 22).
The next few charts provide some insight on the nuclear fuel cycle
and the industries involved. The first area is uranium, and Figure 23
•
shows projected requirements over the next ten years in comparison with
past deliveries. Uranium concentrate as it comes from the mills has to
-------
ENERGY RESERVES
AVAILABLE FOR ECONOMIC PRODUCTION
_ OF ELECTRIC POWER
GAS and OIL 30 YEARS
COAL 80 YEARS
URANIUM & THORIUM
• IN WATER REACTORS 40 YEARS
• IN BREEDER REACTORS ... 1,000 YEARS
TRITIUM
• IN FUSION REACTORS MILLIONS
of YEARS
• Mill [1MIIIII1IS
MUCLUR S1UH SUPPLY SYSTEM
I
mm eifitu urmntifs
MUCLEII ELECTRIC POWEB
IlllUlil lMl|
'6 77 78 79
CALENDAR YEAR (ENOI
3
1970 71 72 73 ;j 75 ,6
-------
NUCLEAR ELECTRIC POWER
NUCLEAR ELECTRIC POWER
FUEL
CYCLE
COSTS
(MILLIONS)
1985
ENRICHING
Wfft
SI 200
ORE \
CONCENTRATE
FUEL
FABRICATION
: - y" jsoo
$100
REPROCESSING
J200
URANIUM
PROCUREMENT
BY THE
USAEC
J
ESTIMATED URANIUM
REQUIREMENTS FOR
ELECTRIC POWER
r
i
A
i
WORIO ——'
. (Non-Communist) ,
/
Jin
.'* ^UNITED STATES
80,000
70,000
60,000 o
z
in
-
50,000 £
40,000
30,000 s
-H
Ml
2 0.000 JJ
10,000
CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURES
THROUGH 1985
• PLANT CONSTRUCTION $100 BiLLION
• FUFI. CYC! P COSTS $23 BiLLION
TONS U
35,000
1954
70 70
75
1980
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
1965
CONVERSION U3 O8 TO UF6
REQUIREMENTS
FOR U.S. PLANTS
ALLIED CHEMICAL
•
-------
128
be converted to a gas, and Figure 24 shows the market for this conversion
step. You can see that we have more capacity here already than we really
need.
Now, the big question in Washington today in the nuclear business
is when are we going to transfer the last fuel cycle step remaining
in the Government to private industry, and that is the enrichment of
natural uranium in the uranium-235 isotope. This is all done now in
Government-owned enriching plants.
Figure 25 shows the requirements for enriching (or the separation
of uranium isotopes) and the capability that exists in the AEC plants.
At some time in the near future we are going to have to build new
enriching plants to meet our needs. We are expecting that the new
plants will be built, owned and operated by private industry. This will
mean an investment of $10 to $20 billion by private industry (including
power plants to supply the electricity required).
Figures 26 and 27 show requirements for fuel fabrication and fuel
reprocessing. We feel we have been pretty successful in creating a com-
petitive industry for these steps.
The final step in the fuel cycle is the disposal of radioactive
wastes. I mention this only because it fits into the subject of your
conference. The AEC has announced a policy of solidifying liquid waste
and storing it only at a federal repository. We don't view this as a
particularly difficult problem. The only comment I want to make here
is that, based on our estimates, we have more waste stored at Hanford,
Washington today from our weapons program than we will have from all
-------
MO
$ 700
160
Z
O
CUMUIMWE SIPMIMWE WORK
VERSUS
PRESENT PLANTS
WITH CIP CUP
\
\
PRESENT PUNTS
ASSUMtl
IBIGINNING
REDUCED NON US MARKM
(<,-; IN l«'^ TO 3S". IN '»• S'
IJkllS »SSAT
(0 3O'; IN l» 7? AND 7 1 IHfN
0 2S% HGINNING fT 7«l
NEW PLANT
DECISION DATES
\
1
I
I
POWER REACTOR
FUEL FABRICATION
STARTUP DATES
FOR NEW PLANT
REQUIREMENTS
76 "
FISCAL YEARS
-h
ANNUAL DOMESTIC REQUIREMENTS
CUMULATIVE TOTAL:
$3,200 MILLION
7UE~PROTESSING"CAPABLIT JS LOAD| }Q Ky EXCAVATION EXPLOSIVE
5,000
4,000
3.000
O 2.000
H
y
1,000
lOUl PRIVATE
CAPABIUIY
AEC LOAI
fORECAST':
M/^ Q
NUCLEAR
42 INCH-
DIA. HOLE
$350.000
1970 •-
D.SCMAIOI fO.ICAST O» .9*9 SUMIO UX MONTHS 1O tlNIUNI
fO« .IMOCIJS.MG
84 FEET
-------
130
nuclear power plant fuel projected for reprocessing through the
year 2000.
In addition to nuclear power, there are two other principal applica-
tions of nuclear energy to peaceful purposes: the use of nuclear
explosives in our Plowshare program and the many uses of radioisotopes.
The reason people are interested in nuclear explosives is the large
concentration of energy involved. Figure 28 indicates the advantages of
nuclear explosives where a large .detonation is needed.
One of the more interesting applications which has been receiving a
lot of attention is called project Gasbuggy. It has been estimated that
if this program is successful, our reserves of natural gas can be doubled
or even tripled (Figure 29).
I will only mention radioisotopes because they do not fall within
your subject tonight. They have literally thousands of uses--in medicine,
in industry, in agriculture, as irradiators of materials, and for the
generation of electric power in small unattended packages.
£40
~ 35-
u.
£ 30
UJ
*> 25
UJ *"'
i 20
1 15
UtEBKl AT THt tHD Of > 6IYEM TEAR
HATDIAL CM COMUMPTION DURING SAME YEAR '
V
v^
uma\
2*
' — s
'to RICOV
6.5 TRILL
^^^
j|^
IHABLI R
ON cueie
-**^<<
ISIRVES
ft It
**>*
GASBUGGY
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL
^-^ NATURAL GAS RESERVES
RECOVERABLE BY APPLICATION
OF NUCLEAR STIMULATION
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975
TECHNIQUES • 317 TRILLION
CUBIC FEET (U.S.B.M.,
-------
131
THE TERRESTRIAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAMS
AT DUKE POWER COMPANY'S OCONEE AND MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATIONS
Lionel Lewis
System Health Physicist
Duke Power Company
Tntrodaction
Wondering what the original title meant in my invitation to speak,
- decided to look up the word, terrestrial, in Webster's Dictionary.
One meaning of terrestrial is, "of, or relating to the earth or its
inhabitants"; another is "of, or relating to land as distinct from air
r water". This didn't help to resolve the question since I could not
separate the land from the air or the liquid waste from the earth's
inhabitants. I finally assumed that I was supposed to talk about
»nJtoring of the' gaseous rather than liquid waste in the land environ-
r<»nt at the Oconee Nuclear Station. However, I also want to talk about
the McGuire Nuclear Station which is still in the proposal state, as
well as the Oconee Nuclear Station which is currently under construction,
ince there are some significant aspects concerning the environmental
orograms for these stations that have developed over a period of a few
years.
The Oconee Nuclear Station is located in the western part of South
Carolina near Clemson. It is a multiple reactor station situated on a
over lake and consists of three 886 MWe PWR units. (Figure 1)
The McGuire Nuclear Station (Figure 2) will be located about 17 miles
ortheast of Charlotte, North Carolina. It is also to be a multiple unit
tation located on a power lake and will consist of two 1180 MWe PWR
-------
132
Figure 1. Architectural Drawing of Oconee Nuclear Power Station
Showing Lakeside Setting and Adjacent Hydroelectric Plant.
Figure 2. Model of Proposed McGuire Nuclear Power Station
Showing Lakeside Setting and Adjacent Hydroelectric Plant.
-------
133
Although both of these stations will normally release radioactivity
at a very small fraction of permissible limits, with McGuire considerably
less than Oconee (Table 1), die interest and concern these days about
nuclear power and the environment have caused us to devote considerable
attention to these programs. For example, in the McGuire PSAR we evaluated
all of the critical environmental exposure pathways to man in order to
estimate the maximum dose to an individual and to establish the sampling
requirements for the Environmental Radioactivity Monitoring Program.
The highest dose we obtained from this evaluation of exposure to liquid
and gaseous waste effluents was a total of 0.22 millirem to the highest
•ndividual. This is about one/2300th of the Radiation Protection Guide
for an individual and l/770th of the Radiation Protection Guide for a
suitable sample of the exposed population. An extensive study of an
arly boiling water type nuclear power reactor was made by the
U S. Public Health Service in 1968 using very sensitive instruments.
This reactor discharged more than 800,000 curies of radioactivity in
seous an(j liquid waste effluents in 1969 (compared with less than
927 curies total expected from McGuire). According to their report,
no radioactivity attributable to the station was found in samples
Of rainwater, soil, cabbage, grass, corn husks, milk, deer, rabbit,
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF GASEOUS WASTE RELEASES
Maximum Design Releases (1% failed fuel)
Oconee « 1Q6 curies per year (mpc « 107)
McGuire « ID** curies per year (mpc
Normal Operation at Boundry
Oconee - 0.01% mpc, total for 3 units, 159 curies
McGuire - 0.02% mpc, total for 2 units, 89 curies
-------
134
surface water, drinking water, or fish. However, they did state that
traces of radioactivity far below acceptable limits were found in three
other samples. The study concludes with the statement that, "on the
basis of these measurements exposure to the surrounding population
through consumption of food and water from radionuclides--was not measur-
able". For the McGuire Nuclear Station, it appears from the results of
our evaluations that although the total amount of radioactivity released
concentrations of activity and resulting doses that can be calculated, it is
doubtful that these concentrations of radioactivity, so far below limits,
can actually be measured beyond the Exclusion Area and differentiated from
i
the normally existing background radiation. However, the interest and
concerns these days about the extent of environmental monitoring programs
at individual nuclear power stations seems all out of proportion to the
amounts of radioactivity these modern plants will release. We shall,
nevertheless, conduct the program and attempt to measure these trace
amounts.
Environmental Monitoring Programs in General, and Terrestrial Monitoring
in Particular
An environmental monitoring program at a nuclear power station is an
organized effort to sample and measure radiation and radioactivity in
the vicinity of the station. This program is conducted for the purpose
of determining the contributions to the existing environmental radiation
and radioactivity levels that result from station operations. It is also
performed in order to evaluate the significance of this contribution;
particularly, as it effects the health and safety of the public, that is,
the radiation dose received by man.
-------
135
Monitoring programs are usually divided into preoperational and
operational phases on the assumption that preoperational levels may
provide a baseline to which operational levels can be compared. Such
comparisons are complicated by additional fallout from nuclear weapons
testing, seasonal and annual variations in residual fallout levels,
variations in natural background and discharges of radioactive materials
from other installations. However, preoperational monitoring does generally
document the existing radioactivity levels and their variability. Also,
the use of control locations well out of the influence of the plant can
serve as a means of comparison for evaluating the plant's contribution
to the environment during the operational phase. The outlines of the
monitoring programs for the Oconee and McGuire Nuclear Stations are shown
in Tables 2 and 3.
During the normal operation of a nuclear power plant, the only
contribution of radioactive materials to the terrestrial environment will
be due to the release of airborne radioactive wastes; that is, from
controlled releases of radioactive gases and particulates. There will
also be a very minor contribution to the radiation levels in the
immediate area beyond the site fence due to direct radiation from
operations conducted within the plant. The radioactive wastes released
from the plant will usually be diluted and dispersed in the environment
and will exist only in trace quantities beyond the Exclusion Area, in
concentrations that should be many orders of magnitude below the
permissible limits. The measurement of these extremely low levels
-------
136
TABLE 2. OUTLINE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY MONITORING PROGRAM
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION
Terrestrial
1. Airborne particulates,
rain, settled dust
2. Radiation dose and
dose rate
3. Vegetation (grass)
1. Animals
5. Milk
Aquatic
1. Water
lakes, streams, wells,
water supplies including
tritium
2. Lake bottom sediment
3. Vegetation, including
plankton
4. Fish
TABLE 3. OUTLINE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY MONITORING PROGRAM
McGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION
Terrestrial
1. Airborne particulates,
rain, settled dust
Aquatic
1. Water
lakes, wells, water supplies
including tritium
2. Radiation dose and dose rate 2. Lake bottom sediment
3. Vegetation and crops
corn, beans, others
4. Milk
3. Aquatic vegetation, plankton,
bottom organisms
H. Fish
-------
137
of radioactivity in environmental samples requires very sensitive
instruments, usually low background counters.
Since the plant's contribution to the terrestrial activity occurs
mainly as a result of radioactive airborne waste releases, it follows
that the most likely place where this activity should be found is in the
air beyond the plant where this radioactivity is transported by the wind.
Air particulate samples should be taken in prevailing wind directions,
particularly near centers of population. Since most of the radioactivity
discharged in the airborne waste effluent is gaseous activity, the
measurement of dose and dose rate is a necessary and an important sample,
Thermoluminescent dosimeters, (TLDs), are most effective for this purpose.
Samples of airborne particulates, rain and settled dust, and
radiation dose and dose rate, are considered as primary measurements. The
primary samples are of those things that may contribute a dose to man
directly. These primary measurements must be correlated with information
on plant radioactive waste releases, meteorological data, plant radio-
logical controls and the installed effluent, monitoring system instruments
within the plant. Secondary samples are of those things that may contri-
bute a dose to man indirectly. Samples of secondary importance on land
include vegetation and milk. Sampling of local crops and animals may also
be significant.
Some samples are collected continuously, others weekly, monthly,
quarterly, or semi-annually, depending on their significance as primary
\
or secondary samples. Airborne radioactivity (particulate and gaseous)
being considered as of primary importance is often collected or measured
continuously.
-------
138
Just as it is important to measure the radioactivity contribution
of the plant to the environment, it may be equally important to measure
the contribution to the environment not due to the operation of the
plant. For example, there may be legal or public relations value in
the fact that your environmental monitoring program has detected fallout
from a recent Chinese nuclear weapons test.
Criteria for the selection of various terrestrial samples at both the
Oconee and the McGuire Nuclear Stations were generally as follows:
TYPE SAMPLE OR
MEASUREMENT
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION
OF SAMPLING LOCATIONS
1. Airborne Parti-
culates
Comparison of on-site vs
off-site locations at
Rain and Settled Dust distances up to 10 miles
near towns and populated
areas; and in prevailing
wind directions and
control locations.
COLLECTION FREQUENCY
Monthly, sample
collected continu-
ously
2. Radiation Dose
and Dose Rate
Comparison of on-site vs
off-site locations near
towns and populated areas
at distances up to 10 miles
and in prevailing wind
directions; and control
locations.
3. Terrestrial Vege- Comparison of upwind
tation and Crops
4. Milk
and downwind directions
on-site, in nearby Low
Population Zone and in
control locations.
From nearby farms in
prevailing wind direct-
ions and from control
locations.
Dose: Quarterly
Integrated
total dupli-
cate samples at
each location
Dose Rate: Quarterly
Single Measurement
Quarterly
Crops (in season)
Quarterly
-------
139
5. Animals Within Exclusion Area, Quarterly
nearby Low Population
Zone and from control
locations in accordance
with recommendations of
State Wildlife Agency.
Since comparison with preoperation levels has its problems, to
aid in evaluating the effect of plant releases on the environment during
the operating period, the plant's contribution of activity will be
t
differentiated from existing environmental levels by comparing levels
found in similar samples collected at the same time in different
locations. This is done by collecting samples both within and beyond
the Exclusion Area, upstream and downstream, and upwind and downwind,
of the release point for the waste effluent from the station.
The analyses generally performed on environmental samples are:
1. Measurements of gross alpha and gross beta-gamma activity.
2. Identification of specific radionuclides (by use of gamma spectro-
metry or other means).
3. Measurement of specific radionuclides (such as iodine-131, strontium-90,
cesium-137, and tritium).
The sensitivity of these analyses and the size of the samples taken
at both Oconee and McGuire will permit absolute measurements of existing
preoperational and operational levels to be made even though they may be
far below permissible levels. Gross beta and gross alpha radioactivity
is counted with a low background gas-flow proportional counter having
nominal backgrounds of one count per minute for beta and 0.05 cpm for
alpha. Environmental samples, for practical reasons, are usually
-------
140
counted for a period of twenty minutes and results are expressed at
90% confidence level. Under these conditions, the minimum detectable
activity is approximately 3.6 pCi for beta and 2.4 pCi for alpha
radiation. The sensitivity of the radiation dose measurements (gross
gamma) is at least 10 mR for a three-month integrated dose and about
0.01 mR per hour for the dose rate measurements.
Sample Collection, Equipment, and Procedures
Rain and settled dust samples are collected in buckets that are
held approximately five feet above the ground by pole supports. The
samples are processed by filtering the entire sample and counting the
filter paper and by evaporating and counting an aliquot of the filtrate,
adding the results together after correction to final volume, and
expressing the results in nanocuries per meter squared. If at the end
of the one-month collection period, the rain water has evaporated,
distilled water is added to take up the settled dust and residual
activity in the bucket. Dose and dose rate measurements are made by
means of duplicate thermoluminescent dosimeters which are wrapped in a
protective covering of polyethylene and held in a small wooden box
three feet above ground. Dose rate can be determined by dividing by the
number of hours the TLD's were in the field. Dose rate measurements are
also made by means of a calibrated geiger or scintillation counter held
at three feet above ground level. Air particulate samples are collected
on a four-inch filter paper at a flow rate of approximately 2 cubic feet
per minute operating one hour "on" and three hours "off" over a period of
-------
141
one month. By means of this off/on sampling during the preoperational
monitoring period the samplers have been used for more than two years
without maintenance.
Additional Details About the Oconee Terrestrial Monitoring Program
The sampling stations were established in the Oconee environs at
the end of 1968, and a laboratory for the analysis and counting of the
samples was also established at that time. The laboratory equipment
includes a low background gas flow proportional counter for measuring
gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity and a 400 channel gamma
scintillation spectrometer (multi-channel analyzer). In addition, some
samples are sent to commercial laboratories for analysis of specific
radionuclides.
The full scale environmental sampling program was begun in
January 1969. Thus, at least two years of preoperational monitoring data
will be obtained prior to the operation of Unit 1.
The preoperational environmental radioactivity program for Oconee
has been discussed with the South Carolina State Board of Health,
Division of Radiological Health, and the South Carolina Pollution Control
Authority. The U.S. Government Fish and Wildlife Service has also been
advised of the program through their district office in Atlanta, Georgia.
In addition, the program was discussed with the South Carolina Wildlife
Resources Department. This latter department is cooperating with Duke
< .
Power Company in regard to the collection of fish and animal samples.
They have made recommendations as to what specimens should be collected
-------
142
and are supplying fish samples from the Hartwell Reservoir and Lake Keowee.
They have also issued a special research permit to Duke Power Company
for the collection of animal samples.
The results of the environmental radioactivity monitoring program to
date are comparable to those reported from throughout the country by what
is now the Environmental Protection Agency in their "Radiological Health
Data and Reports" document. It is of interest also to note that
radium daughter products have been observed, as a result of gamma analysis,
to exist in considerable amounts in deep well water. Further investigation
has shown that this condition seems to be peculiar to the Piedmont area
of the Carolinas.
The Environmental Radioactivity Monitoring Program will continue
during the operating period.
Prior to the initial operation of Unit 1, two additional air
monitoring stations beyond that listed in the preoperational program
will be established within the Exclusion Area at locations where the
highest ground level concentrations of radioactivity are expected to
exist based on site meteorological studies. Additional thermoluminescent
dosimeters will be used to measure radiation dose at various locations
along the Restricted Area fence, in the Unrestricted Area of the station,
throughout the construction area for Units 2 and 3 and at significant
locations along the Exclusion Area boundary.
The environmental radioactivity monitoring program for the Oconee
Nuclear Station is conducted by the station Health Physics Supervisor,
with some assistance from the Chemist. The program was established
-------
1U3
and is directed and reviewed by the Duke Power Company System Health
physicist; that is, by me.
Results of the Oconee Environmental Radioactivity Monitoring Program
will be made available to the State of South Carolina and to the Federal
agencies mentioned previously who have a direct interest and concern in
these matters.
It is expected that the results of the Environmental Radioactivity
Monitoring Program for the Oconee Nuclear Station will demonstrate the
effectiveness of plant control over radioactive waste disposal operations
and of compliance with Federal and State regulations for the disposal
of these materials. The detailed descriptions of the preoperational
and operational environmental radioactivity monitoring program for Oconee
are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
flAH-ftlonal Information Concerning the McGuire Terrestrial Monitoring
•program
In the McGuire PSAR, we were asked, in addition, to evaluate possible
critical exposure pathways to man. Although the amounts of radioactivity
added to the environment from station operation are minimal and as low
SiS practicable based upon the latest available technology, possible
critical exposure pathways to man have been evaluated in order to
estimate the dose to the maximum individual and to establish the sampling
requirements for the Environmental Radioactivity Monitoring Program.
-------
TABLE H. OCONEE PREOPERATIONAL_
ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY MONITORING PROGRAM
CODE
Monthly - M Frequency
Quarterly - 0
Annually - A
type of Sample - (A) thro (M)
Code Mo. Location
000 Site: Visitors Center
000.3 1st Bridge North of Site on New 183 Connecting Canal
000.4 2nd Bridge North of Site on New 183
000. 5 1 Mile Radius of Site - Specify N. S, E. V
000.6 Keowee Lake
000.7 £ Bridge on 183 Existing
000.8 Residence within Exclusion Area
000.9
000.10
001 Salea: Vol. Fire Dept. Lot
001.3 4.5 Ml. N.E. of Salem on HOT. 11 g Bridge CCedar Creek)
001.4 8.0 Ml. E. of Salea 9 Bridge (Crow Creek)
001.5
001.6
002 Walhalla: Branch Rd. Sub Station
002.1 7.5 Miles West of Site on Hwy, 183
002.2
003 Keovee: High School Hwy. 16 (Opposite Side)
003.1
003.2
004 Seneca: Ocouee Memorial Hospital
004.1 Water Supply. Lake Keowee Intake. (When Completed)
004.2
005 Newry: Abandoned Hleh School on S. C. 130
005.1 Spill Dam (t.R. & Keovee Spill)
005.3 Hwy. 27 at Bridge
005.4 3.75 Ml. W. of Newrv on Keowee Hwy. 9 Brldee (Cain Creek)
005.5 3.25 Mi. N.W. of Newry on Keowee Hwy. ? Bridge (Crooked Creek)
005.6
005.7
006 Clemson: Meteorology Plot
006.1 Water Supply
006.2 Intake Hartwell Reservoir K-3
006.3
006.4
006.5
007 Central. S. C.: Joint Sub Station Hwy. 93
007.1
007.2
008 Liberty. S. C.: Bi-Anch Of fire Yard
008.1
008.2
u
g
•0
f-f
•}
tt
1
1l
£
&
as
(A)
Q
- Water Supply
~z
J5
•H
•«-<
%
X
(B)
M
M
>»
i-t
|
W
b
0>
5
i
^
33
(C)
M
M
1
14
S
SI
«!|
3J
ta|
%
83
(D)
«fA
M
M
A
A
M
M
A
A
M^A
1 Duit - Fallout
B
3
(E
M
M
X
>
•
4«
U
«*
•
(G)
0.
9
Q
Aquatic
i
el
•v4
4
•
•
>
(H)
0
0
5
4J
C *0
^ ^
IS:
» 3
6 i
£ «
£5
(i)
Q
Q
q
0
Q
Q
4J
• o
«* •
si
^ 4t
:,s
s
«.^"
is
*» -
•H
3§
(J)
Q
q
q
Q
q
9
0
9
q
3
m «*j
•I3
•sh
^d
C
(K)
Q
>^
2|>3
(L)
Q
Darlci
•3
g
5
t
jd
(M)
Q
-------
TABLE H (coat'd). OCONEE PREOPERATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY MONITORING PROGRAM
CODE
Monthly - H Frequency
Quarterly - 0
Annually - A
Type of Sample - (A) thru £)Q.
Code No Location
009 Six Mile, S. C.: Microwave Tower Hwy. 137
009.1
009.2
010 Pickens. S. C. : Branch Office ?ard
010.1
010.2
Oil Floating Station: Subject to Chance with Conditions
011.1
011.2
012 Anderson. S. C.: Water Supply
012.1
012.2
013 Hartwell Reservoir: 5.8 Hi. South of Keowee Ham
013.1
013.2
P H2o well - Residence
1
1
v
4
5
1
•c
i
•V4
a
•H
fe
O
cs
SS
;
•i
i
I
as
I
u.
M
p? Raln^ Settled n,,.* _ p|11nllt
H
^
3 Al£ - P.rtlculate
rH
1
*-«
li
U
•
tf
Irf
I-.
£
i
>
(G)
J5 VesettJj^t, . Ari»rtc
;
Wmt.r Supply & Laka.
P Radiation Do.a & Rat*
hTLP. Film. In.trva.nt
0
Q
0
C|r
j
3
M
<*4
)
3
5
t
N)
Note: 1. 000.3 and 006.2 will be seat to outside services for
analysis for % and 90Sr (2 gala, each location).
2. Flah speclnents vlll be collected alternately from
Lake Keowee and Hartwell.
3. 001.3. 001.4, 005.4, and 005.5 will be collected once
per year during rainy season.
Dote: Location numbers that appear In Table 2-2 which are not
shown above are results of special investigations at the
general location Indicated.
-------
TTTPE Ot SAMPLE
6.
TABLE 5. OCONEE OPERATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOACTIVITY MONITORING PROGRAM
Code of Collection Frequency
Monthly M
Quarterly Q
Annually A
OOO Situ; WttlfriW* P.0 Finished - Water Supply
M
M
M
to
I
II
as
M
M
M
HiO Surface - River, Lakes
M
A
t
I
r
/
i
*
i
i*
Rain. Settled Dust - Fallout
M
K
M
M
M
H
Ax
Air - Particulate
M
M
Eteq
ml
Vegetation - Terrestrial
0
0
Cl
0
ed
Vegetation - Aquatic and/or
Plankton, Botton Organisms**
Crustaceans
0
o;
q
Bottom Sediment
3
3
tS
ft
p.
§•
(A
h
w
*J
s
J
1
?
f)
0
Radiation Dose t Kate
TLD and Inatrunent
0
0
q
0
0
0
0
Q
p
q
0
0
Q
0
S
t-4
1
S
5
111
A***-
0
1
*
1
11
0
0
6.
6.
6. I
6.
6.
Rotes:
6- I
1. Fish and animals will be collected in cooperation with the
South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department.
COLLECTION FREQDEHCY
2. Fish specimens will be collected frais Laies, Keowee and Hartwell, subjected to gana analysis and
analyzed for specific radionuclides found>aa well as gross beta minus K-40, strontium-90 and cesiun-137.
3. Lakes Keowee and Hartwell will be sampled annually for
tritium analysis by outside service. (000.5, 013)
14. Collection depends on availability
*** 5. Lake Keovee which is above the liquid effluent release pofat is considered as a control.
-------
U7
These pathways included:
1 Whole body dose from gaseous waste disposal (direct atmospheric
exposure).
2. Drinking water from that portion of the lake receiving the radioactive
liquid waste releases or from wells directly associated with this portion
of the lake.
3 Swimming, boating, fishing, or walking along the shore of lake
within this same area.
4 Eating fish from within this portion of the lake.
c Consuming milk and other dairy products from locations affected by
gaseous waste disposal.
5 Eating foods (crops, animals) grown in areas or on feeds affected by
waste effluents.
Evaluation of Items 1 and 2 above show the resulting annual dose estimates
from these gaseous and liquid waste releases to be:
Dose Estimates
(millirem per year, whole body)
Normally Expected Maximum Design
Operation Figure
Gaseous Waste Releases 0.11 10.00
Liquid Waste Releases 0.11 0.18
Total 0.22 10.18
Evaluation of these other critical pathways results in doses so low
as to be meaningless such as, an immersion dose of 0.0005 mRem per year,
from swimming 24 hours/day, 365 days/year in the liquid waste effluent;
-------
148
or the fact that you will have to eat many thousands of pounds of fish each
day, every day, to achieve the permissible population dose (Radiation
Protection Guide); or the fact that we will normally add only 8 mCi of
corrosion product radioactivity other than tritium to a lake that in
1970 contained background activity in excess of 6300 mCi. Under abnormal
conditions of 1% failed fuel in both units, we will add a maximum of
700 mCi of corrosion product and fission product activity to the lake.
The tritium dose will be about twice the background tritium dose from
drinking the lake water right now, before the plant is even constructed;
that is, the tritium dose will be about 0.06 mRem/year.
Conclusion
The Oconee and McGuire Nuclear Stations will utilize the latest
available technology and will operate in compliance with regulations
requiring reactor operators to reduce waste to as low a level as practi-
cable. Radioactivity in the environment should, therefore, be several
orders of magnitude below permissible concentrations, and should,
correspondingly, result in doses that are several orders of magnitude
below permissible population limits, for you HEW and EPA people,
(Radiation Protection Guides). It may be argued, as a result of this,
that there is no technical reason for environmental monitoring around
these plants, other than to demonstrate compliance with regulations.
We fully expect to find negative results in environmental samples
collected in the vicinity of the Oconee and McGuire Nuclear Station.
We hope that this will serve to demonstrate that the radiological
effects on man and his environment from releases of gaseous and liquid
waste from these stations will be so low as to be essentially nothing.
-------
149
Discussion.
SPEAKER: What kind of thermo luminescent system are you planning
to use?
MR. LEWIS: The Harshaw one hundred on an Eberline Reader.
SPEAKER: Can you describe the level of meteorological support
required to initiate and carry out this program?
MR. LEWIS: We had conducted on-site meteorological studies as a
part of the initial licensing of the plant and we have a tower with
meteorological instruments at various heights. We will have this in
operation during the operating period and read-outs of wind speed and
direction information and so forth available in the control room in
supp°rt of possible use by operators for waste disposal operations and
for emergency purposes.
SPEAKER: You just have a single tower at the site, is that
correct?
MR. LEWIS: There will be one tower constructed that will read
out in the control room during the operations; but we have taken measure-
ments from many places on the site. We ran smoke tests; it was quite
an elaborate program.
SPEAKER: Which are the controlled areas?
MR. LEWIS: In the case of Oconee Nuclear Station, the exclusion
area boundary is a one mile radius from the plant. In the case of
jlcGuire Nuclear Station, we have a half mile exclusion area boundary.
Of course, the plant itself has a fence around it and we more or
less consider the sections of the plant like the reactor buildings and
-------
150
the auxiliary building to be the restricted area within a small inner
fence. What would be the unrestricted area of the plant would be the
administrative offices and the turbine building and essentially the
same thing for McGuire.
SPEAKER: You mentioned that you were going to take some control
locations way off site to see the natural background.
MR. LEWIS: You try to get a control location so that you can ask
is this material coming from our plant? If you find it upwind and down-
wind, you may have some doubts that you released it.
That is one way of comparing these; upstream and downstream, and
upwind and downwind. But you try to find some locations that are so
far removed from this plant that they may be considered a part of the
area but unlikely to be influenced by the plant.
Savannah River Plant has located some sampling stations at least
twenty-five miles away, possibly even further, that they call control
locations. I am not quite sure that they are. I think one time at
Parr Nuclear Station we found tritium attributed to them and Parr was
more than a hundred miles away.
I hope SRP people are not here right now. But this was a very rare
occasion. We were not operating at the time. But for the most part I
think they consider stations twenty-five miles away from them to be
control locations. We might find one fifteen miles away that is quite
suitable.
-------
151
SPEAKER: I wonder if you are finding higher alpha activity or
beta activity in the area; alpha activities in populated areas higher
than those you are finding near your site?
MR. LEWIS: I don't know if I understood. Why would you expect this?
SPEAKER: Well, I think it is being found in several of these type
of surveys that you are doing, that the alpha activities in cities,
for example, is higher than the alpha activity in air.
MR. LEWIS: I haven't made this correlation, but it might exist.
SPEAKER: Do you do a background correction from TLD's, do you
attribute all you see on the dosimeter to the actual exposure, or do you
have some shielded?
MR. LEWIS: Well, if you are measuring background, it is hard to
subtract background from it. So we have to take the absolute reading
as the background.
SPEAKER: What air filters are you using?
MR. LEWIS: We use HV70 filter paper, eighteen'gauge.
SPEAKER: Is the rain and dust fall sample a combination pot
collection?
MR. LEWIS: Yes.
SPEAKER: Are you filtering that then and analyzing the two
separations?
MR. LEWIS: Yes, and adding them together.
SPEAKER: Are you filtering that with membrane?
MR. LEWIS: Millipore filter paper, about forty-five microns.
-------
152
SPEAKER: Can you give an approximate annual cost for each of these
programs?
MR. LEWIS: I don't know if I can or not. We use health physicists
and health physics technicians part time. I devote time to evaluating
results and the cost of equipment in setting up laboratories, I don't
know. Do you want me to take a stab at it?
SPEAKER: Yes.
MR. LEWIS: Ten, fifteen thousand dollars.
SPEAKER: I noticed from some of the discussions yesterday that we
didn't get around to the business of standards or devising some sort of
a guide for surveillance programs. It was alluded to in the morning.
But it may be appropriate here to ask the question if you, from your
experience, find value in having somebody like the Radiation Office
develop an environmental surveillance guide for use in setting up these
programs, or are they too individual in nature? That is, is each
station unique by itself? If you had a guide, would it be so general
that it would not be of any value?
On the basis of your own experience, would you find it to be of
value in developing your environmental monitoring program?
MR. LEWIS: Well, I used what was made available by the Public
Health Service and other organizations as a guide in setting up the
program.
First of all, I wanted to input as many groups as possible who had
legitimate interests in this regard. I suspect the guide would be
-------
153
appropriate tn that at least it would represent what people have to do,
such as what the AEG might be thinking at the present time. I was trying
to emphasize in my talk that the plant is releasing so little that it
Is extremely difficult to detect it, let alone for it to be at environ-
mentally significant levels from these modern plants.
I was also trying to show that the later plant, McGuire, which is
really a minimum release plant has additional requirements tacked on it.
Since there is some concern, we had to evaluate all the critical
exposure pathways and so forth. But yet you can't help getting the
Impression from those who want additional samples analyzed, that they
equate this plant with a large federal contractor activity; like with
Hanford, the Savannah River Plant, or some such facility. Of course
It is nothing when you compare the activity that is released.
?
MR. STAGNER: Florida Power Corporation. We cannot assume the
responsibility of a guideline. There are many people, though, who say
you should do this. They want a piece of the action. They want a
piece of the money. If you were to publish such a guide, it would be by
oriority which would be followed through with the food chains, the
co-systems from beginning to end and then if another point is raised
by communications with you it could be touched. You would give us a
service, a greater service, in doing this.
MR. LEWIS: On the Oconee program the AEC and other federal
agencies read it and want additional samples collected. One time we
were told to collect crayfish within five hundred feet of the release
oint. This release point is associated with the hydroelectric station.
-------
I think crayfish would be pretty strong and unusual to hold on when
a hydroplant lets go. So I called this back to the AEG and later they
said, "Well, get the crayfish as far back as they can hold on." Well,
since we have state people assisting us, we put on scuba gear and went
down and looked for these crayfish. We spent two hours looking and gave
up. So our only alternative—that is, we thought of this as an alter-
native—was to import crayfish from the Louisiana Bayous and tether them in
the water, pull them out for sampling purposes and have them analyzed to
satisfy the requirement.
I am telling you this story in the hopes that people setting standards
will require realistic samples. Perhaps there is more politics involved
here than concern for the environment.
Today they expect us to prove negative results in a lot of samples
and it is important to show this; there is that aspect. But today I am
trying to leave an impression about releases from these two modern plants,
and I assume many other people here are putting up plants with not much
activity released during the year, certainly far below limits. Programs
required of us should reflect this aspect.
SPEAKER: I assume that the State agencies in the vicinity have at
these two stations, background monitoring stations that overlap yours
to some extent, is that correct?
MR. LEWIS: Yes, that is correct. At least they will have some
sampling stations. The State of South Carolina has recently been sharing
TLD's with us. They are putting their out with ours and we mail them back
to them. They are also taking water samples with us immediately downstream
of our effluent release point.
-------
155
SPEAKER: It is difficult to arrive at a good background radiation
level value and I am wondering if you had any problems with disagreement
between the data obtained by the State and your efforts.
MR. LEWIS: Well, sometimes this disagreement and the data can be
resolved by looking at the methods.
Our airborne dust radioactivity sample differs from HEW in the
method of analyses. I think they measure theirs with a geiger counter
aeainst the filter face and so you would find a lot more of the shorter
lived activity.
They obtain results of the order of 1 pCi/m^ and we show 0.01 to
0 1 pCi/m3. This is because of differences in the methods, but once you
resolve this they are in agreement.
SPEAKER: This probably is one area where standards would help;
to have some consistent way of taking samples and analyzing them so when
EPA gets on the statistics they can do something meaningful with them,
rather than comparing your 0.01 with somebody else's 1.0.
MR. LEWIS: Well, I like this method of measuring only the longer
lived activity. We collect it on a highly efficient filter paper.
SPEAKER: I am not criticizing their way or your way of doing it.:
But just saying possibly it would be of value to have some consistent
way of doing it.
MR. LEWIS: That is true and I think this was discussed at various
times yesterday. That is, standardizing the methods and procedures
and so forth.
-------
156
SPEAKER: You mentioned earlier the Dresden report. The study was
made, it was published, and it just sort of lays there? Is that report
of value to you?
MR. LEWIS: I think it was important to us to show in our environ-
mental report a comparison between Dresden releases of eight hundred
thousand curies with the eighty-nine curies which we will discharge.
Nevertheless the amount of radioactivity in the environment was
almost meaningless at Dresden and should be many order of magnitude below
meaningless at Charlotte.
I was concerned yesterday about the papers that set requirements for
a. certain accuracy on the samples. As I mentioned, in order to get the
work done, a man collects all the samples and prepares them in a lab and
ends up with a large number of samples to count in a given working time.
We have just standardized on twenty minutes. We put samples in an auto-
matic counter and allow twenty minutes per sample just for expediency. Of
course, with higher activity samples you get a greater accuracy and with
the lower level samples the accuracy is poor. I was somewhat concerned
about this in regard to accuracy and precision. They would have to count
low activity samples for an awfully long time in order to get high accuracy.
But if someone sets accuracy as a requirement, they should take this aspect
into consideration, that is, reject samples below a certain significance'.
MR. HANNON: Bill Hannon, from N.C, State. I would remind ourselves
that for years the government, States, and other agencies have been flying
themselves into all sorts of programs. I am reminded for example of the
old Radiation Effects Program. They spent a half billion dollars on it.
-------
157
Now, the reason it was defunct is the fact that it ended up with no
sampling, no reporting, no standardization. I think Dick's remarks,
even though we referred to them yesterday as standards, are procedures
of sampling reporting, and comparison is extremely important even though
we are reporting less than nothing.
Unless this gets into the guide, we are just blowing our whistles
for nothing. I have had trouble with this in my own activation analysis
work. Water resources people are trying to get some kind of standard
collection procedure they say. I don't give a damn how it is. Just be
sure it is standard so that I can compare with HEW and water collection
agency and things like this. We have to get this part settled.
MR. LEWIS: I find myself more or less in agreement with you. But
what I was saying is possibly a sample containing less than say one
percent of permissible concentrations in an environmental sample can
be just reported to low accuracy.
MR. HANNON: I meant the collection. You have to start at the source.
I was asked the other day to run some analyses on collections for air
filters. I said fine. You just want the answer, right? Yes, we don't
care how it was done if you see what I am .driving at. That guy was
spending money for us to give him an answer and I am putting my name
on there that it is what it is.
They said well,,they would put their name on it. Well, I am not going
to sign it, because he didn't do anything about the sampling and yet he is
going to use that to tell someone else that he didn't have mercury or
something else in his water.
-------
158
MR. LEWIS: The AEG mentioned the magic number in their draft guide
of three percent of the concentration limit. I can see expressing a
number close to that, or above it, to whatever accuracy you want. But if
the sample count is close to zero, I don't think you should have to count
it sufficiently long to put the accuracy figure into the answer.
MR. HANNON: Now, I get back to collecting. Where do you get water?
Two or three levels across the stream? Do you mix it? How do you control
the HP?
MR. LEWIS: But if you write too strict a standard, you are going to
end up like we did with the crayfish.
MR. HANNON: If you are going to collect it then you have got a
standard.
MR. LEWIS: If you have to collect crayfish, they have got to be there.
MR. HANNON: What I am getting at is how do you collect the water,
air, and other materials that we are bringing in here and establishing
a base line hopefully for the future. You have got to have some basis
for standards.
MR. LEWIS: In a sense, this paper and discussion is a plea for
getting all of these factors and aspects into any sort of guide that is
developed.
MR. HANNON: Yes.
MR. WHIPPLE: University of Michigan. With regard to subjects for
guides, let me call the release and discharge into the atmosphere, that
would be the legal limit at one. I would ask that those who consider
forming guides to give some thought to when releases become one
-------
159
one-thousandth, one one-millionth, one-billionth of one. Then perhaps
it is proper to consider spending this ten or twenty thousand dollars
a year in some more useful way then collecting zeros.
MR. LEWIS: Precisely.
MR. COLLINS: Massachusetts. I would like to lend my support to the
need for standardization to the sample media. I don't care where we go.
It is essentially the same media. I think it is critically needed.
This way we can minimize.
Now, I would agree with what the last gentleman said. Since the
direction EPA is taking leads to looking for the infinite result, what
we have to do is set up an amount of environmental sampling in order to
prove our point.
I would also suggest that you look at other contaminants now.
Concerning the station in Massachusetts, there is a great concern for the
lobster which up there is considered something sacred. Since we found
mercury in the water, it sort of deemphasized the impact of radiation
in lobster.
MR. LEWIS: I hope that wasn't a question.
MR. STAGNER: I hope this will tie into your discussion. Under part
140 of standard 10, there are some surface levels mentioned, and this has
been a radiological paradox for a number of years. But we are vitally
interested in case we have a locality in which there is off-site
radioactivity. What are going to be the standards that are going to be
used? How do you measure this? If it requires several different standards
criteria, we would like to know that because there are several legal
arid decontamination implications.
-------
160
MR. HILLEY: As you know, the AEG, I think it was back in December,
put out a draft of a guide for environmental and effluent monitoring.
I don't think it came across very clearly just what this cut-off level
was. I hope that by the time the guide is put out in final form, that the
intent will be clear.
The intent is to require more extensive environmental monitoring
when you exceed range L of FRC and this three percent is an attempt, and
I don't think they succeeded, to equate 10 CFR 20 values with this range 1
of FRC.
FRC says if you get range 1 or below, you don't--you have to do a
confirmatory surveillance. Above range 1 you do more extensive
monitoring, and at range 3, I think, you take remedial action.
The intent of that guide was to say that below range 1 you don't
do very much. Above range 1 you go into quite an extensive program. You
are saying that if you measure three percent of 10 CFR 20 values you have
got to do an extensive monitoring program and that is not the intent.
MR. LEWIS: I was talking about accuracy of results and the .means
in which they are expressed, the plus or minus value. I say if they are
below a level of concern, perhaps they don't need to be expressed to the
sixth decimal place, like zero to the sixth decimal place. Perhaps they
can be expressed zero to the first or second decimal place.
On samples which have more significance, they should be counted to
the accuracies required.
MR. HILLEY: Okay. For example, you apparently in your FSAR have
calculated .0005 mRem. That I think would constitute this minimal kind of
monitoring. So that there is an attempt being made to do what you say.
-------
161
AQUATIC RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT
Gilbert F. Stone
Assistant to the Director of Environmental
Research and Development
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tntroduction
I am happy to be here today to speak to this Symposium on the
Aquatic Radiological Monitoring Program for the Browns Ferry Nuclear
plant. By way of general remarks, I should like to acquaint you
with some of the general features of the plant, and since the concern
of this paper is aquatic radiological monitoring, I will go into the
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant liquid waste processing and handling systems
In some detail.
The Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Figure 1), being constructed by
the Tennessee Valley Authority (Figure 2), is located on an 840-acre
site in Limestone County, Alabama, bounded on the west and south by
tfheeler Reservoir. The site is 10 miles southwest of Athens, Alabama,
and 10 miles northwest of Decatur, Alabama. The plant (Figures 3 and 4)
will consist of three boiling water reactors; each unit is rated at
3 293 MWt and 1,098 MWe. The first unit is tentatively scheduled to be
placed in commercial operation in April 1972.
TVA began preoperational environmental monitoring at the Browns
Ferry Nuclear Plant site in the spring of 1968, some two years before
the first unit was scheduled to go into operation. The program has the
-------
162
BJgSSS1?""
Figure 1. Architectural Drawing of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant,
or rut
«R (ALL MAIN«T««AM OAM« M*V« NAV.dAT.ON LOCK*}
Figure 2. Tennessee Valley Region.
-------
163
Figure 3. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Under Construction.
•- , •- .
Figure 4. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Under Construction.
-------
objective of establishing a baseline of data on the distribution of
natural and manmade radioactivity in the environment near the plant site,
so that when the plant becomes operational, it will then be possible to
determine what contribution, if any, the plant is making to the
environment.
Field staffs in the Division of Environmental Research and Develop-
ment and the Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development
carry out the sampling and analysis program. All the radlochemical
and instrumental analyses are conducted in a central laboratory at
Muscle Shoals, Alabama, about 45 miles from the Browns Ferry plant.
Alpha and beta analyses are performed on a Beckman Low Beta II low
background proportional counter. A Nuclear Data Model 2200 multichannel
system with 512 channels and two 4" x 5" Nal crystals is used to analyze
the samples for specific gamma-emitting isotopes. Data are coded and
punched on IBM cards or automatically printed on paper tape for
computer processing specific to the analysis conducted. An IBM 360
Model 50 computer is used to solve multimatrix problems associated with
identification of gamma-emitting isotopes.
Sources and Treatment of Liquid Radioactive Wastes
The Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Figure 5) uses single-cycle
Boiling Water Reactors to produce the steam necessary for electrical
generation. Clean-up requirements for the primary system are quite
demanding and extensive liquid waste treatment and clean-up systems
are provided.
-------
165
?%jUfl
CONOtNSEB
Figure 5. Simplified Steam Cycle Used in
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.
LOWCONDUCTIVITY
Sumps
— *
Collector
Tanks
-*
Filter
-
Demln-
eralizer
Sample
Tank
NORMAL VOLUME - 55,000 gal/day
RETURN FOR
PROCESSING AND RELSE
HTrrH CONDUCTIVITY
Sumps
— »
Collector
Tanks
•*
Laundry
Drains
Filter
Filter
Sample
Tank
—
(1.98
Discharge
Tunnel
Condenser
ooling Water
x 106 gpm - 3 units)
^- To River
NORMAL VOLUME - 26,000 gal/day (to tunnel)
Figure 6. Scheme for Radioactive Liquid Waste Processing -
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant.
-------
166
The Liquid Radwaste System collects, processes, stores, and
disposes of all radioactive liquid wastes. The system is sized to
handle the radioactive liquid wastes from all three units of the
plant.
The system (Figure 6) is divided into several subsystems so that
the liquid wastes from various sources can be kept segregated and processed
separately. The liquid radwastes are classified, collected, and treated
as either high purity, low purity, chemical, or detergent wastes.
The terms "high" purity and "low" purity refer to conductivity and not
radioactivity.
The high purity (low conductivity) wastes are processed by filtration
and ion exchange through the waste filter and waste demineralizer.
After processing, the waste is pumped to a waste sample tank where it is
sampled and then, if satisfactory for reuse, transferred to the conden-
sate storage tank as makeup water.
If the analysis of the sample reveals water of high conductivity
(>lumho/cm) or high radioactivity concentration (>10'3jj.Ci/cc) , It is
returned to the system for additional processing. These wastes may be
released to the discharge canal if allowable discharge canal concentrations
are not exceeded.
Low purity (high conductivity) liquid wastes are collected in the
floor drain collector tank.
These wastes generally have low concentrations of radioactive
impurities; therefore, processing consists of filtration and subsequent
transfer to the floor drain sample tank for sampling and analysis. If
-------
167
the analysis indicates that the concentration of radioactive contaminants
is sufficiently low, the sample tank batch is transferred to the circu-
lating water as necessary to meet plant effluent discharge requirements
Of 10 CFR 20. Because no radium-226 or radium-228 of plant origin will
be present, and because the potential concentration of iodine-129 is
very l°w> the canal discharge concentration limit for otherwise
utlidentified mixture of radioisotopes is 10'7 |aCi/ml above background.
Some tritium is present in the effluent. However, the concentration
Q
expected in the plant effluent is less than 10"° (iCi/ml. The MFC for
•3
tritium in drinking water is 3xlO~J |j.Ci/ml; therefore, the plant
Contribution to the tritium background in natural waters is negligible.
Estimated concentrations of the radioactivity in the liquid wastes
Discharged from the radwaste facility to the discharge canal during
ormal operation are expected to be quite low. These liquid wastes
re released at a rate to give an unidentified isotope concentration
0£ not more than 10"7 uCi/ml in the discharge canal during the period
£ the discharge. Since the discharge is on a batch basis into a large
volume-flow of condenser cooling water (1.98x10^ gpm), the daily
verage concentration in the canal is correspondingly less. The
Discharge from the canal to the environs, therefore, is considerably
less than the maximum permissible concentration for a mixture with
nidentified radioisotopes, that is, 10~7 |aCi/ml. Mixing in Wheeler
servoir provides additional dilution.
-------
168
The concentrations of the radioisotopes which are the major
contributors to the radioactivity in the canal after dilution to 10"^
uCi/ml are shown in the next slide (Table 1 ) . From these data it can
be seen that the concentration of each discharged isotope is considerably
less than the maximum permissible concentration for that radisisotope.
TVA is currently evaluating extended radwaste systems for Browns
Ferry, including gas recombiners and added holdup capability for gaseous
releases, and an evaporator for liquid wastes.
Reservoir Monitoring System
The Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Reservoir Monitoring System was
designed to accomodate collection and analysis of selected aquatic samples
for both gross radioactivity content and for specific radionuclides
that are expected to be present in the condenser cooling water discharge.
The overall reservoir monitoring system is designed to assess both
radiological and thermal effects of the plant, but I shall limit my
remarks to only the radiological aspects of the monitoring program.
Types of Samples Collected for Radiological Analysis
Five types of samples are collected quarterly along nine cross
sections in Wheeler Reservoir—at Tennessee River miles 277.98, 283.94,
288.78, 291.76, 293.70, 295.87, 299.00, 301.06, and 307.52, as shown in
Figure 7. Samples collected include fish and plankton from three
of these cross sections and bottom fauna and sediment from four cross
sections. The locations of these cross sections conform to sediment
ranges on the reservoir bottom. Station 307.52 is located 13.5 miles
-------
169
TABLE 1. NORMAL ISOTOPIC CONCENTRATIONS IN DISCHARGE CANAL
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT
Radioisotopes
Canal Concentration
(MCi/ml)
MFC
(MCi/ml)
187
W
Other
2.0 x 10~8
1.0 x 10~8
1.8 x 10"8
0.4 x 10~8
4.2 x 10-8
0.4 x ID'8
.-8
0.2 x 10'
1.0 x 10
-7
1 x 10-1*
3 x 10~5
6 x 10'5
2 x 10-3
9 x 10~5
3 x 10~5
2 x 10"5
(Actual MFC)
SIDMEIIT
FISH
CLAMS
PUNKTON
.WHEELER
Elk River
Athens
M8e291.76
B.F.NUCLEM PLANT
Mit 295.87
Mile 299.00
Mito 283.94
CouniMd0
LOCATIQH
AU CROSS SECTWIS EXCEPT 299.00
277.98, 2BI.7S, 293.70, 307.52
2(3.94, 293.70. 299.00
277.98, 288.78, 293.70, 307,52
277.98. 291.76, 397.52
Mh 301.06
Decitur°
ScahofMies
Mile 307.S2
S 0 5
Figure 7. Reservoir Monitoring Network.
-------
170
upstream from the plant diffuser outfall and was selected as a control
station.
Radiological Analyses
(Water)--From eight of the nine cross sections, 24 water samples
are collected quarterly for determination of gross beta and gamma
activity in suspended and dissolved solids. Water samples are also
collected monthly at the point of plant discharge to the Tennessee
River and at a point on the Elk River.
(Fish)--Radiological monitoring of fish is accomplished by analyzing
three composite samples from collections at each of three sampling
stations—miles 283.94, 293.70, and 299.00. One sample is composited
from the flesh of six white crappie, 8 inches or longer, one from the
flesh of six smalltaouth buffalo, 14 inches or longer; and one from six
whole smallmouth buffalo, 14 inches or longer. These are collected
quarterly and analyzed for gamma and gross beta activity. The °°Sr
and yuSr concentrations are determined on the whole fish and flesh
of buffalo only, which are as nearly equal in size as possible. The
composite samples contain approximately the same quantity of flesh
from each of the six fish. For each composite a subsample of at least
50 to 100 grams (wet weight) of material is drawn for counting.
(Plankton)--Net plankton (all phytoplankton and zooplankton caught
with a 100 ja mesh net) is collected for radiological analyses at two
depths at each of three stations by horizontal tows with a 1/2-meter
net. At least 50 grams (wet weight) of material is necessary for
-------
171
analytical accuracy. Collection of this amount is practical only during
the period April to September (spring and summer quarters) because of
seasonal variability in plankton abundance. Samples are analyzed for
QQ qn
gamma and gross beta activity and orSr and 3USr content.
(Sediment) --Sediment samples are collected from Ekman dredge hauls
made for bottom fauna. Gamma and gross beta radioactivity and 89Sr and
90Sr content are determined quarterly in a composite sample collected
from each of two points in the cross section at four stations.
(Bottom Fauna) --Asiatic clams are collected at quarterly intervals
from two points in the cross section at four stations and the flesh is
89 90
analyzed for gamma and gross beta activity. The Sr and 7WSr contents
are determine on the shells only. A 50-gram (wet weight) sample
provides sufficient activity for counting.
At this point you may be interested in some of the steps involved
in processing and analyzing samples--! have chosen one type of sample,
fish, as shown in Figure 8. After the best efforts of streamlining the
various laboratory steps, using computerized data handling, etc., this
cart of the monitoring program is still timeconsuming, as indicated on
the flow chart.
l Data - January-June 1970
The next two Tables, 2 and 3, show a summary of typical pre-
operational monitoring data for two types of samples analyzed--fish and
bottom sediment. You will note that both types of samples are analyzed
for ten isotopes by gamma scan and for **qSr and 9°sr> The ten isotopes
-------
172
Fish Samples
Grapple Buf
1
Separate Whole Wh<
1 1
Bones Flesh Separate Gr;
1 1
1 1 1
Discard Grind Bones Flesh D
Discard Grind p— — —
:alo
Die
md
T
Dry Gamma Spectrum
Analysis*
Gamma Spectrum
An a 1 y s i R * -^___
. Ash
Gross Beta Count Fuze,
.^___, , k itesiH
Gross Beta Count | Exc
»h
eta Count
dissolve
ue , Ion
lange
Fuze, Dissolve 89Sr and 90Sr
Residue, Ion Analysis
Exchange
89Sr and 90Sr
Analysis
*The following nuclides will be included in this analysis:
6°Co, 137Cs, ""OB, 65Zn,
Figure 8. Radiochemical Analysis on Fish Samples.
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY DATA ON EISH SAMPLES - BRCMNS EEBRY NUCLEAR PLANT, JANUARY - JUNE 1970
Species Samples 1^7Cs 103»106Ru
Smallmouth Buffalo
(flesh) 6 0.1 0.1
Smallmouth Buffalo
(whole) 6 0.1 0.1
White Grapple
(flesh) 6 0.2 ND
Specific Radionuclides
IM.lUUQg <40R 952,..^
ND 9.3 ND
ND 4.6 ND
ND 9.3 ND
65Zn ]
0.1
ND
ND
(pCi/sm)
Lt*°Ba-La 5>*Mn
ND ND
0.1 ND
ND ND
131r 60^ 89Sr 90Sr
ND ND 1.9 1.8
ND 0.1 3.3 0.9
ND ND ND ND
ND - Less than sensitivity of analysis
TABLE 3. SUMMARY DATA ON BOTTOM SEDIMENT - BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, JANUARY - JUNE 1970
Nunfcer of Samples K ^Co
Specific Radionuclides (pCi/gm. average)
Zn
8 12.1 0.3 1.7 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 ND ND 2.4 0.1
ND - Less than sensitivity of analysis.
00
-------
chosen for gamma spectrum analysis are representative of isotopes that
could be present in the liquid waste effluent from the plant. Data
from the spectral analysis of the ten isotopes are treated by a ten-
element matrix, using the ALPHA II program developed at ORNL, and run
on TVA's IBM 360 computer in Chattanooga.
Quality Control
When planning and carrying out a comprehensive environmental
monitoring program, it is important to consider means for continuous
checks on the quality of laboratory procedures and analyses. Very
early in the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant program, we set up a quality
control system for both intra-laboratory and inter-laboratory checks.
In regard to the former one of the things we do is to make a simple
statistical check on the day-to-day variance of our own laboratory
counting equipment. An allowable error band is set up and daily checks
of counting equipment are made and plotted within this band (Figure 9).
If a given instrument shows results that consistently fall close to
or outside the permissible limits, corrective steps can be quickly
instituted. The other quality control system involves the routine
exchange of samples with the Southeastern Radiological Health Laboratory1
and the Alabama Department of Public Health radiological laboratory in
Montgomery. Split samples are analyzed by each of the participating
laboratories and the results are compared at frequent intervals. In
the comparisons thus far, variance of results of the three laboratories
has been generally within limits of acceptable error. However, a check
1Redesignated Eastern Environmental Radiation Laboratory
-------
II 1
H
ZJ
z
^
a:
UJ
a.
00
l-
z
Z>
o
u
2.0
1.9
1.8
1 7
1 ./
1.6
1.5
1.4
1 T
1.2
1.1
i n
Counting Window
Contaminated
^V
• ^^ ^^
^p ^p
0 •
*
Counting Window
Changed ~— — • »» ^
fP
1 1— ... I i UU* til A
4-Jff
•»-2a
+ V
X
-la
.u
JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE SEPT
Figure 9. Laboratory Quality Control of Low Beta II Counter.
DEC
Ln
-------
176
made recently showed our laboratory at Muscle Shoals reporting consistently
higher numbers than the other labs. This may be due to the very low
levels of activity present in some of the samples, so SERHL has prepared
samples spiked with higher activity for intercomparison. If results
are still questionable, steps will be taken to find where the variance
is and to correct it.
Costs of the Browns Ferry Aquatic Monitoring Program
Finally, let me touch briefly on one aspect about which I am sure
some of you are already curious—how much does a program like this cost?
For fiscal year 1970, the second full year of the Browns Ferry monitoring
program, the collection and preliminary processing of reservoir samples
prior to analysis cost about $20,000 and the actual laboratory analyses,
data processing, and reporting about $60,000. If additional allowances
are made for central staff support, the total estimated costs for the
reservoir phase of our radiological monitoring program amounts to about
$100,000 per year. This may sound prohibitively expensive to some of you
but please bear in mind that a rather large number of samples ( ~ 400/yr.)
are involved and an equally large number ( <- 4000) of analyses are
performed. So the average cost per analysis is not too great. Even so,
we believe the type of environmental monitoring program being carried
out for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant is justified perhaps more so today
than ever, and we feel certain that preoperational data of the type now
being obtained in Wheeler Reservoir will prove invaluable when full
operation of the plant gets under way next year.
-------
177
AN ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO MARINE RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING AT THE
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR PLANT
William E. S. Carr, Department of Zoology
Richard W. Englehart, Department of Nuclear Engineering
John F. Gamble, Department of Environmental Engineering
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida
This report deals with only the marine aspects of a larger
monitoring project which also includes fresh water sampling, terres-
trial sampling, and air sampling. This study was begun in August
1970.
The Florida Power Corporation plant for which this study is being
done is located approximately 2 miles north of the Crystal River and
approximately 3 miles south of the Withlacoochee River on the north-
vest coast of Florida (see Figure 1). The principal characteristics
Of the region will be described shortly.
The objectives of the marine radiological monitoring program are
as follows:
1. To gather baseline information on the preoperational levels
of radionuclides existing in the marine environment.
2. To assess the major food chains which could be involved in
directing radionuclides into organisms consumed by man.
3. To provide a monitoring program which can be continued after
commencement of plant operation in order to measure any possible
effect of the power plant on the marine environment in terms of
-------
Figure 1. Location of the Florida
Power Corporation Nuclear Plant on
the Northwest Coast of Florida.
Figure 2. Coastal Habitats Present in Vicinity of
Florida Power Corporation Nuclear Plant.
-------
179
increased levels of radionuclides in organisms.
4. To provide estimates of the future levels of critical radio-
nuclides which are likely to appear in marine organisms consumed by
man as a consequence of wastes discharged by the nuclear plant.
ECOLOGY OF THE AREA
The marine monitoring program is focused upon two intimately
related types of coastal habitats:
1. the tidal marshland habitat
2. the nearshore estuarine zone which is immediately Gulfward of
the marshland habitat.
The separation of the two habitats is somewhat arbitrary but is
nevertheless useful to the context of this study (see Fig. 2).
Habitat
Marshlands associated with estuaries have been described by
authorities to be "among the most productive natural ecosystems in the
world". Coastal marshes have been shown to produce up to 10 tons of
plant material per acre per year. The rate of production of organic
material in marshlands is comparable to the rate of production
obtained from intensely cultivated crops such as rice and sugar cane.
Much of the organic production in the marshland habitat near the
Crystal River site occurs in the form of marsh grasses and mangroves.
•phe leaves and other living parts of these plants are not eaten
directly by many marine animals. Nevertheless, this plant material
-------
180
serves as a primary food base for a great many of the organisms which
inhabit both the marshland and the adjacent nearshore waters. This
apparent inconsistency can be explained as follows. Plant material
from marsh grass and mangroves is deposited at a relatively constant
rate into the shallow waters of the marshland. These leaves, stems,
etc., are attacked by bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and other microbial
forms. Gradually the plant material is broken down into an ever
increasing number of smaller and smaller organic particles called
detritus particles. Each detritus particle supports a dense assemblage
of microbial forms. It is this detritus with its protein-rich assemblage
of microorganisms that is fed upon extensively by a diverse array of
the fishes and invertebrates which grow and develop in the inshore
waters. Thus, detritus assumes a major role in many of the most important
food chains of the marshland and nearshore waters—a characteristic
•?hich distinguishes many of the food chains found here from most of the
lore common ones encountered in terrestrial habitats or in the open sea.
[earshore Estuarine Zone
The nearshore estuarine zone is immediately Gulfward of the
marshland habitat and is markedly influenced by it. The nearshore estuarine
zone, like the marshland habitat, is characterized by its high productivity.
Much of the productivity here is accountable to dense stands of submerged
sea grasses and attached algal forms. Some marine animals living
here eat this plant material directly. However, an even greater
-------
181
amount of this plant material, like that in the marshland habitat, is
introduced into food chains in the form of small detritus particles
with their protein-rich assemblages of microorganisms.
Nursery Areas
The marshland habitat and the nearshore estuarine zone have
another extremely important attribute in common. They both serve as
vital nursery areas for an impressive array of marine finfish and
shellfish. Authorities tell us that upwards of 70% of the species of
fish and shellfish which are harvested annually in coastal fisheries
are estuarine-dependent species. By estuarine-dependent, we mean that
each of these species is obligated to spend at least a portion of its
life cycle in the shallow, productive confines of the estuarine zone
or the adjacent marshland habitat. For some of these species, i.e.,
the oyster, the entire life cycle is spent in an estuarine area. For
even a greater number of these valuable species, the estuarine-
dependent stages of their life cycles are the early juvenile stages.
Many of these species, such as the mullet, crab, shrimp, redfish, and
others go offshore as adults to spawn. However, the larvae which hatch
offshore move instinctively back into the shallow, productive confines
of the inshore habitats to feed, find shelter, and prepare themselves
for the rigors of their adult lives. The expression "nursery area"
which is used to describe the productive inshore waters is an expres-
sion depicting the dependence upon these areas that is shown by the
immature juvenile stages of a large number of species.
-------
182
Summary Statement Concerning Ecology of the Area
This description of the ecology of the habitats of concern can
best be summarized by pointing out that their major characteristics are
such as to magnify their importance and uniqueness in radionuclide
uptake. The total uptake of radionuclides will be increased in these
estuarine habitats because of their high productivity and because of
the large numbers of organisms which are present. This is because the
total uptake of radionuclides by organisms is proportional to the
combined (or total) mass of the organisms which are present and to the
amount of new biological material which is being manufactured. On
both counts, marshland and nearshore estuarine areas rank exceptionally
high.
Design of Preoperational Surveillance
Having completed a brief description of the characteristics of
the habitats associated with the Crystal River site, we can consider
the design of the preoperational surveillance of the marine environ-
ment which is being conducted. Two important questions arise:
1. What areas should be sampled and how often?
2. What organisms should be sampled from each area and why?
Areas Being Sampled
Three areas were selected for sampling in order that the
following type of coverage was provided (see Fig. 3):
1. Control area (Area A) - not affected by liquid wastes
released by power station into discharge canal.
-------
183
2. Critical area (Area B) - site of convergence of discharge
canal with nearshore estuarine zone and marshland habitat.
3. Potentially affected area (Area C) - site to the north of
discharge canal in direction of principal inshore water movement.
Each sampling area (Areas A, B, and C) consists of two components:
a nearshore component and a marshland component (see Fig. 3). Separate
samples are taken on a quarterly basis from both the nearshore and the
marshland component of each sampling area. Each sampling area is large
in size because of the necessity of collecting an array of organisms.
Quarterly sampling permits the detection of any inherent seasonal
changes in the levels of presently occurring .radionuclides which may
Figure 3. Locations of Sampling Areas in Vicinity of Florida Power
Corporation Nuclear Plant. Each sampling area is shown to
consist of both a nearshore component and a marshland component.
-------
accompany changes in sea water composition, rainfall and land drainage,
migration of species and other factors. It is felt that the areas
selected for this preoperational study are logical areas for continued
sampling after the nuclear power station commences operation.
Organisms Being Sampled
It would be nice to sample all of the species of organisms present
but this is not practical, i.e., 125 species of fish and several times
that number of invertebrate species are known to inhabit the area.
We have emphasized two things in our selection of organisms:
1. Commercially important inshore and marshland species, i.e.,
species consumed by man.
2. Major dietary items of these species.
Since it is not practical to sample on a quarterly basis all of
the species consumed by man in the area, we have made certain that our
samples of such organisms include a representative spectrum of the
principal "feeding" types; i.e., filter feeders or planktivores,
detritus feeders, predators on invertebrates, predators on fish,
scavengers with mixed diets. By paying attention to feeding types and
major dietary items consumed by our sampled species, we have a program
which should be capable of detecting the causes of increased levels of
radionuclides in consumer species which are due to passage of materials
through food chains.
A list of the samples of organisms consumed by man which are
included in our sampling program is given below:
-------
185
from Nearshore Sites Samples from Marshland Sites
rA B and Q (A. B. and C)
Oysters Oysters
Blue Crabs Blue Crabs
Mullet Mullet
Spotted Seatrout sP°t
Redfish
Pinfish
Pink Shrimp
The above commercial species represent our "core" items; i.e., we
try and sample them from all areas each quarter. We complement this
list of consumer species whenever possible with other species consumed
by man when they are available. For example, during the winter quarter
there was a mass migration of many species of fish into the heated
discharge canal. This migration was accompanied by intensive fishing
activity by sport fishermen. Because of these two factors, we augmented
our samples from Area B by including 6 additional species of fish which
Were abundant at this time.
IfrH^r Dietary Items of Commercial "Core" Species
Decisions as to which food chain items should be sampled on a
Quarterly basis came from an awareness of the food habitats of the
organisms of concern. Figure 4 presents a summary of what is known
concerning the diets of these species. The Figure shows several con-
spicuously important dietary items: detritus, crustaceans (crabs and
shrimp), plankton, mollusks, silversides, pinfish, mullet, and sea
rass. The Figure also points out that several of the important food
-------
186
MULLET
PINFI5H
REPPI5H
SPOT
SPOTTEP
SEATROUT
PINK SHRIMP
BLUE CRAP
OY6TER
PETRITU5 (M» PERIPHVTON) 1
PETRITUSI
5EA6RA56 1
SHRIMP' |
FI5H lUMENIPIA^MULLET)
CRAR5 4 SHRIMP 1
P^TRITU5 |
SHRIMP; CRA&5 J
MOLIUSKS |
flSHUfMENIW.MUUCT! PINFIftjJI
5HK1MPJ
PfeTRfTUS 1
5EAGRA5^
SHRIMrf
PETRtTU5 |
MOLUJ3K6{5IDI CRAPS 1
CRA^j
PLANKTON (Hffi SOME PtTRlTUS ?) J
10 20 30 V> 50 60 70 60 90 100
PERCENT COMPOSITION OF PIET
Figure 4-. Food Habits of Commercial "Core" Species Being Sampled in
Vicinity of Florida Power Corporation Nuclear Plant.
chain items are organisms which we already included in our list of
commercial "core" items.
Figure 5 shows our entire sampling regime for each area (A, B,
and C). The individual components shown in the Figure are integrated
into major food chains which lead to man. All samples are frozen
shortly after collection and returned to the University of Florida for
measurement of individual gamma emitters by gamma scan analysis.
The values shown previously in Figure 4 for percent composition
of diet permit us to put approximate values on all of the arrows indi-
cated in Figure 5 and thereby calculate the Approximate magnitudes of
-------
187
tANPPRAINAGf
MARSH GRA&5
MANGROVES
SEA0RASS
FILAMENTOUS ALGAE
PETRITU5
WITH A550C
BACTERIA. FUNGI,
ALGAE, PROTOZOA,
ere.
5ILVERSIPE6
5WIVAP
PINKISH
-MULLET
•KILLIFIW
:- TROUT—
REPFISH-n
MAN
PATHWAYS OF NUCUPE5 TO NAN VIA FOOPCHAIN6
Figure 5. Samples Being Taken from Sampling Areas in Vicinity of
Florida Power Corporation Nuclear Plant. All samples are
shown as components of food chains which may lead to man.
SPOTTED SEATROUT
I. Growth Rate-
Year |: 0—H85g.
Year 2- I85g.-
Ill
•465g.
II Approx. amount of food necessary to support growth rate
( 10% conversion effic.)
Year |: I85g. x 10 * I850g. Year 2' (465H85g.) x 10 « 2800g.
Grams of each Dietary
Item Consumed/year
Year I Year 2
% Composition
of
Diet
Shrimp 13%
Fish 79%
240
1460
364
2210
Figure 6. Estimates of Growth Rate, Food Requirement,
' and Food Habit of Spotted Seatrout.
-------
188
all of the dietary inputs which are indicated. An example of this is
given in Figure 6 for the spotted seatrout. We have similar data for
all other organisms included in our collecting program and for many
other species in the area but these data will not be presented at this
time.
The data shown previously in Figure 4 on the food habits of
commercial species were obtained primarily from the literature for the
adults and sub-adults of these species. Very little data are avail-
able on the food habits of the juvenile stages of these species. We
are currently conducting detailed quantitative studies on the food
habits of juvenile fishes in the area so that we will have data on the
entire spectrum of dietary inputs from time of arrival in the estuarine
zone until time of harvest by man.
Stable Element Analyses and Predictions of Future Levels of Radio-
nuclides in Marine Organisms
To augment our ecological food-chain approach to preoperational
surveillance, we are initiating stable element analyses of estuarine
water, sediment, and a group of marine organisms consumed by man.
These organisms, and the water and sediment, will come from the same
sampling areas described earlier. The elements being analyzed are Co,
Cr, Fe, Mn, Sr, Cs, Zn, Mo, and Cu. These analyses are being done for
the following reasons:
1. Radionuclide concentration factors for marine animals as
published in the literature are defined as the ratio of the radio-
-------
189
nuclide concentration in the organisms to the radionuclide concentra-
tion in the ambient water. Our use of published concentration factors
requires that the following assumptions be made:
A. The existence in the water of a relatively large and
constant pool of the analogous stable nuclide in the same physico-
chemical state as the radionuclide.
B. That isotopes of the same element in the same physico-
chemical form behave identically in biological systems; i.e., have
similar biological availabilities.
We do not feel justified in making assumption A (above) without
first taking some measurements. This is because the condenser cooling
water into which the radionuclides will be discharged is an admixture
Of sea water with varying amounts of freshwater from the Crystal River
and adjacent areas. This admixture will vary with the season (i.e.,
dry or wet). Hence, the composition of this water, and its variation,
must be measured. More will be said about physico-chemical forms
later.
2. If the estuarine water is considerably different in chemical
composition than "world average" sea water, then it will be necessary
to measure concentration factors of elements for the important marine
animals living in this particular area.
Given the information on the elemental composition of the sea
water and the organisms, the concentration factors in the organisms,
and the average rates of discharge of radionuclides, we feel that we
-------
190
will almost be in a position to calculate the total levels of the
various radionuclides which are likely to occur in marine organisms
after the nuclear plant begins operation. I qualify the statement with
an "almost" and will clarify that in a moment after we consider the
following:
1. If the chemical forms of the radionuclides and the analogous
stable nuclides are the same in sea water, it is generally held that
the degree to which a marine organism can concentrate the radionuclide
is determined by the degree to which the same organism can concentrate
the stable nuclide of the element; i.e., given the concentration
factor for an element in an organism, and the specific activity of
that element in the water, one can calculate the amount of that radio-
nuclide which is likely to appear in the organism. This is based on
the generally held assumption that specific activity is not altered in
food chains when the initial chemical states of radionuclides and
analogous stable nuclides are the same in the water,
2. The uncertainty:
A. If discharged radionuclides are in different physico-
chemical forms than their analogous stable nuclides in sea water, then
our predictions may be in error, i.e., some physico-chemical forms may
be absorbed more readily by organisms or absorbed more readily by
detritus particles. Either of these factors, and there may be others,
could increase the biological availability of discharged radionuclides.
Consider the following and maybe someone here can give us some help.
-------
191
B. Most of the radionuclides which are to be discharged into
sea water are reportedly in the form of oxides. Almost none of the
analogous stable nuclides exist as oxides in sea water.
C. According to consultations with an inorganic chemist at
the University of Florida, we have come up with the following infor-
mation on these oxides -- please comment on this if you have information
to the contrary.
1) For some of the oxides released, i.e., Rb, Sr, Cs, Ba,
Co and I, there will be an almost instantaneous conversion to the
ionized form in sea water. This will result in these nuclides becoming
a part of the ion pool characteristic of their analogous stable nuclides
in sea water. Subsequently, the predictive logic developed earlier
should hold for these nuclides since their biological availability
should be the same as the analogous stable nuclides of these elements.
2) Also, Cr should pose no particular problem since the
released form should apparently be hexavalent CrO£" ion. This is a
prevalent form of stable Cr in sea water.
3) For the remaining radionuclides to be discharged, Mo,
La Mn, Ce, Fe, and Zr, the behavior of the discharged oxides in sea
water is uncertain. These oxides may be resistant to dissociation or
may be involved in complexes which in either case, may not be a part
f the common ion pool in sea water, i.e., their biological availabili-
ties may be quite different from their analogous stable nuclides in sea
ater. If tllis is tne case» tlien there is the real possibility that
-------
192
the levels reached by these radionuclides in marine organisms might be
considerably greater (or lesser) than the predictive logic developed
earlier would forecast. An entirely hypothetical example of the
difficulty here is shown in Figure 7. The Figure depicts a hypotheti-
cal oxide exhibiting a differential affinity for suspended detritus
particles in which case detritus feeders and filters feeders are
receiving a biased sample of the nuclides of the element in question.
The situation depicted here results in a change in specific activity
both immediately in detritus particles and subsequently in organisms
eating detritus particles.
Hypothetical Example
I. Naturally occurring Sr in seawater:
Sr++ 95%
SrS04 4.6%
Sr(HC03)2 o.4%
2. In the following, consider naturally occurring Sr as Sr
and
introduced radionuclides of Sr as Sr*0
Seawater
Sr Sr Sr
Sr Sr
Sr*0
Sr Sr
Adsorption
Detritus
Filter Feeder
(Oyster)
Detritus feeder
(Mullet)
Figure 7. Hypothetical Example of Mechanism Whereby Specific
Activity of an Element in Detritus Particles and in Detritus
Consumers Could Become Different from Specific Activity of
the Element in Sea Water.
-------
193
Closing Statements
In summary, our preoperational surveillance program contains what
ve feel to be is an important extra dimension. This is explained as
follows:
1. Data on stable element composition, concentration factors,
and specific activities provide us with a means of predicting the
levels of radionuclides which are likely to appear in marine organisms
in the future.
2. In the event that postoperational analyses show that our
predictions are in error, then we will be in a position to make an
important contribution regarding the mild controversy which exists
concerning the reliability of the "specific activity" approach. Our
data on marine food chains leading to man will permit us to determine
at which level(s) in our food chains the specific activity has actually
changed. I am not suggesting that the latter will of necessity occur,
but in the event that it does, we will have data from both preopera-
tional and postoperational samples taken from the same areas which can
be used to provide a reliable documentation of this troublesome
phenomenon. Once documented, we can then explore the specific mechan-
isms which are responsible.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by a contract to the University of
Florida by Florida Power Corporation, St. Petersburg, Florida:
"Environmental Surveillance for Radioactivity in the Vicinity of the
Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant: An Ecological Approach", Dr. W. E.
Bolch, Principal Investigator.
-------
194
PANEL DISCUSSION
INTERRELATIONSHIPS OF FEDERAL, STATE, ACADEMIC
AND INDUSTRIAL INTERESTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
-------
195
NATIONWIDE REACTOR SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
E. D. Harvard, Acting Director
Division of Technology Assessment
Office of Radiation Programs, EPA
The growth of nuclear power in the United States will result in a
substantial impact upon the radiological health programs of State health
agencies over the next several years. Many State health departments
which are now conducting programs relating to the public health aspects
of nuclear power plants will be required to increase their activities
as more new plants are built. In addition, many State health agencies
will be facing the prospects of their first nuclear power plant and must
make decisions regarding the extent of their program effort relative to
these facilities.
In order to give you a brief summary of the magnitude of the
problem that we face in carrying out our public health responsibilities
in this area, I would like to briefly summarize some of the vital
statistics relating to nuclear power growth. At present, 17 nuclear
power plants are in operation. Forty-nine plants are now under
construction, 37 additional plants are ordered with another 7 planned
but not yet ordered. This total of 110 nuclear plants represents over
85 million kilowatts of electrical generating capacity. Approximately
100 of these plants are scheduled to be in u. eration by 1977. AEG
estimates indicate that there may be approximately 150 million
kilowatts produced by nuclear generation by 1980 and one billion
kilowatts by the year 2000. These statistics indicate that many
public health agencies will have a big job facing them.
-------
196
One of the program areas where we in the Division of Environmental
Radiation saw a need several years ago was in the compilation of waste
discharge and environmental surveillance data from nuclear power sources
in order to start to make judgments as to possible long-term environ-
mental radioactivity trends and population exposure on a national basis.
Such a project was initiated and because of the expected future volume
of data, automatic data processing techniques were utilized.
In addition to the growth of nuclear power, the growing concern of
the public as evidenced by articles in the press, in both scientific
and non-scientific publications, and by public and congressional
inquiries that we receive in quantity, have indicated a further need
to increase our knowledge of nuclear power plant discharges and their
possible exposure of people, both in the near and distant future. As
a result, the Division of Environmental Radiation took the position
that a more definitive program was needed to meet our public health
responsibilities for:
1) Evaluating environmental levels of radiation resulting from
this additional source of potential population exposure.
2) Detecting long-term radiological changes in the environment
and interpreting any changes in terms of future population dose
commitments.
In examining the problem that we faced, several things were
evident. First and foremost, such an effort would require the coopera-
tion of the States in a manner similar to our past cooperative efforts
-------
197
•n the radiological health area. Second, it would require substantial
ffort by the Bureau's area laboratories in providing training and
specialized laboratory support. Third, the cooperation of the AEG
and possibly their licensees would be required.
In view of the Bureau's current responsibilities for evaluating
environmental levels of radioactivity. It is our belief that such a
rogram should be undertaken and would be a logical function for the
Bureau of Radiological Health to perform. We have therefore proposed
that the Bureau establish such a cooperative Federal-State program,
utilizing all available resources. Our plan would be to accomplish
this program in an orderly manner as follows:
A. Work with States in the design of surveillance programs to
assure uniform development of data that is adequate to estimate popu-
lation exposure.
B. Provide for cooperative arrangements between the Bureau and
the States for making data available to BRH and for providing laboratory
assistance when needed to the States.
C. BRH would provide analytical quality control services to the
States. (Operator surveillance data could be included where State
has cross-checking system and can verify validity of the data.)
D. Bureau of Radiological Health would conduct special studies
in cooperation with States, AEG and their licensees to provide infor-
mation that might be required for interpretation of data.
-------
198
E. Bureau of Radiological Health is examining present surveillance
network operations to determine their applicability to the measurement
of radioactivity resulting from nuclear facilities operation. In
addition, SERHL will operate an expanded tritium surveillance network to
factor in nuclear power growth.
F. Finally a compilation of the analyses and interpretation of
data would be routinely published in Radiological Health Data and
Reports.
Our ultimate objective, of course, is to have the data published
where it can be made readily available to the public and the scientific
community. We believe it to be extremely important for factual environ-
mental radioactivity information on the operation of nuclear facilities
to be made readily available to all interested parties.
We have had seme preliminary discussions with the AEC regarding
some of the aspects of this program and it was our wish that you be
fully informed as this program develops. The draft project proposal
sent to you recently represents our current thinking and we would greatly
appreciate receiving your comments and constructive criticism.
-------
199
Mr. Wallace B. Johnson
Health Physicist
Florida Division of Health
Gentlemen from the EPA, you are on the spot, so to speak. Many
people came to this meeting hoping to hear some sort of definitive
statement about EPA programs. We sympathize with reorganizational
problems you are having.
But we await with bated breath some statements on the course
of EPA.
Fortunately, I am at the State level and don't have to worry about
problems like this. You heard the ten dollar version of the Crystal
River surveillance program a little earlier. I could tell you about
the ninety-eight cent version which is being conducted by the Florida
Division of Health.
I think rather than do this, however, I am going to make just a
few general remarks about our philosophy in Florida as relates to
radiological surveillance.
As far back as 1966, we adopted as a stated philosophy our feeling
that the primary obligation for radiological surveillance around
nuclear power sites should properly belong to the States.
We still feel this way about it. We began surveillance efforts
at Turkey Point in 1966. The Florida Power and Light Company developed
a surveillance plan which was submitted with the PSAR. Although not
parallel with the one we had operational there, they had remarkable
similarities. It was our feeling when we look at these two plans
together that duplicate programs did not appear to be in the best
-------
200
interest of the company, of the State, of the taxpayers and of those
who pay light bills and realize that eventually some of this cost
gets into our light bills.
We, therefore, adopted a program under which the company actually
has underwritten part of the cost of the surveillance.
The program has been conducted independently by the State Division
of Health, We have had the usual conflicts of interest statements.
In fact, to be perfectly candid, my first reaction to this proposal
was exactly that. This program has been operating since 1969 and aeems
to be going along very well. To this particular company we represent
essentially their total commitment for radiological surveillance to
AEG.
Perhaps, in relation to the contention of conflict of interest,
the Minnesota case has resolved some of these problems. Certainly
the statements which we have had from AEG as to their position that
the State in fact is not regulatory over the nuclear power plants
seem to preclude a conflict of interest situation. We have also
adopted this same general philosophy.
A second program in 1969 resulted in some support from what we
call "the other company," Florida Power Corporation. The relationship
here is not exactly the same as the relationship which exists with
Florida Power and Light Company. You heard this morning of some very
excellent and quite elaborate studies that are being done for Florida
Power Corporation by another group. We do not object to this--we
encourage it. But our goal--our attempt--from the beginning was
-------
201
based on the development of a State system which would create in the
State of Florida an integrated data base which would permit the State
Division of Health to evaluate the impact of nuclear power on the
total State of Florida rather than individual areas.
And I would like to close just by saying one or two words on the
topic of a cooperative approach.
It seems to have become popular in this day and age to consider
that industry and government, of necessity, are enemies; that they
have goals which are far apart. We simply are not willing to acknowledge
this.
We feel that, with the expertise which is available to industry
in the State of Florida from the health agency and the university
system, it just makes good dollars and common sense to approach the
problem of industry's surveillance commitment by utilizing the
existing available capability. This will permit a much better evaluation
of the impact of nuclear power by the State agency and will give industry
at least a minimal program for satisfaction of their legal requirements
to AEG, and in the long run, will result in substantial savings to the
people of Florida.
niSCUSSICN
MR. McCALL: George McCall, Pinellas County Health Department.
I address this to Wallace Johnson because I know it is something he
is in and out about and I would like to hear his present thinking and
that is, in view of our cesium problem or anomaly in Florida, showing
-------
202
up even In our field mice or acorns and our holly berries and so forth
as we saw this morning. Should there not be a rather studied question
then as to whether or not the State of Florida needs to take another
look at the release limits with the thought in mind that they may
need to be reduced with respect to cesium?
MR. JOHNSON: George is perfectly aware that I have already
made a recommendation in this respect to our staff, sitting on a
committee on regulations. We do have a cesium anomaly. We do have
a good bit of data that is piling up on this problem. We do not wish
to get into conflict with the Atomic Energy Commission on the topic
°f limits. In all seriousness though, to answer the question, if I
asked today as I have been would I recommend a reduction of
limits in Florida> m
do this.
-------
203
Mr. Robert L. Zimmerman
Radiological Safety Officer
Georgia Institute of Technology
I appreciate this chance to talk about the role of the university
in the environmental crises as it relates to nuclear power operations.
I believe it is something that, with limited exceptions, has not been
touched upon in this meeting. I can speak only for Georgia Tech, but I
believe that our posture in this matter is typical of many major State
universities; however, we are more deeply involved in applied training
programs than are similar institutions.
Obviously, when you consider the role of the university, you think
of the mission of education. The public all too often thinks that
education is the only mission of the university. That is not true.
Although education is our primary responsibility, the Georgia Legislature
and the legislatures of many other States requires that the university,
especially a technological university such as Georgia Tech, be a resource
to the State, the region, and the nation. If we are successful in
achieving this goal, the university will attract new industry to the
State, and improve the performance of existing industry. One of the
most significant services which the university can offer is in the
area of research and development. Industry frequently utilizes the
university staff to conduct specific R&D tasks which are beyond the
resources of the industrial organization.
The capability of a university to assist industry is dependent to
a large extent upon the interests of the faculty. Georgia Tech has
-------
204
built a faculty strong in knowledge of experience in the nuclear
industry. Therefore, Georgia Tech has been among the leaders in assisting
the nuclear power industry especially in the South. Many key employees
in all phases of the industry have obtained the M.S. or Ph.D. in
Nuclear Engineering at Georgia Tech. One of the strongest areas of
speciality in the nuclear engineering curriculum is radiological health.
Furthermore, the Schools of Physics and Nuclear Engineering have recently
agreed on a combined program which will lead to the B.S. in Health
Physics. Graduates will be prepared to enter industry immediately
upon graduation and contribute meaningfully on the junior health
physicist level.
Georgia Tech is now providing a unique series of training programs
which utilize the skills of the faculty and staff, as well as the
excellent nuclear facilities on the campus. The Georgia Tech Research
Reactor, a one to five megawatt research reactor, is the center focus
for much of the training. Special courses of study and practical
experience are arranged to fit the needs of three main groups of
utility employees designated to learn the following job skills: health
physics supervisor, health physics technician, and reactor operator.
Individuals chosen to supervise health physics services have, as
a minimum, a B.S. degree in science or engineering. Ideally, one would
enroll in the M.S. level radiological health program which, assuming
adequate prerequisites, would require the devotion of about one year
of effort as a full time student. Then the trainee would be assigned
-------
205
to work in the Office of Radiological Safety for about six months in
order to gain practical experience in the field. To this, the trainee
must be provided with an opportunity for significant practical experience
in an operating nuclear power plant. In practice, utility companies
may be unable to allot sufficient time for the full program of residence
at Georgia Tech. In such cases, a modified program of six months to
one year of a combination of reduced academic load and daily practical
training in health physics has proved most efficient. Academic work
is limited to one to two courses per academic quarter, which are
carefully selected for applicability to future job assignments. The
trainee devotes an average of four to six hours per day to observation
and training with the health physics staff at the Georgia Tech Research
Reactor. Here he learns and participates in all phases of an ongoing
operational health physics program. His training is accelerated by
his daily exposure to reactor conditions which may occur only once
every 13 to 15 months in an operating power reactor. By the end of the
period of residence, the trainee will be expected to perform most
types of radiation safety surveys without immediate supervision, and be
knowledgeable on most aspects of health physics management and govern-
mental regulation.
Special programs have also been provided for groups of three to
eight health physics technician trainees, usually from a single
organization. A typical program, lasting for a period of about sixteen
weeks, is tailored to the specific objectives of the sponsoring company,
-------
206
and the backgrounds of the trainees. Instruction is on the practical
level, and is intermingled with field experience at the reactor and
related facilities. In addition, trainees are assigned specific routine
technician duties, on a rotating basis, to accustom them to their
future job activity. If required by the utility, training is also
provided in plant chemistry techniques. Field trips to operating
nuclear power plants are an integral part of the training.
The Reactor Operations staff of the Nuclear and Biological Sciences
Division offers a comprehensive training program for utility employees
designated to become licensed reactor operators as well as to those
who will serve as reactor operations support personnel. Their training -
begins with the basic mathematics and technology which is prerequisite
to the specific instruction necessary to pass the AEG licensing
examination. The program concludes with assignment to the Nuclear
Research Center for individual practice in the startup and shutdown
of the GTRR.
The programs which I have described have been utilized by a number
of utilities in the South. They are examples of the rather unique
service concept of the university to the industrial community. I
believe the applicability of the programs to the needs of the utility
to be excellent.
While utility executives may intuitively trust the motivation of
the university staff in serving the needs of the industry, they may
fear that the instruction may be too theoretical or the continuity of
the programs to be in question. We at Georgia Tech feel that such
-------
207
detractions are overcome with the commitment of our top administrators
to the continuity of the services.
The university is presently an important factor in nuclear power
utilization. I believe it must become involved to an even greater
extent in the future. Protection of the environment is inseparable
from power generation in our current social climate. Therefore, I
encourage industry to look to the university for a greater measure of
assistance, and I recommend that universities consider increasing the
services offered to industry.
-------
208
Joel T. Rodgers
Nuclear Project Manager
Florida Power Corporation
We used to think that there were two ways to get into heaven in
this industry. The one for nuclear plants was at 1717 H Street in
Washington, D.C. with the by-pass gate in Bethesda. There was a way
of getting there with fossil plants and that happened to be on Riverside
Drive in Jacksonville. But this was shot down and they locked the gates
when the environmental problems began. Then came the new agency called
EPA, and I am not sure whether that is a gate to heaven or not, but you
fellows are sure acting like it.
Now, we have really got a problem. So I am going to take just a
couple of minutes here and read what I have written down here and then
sit down because I think the utilities do have a valid case for their
continuance in this business with an ability to protect the environment.
If anyone in this room thinks he can build a power plant, nuclear
or fossil, without some allocation of resources permanently, then you
are wrong. If you think Florida Power Corporation or Alabama Power
or any other company can go out of the business of generating electricity,
you are also wrong. This is because the same people that want a clean
environment commissioned us to stay in business for the production of
electricity.
I think this pretty well sets the stage for the quandary the utilities
are in. I think we need rationale and must use intelligence in these
matters. We also have a goal and it is Florida Power's goal and we are
-------
209
operating this way, too, in an attempt to meet the electric generation
and environmental needs. Our goal is to build power plants with a
minimal impact on the environment.
Gentlemen, we must do this. We cannot continue to throw pollutants
into the atmosphere, whether they are radiological or some other name.
Gas. Smoke. Whatever you want to call it. We have got to do something
about this. But complete irrational goals or imposition of standards
on the utility industry at this particular time are going to shoot down
research programs. It has got to shoot down intelligence and it may
ultimately get us to the goal, but we may back into it. It doesn't
really matter if you back into it or not, if you get there. But we can't
go out of business. The utility industry is a law abiding business. It
has its methods of operating which none of you may approve of or
disapprove of doing anything with.
As far as the subject that we started out with here, the utilities
do not have the scientific expertise to look into details of the ecology
and the impact on it by our plants.
The outside business supporting the power plants, lack a broad
capability although there do exist a few companies that are very
capable in this area.
The Regulatory Agencies do contain a very good environmental
capability, but they obviously need to perform in support of their own
positions. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule such as is the
case with our Florida Division of Health which is doing work as a
matter of its public responsibility.
-------
210
The State of Florida Department of Natural Resources which was also
suffering from reorganization is doing the same thing in the area of
thermal pollution for us.
Our greatest source of expertise for environmental understanding
is in our universities. This source of experts is essentially untapped
at this time and perhaps the reason is mutual lack of communication and
perspective between it and the power industry. Industry sees the
university as a bunch of little kids with pieces of string attached to
their noses while the university sees industry as a money monger with no
feeling for the environment or the public or anybody else. All we want
you to do is sell electricity.
Well, both of us are wrong. I think that is true and I am happy to
tell you that the ice is broken. They are finding it difficult going,
but the environmental protection is growing. The complimenting capabilities
of two truly responsible business organizations in the public interest,
with direct benefit to students in the way of improved quality of
their education is taking place, then the utility can attain true
credibility through complete openness and honesty of our efforts in
the environment. The great majority of the public will find such
activity to be acceptable. Complete liaison with regulatory experts
is essential to making this thing go.
I think we were the first utility to respond openly to the Fish
and Wildlife Letter at the construction permit stage and agreed to do
what was imposed on us at that time. In partial answer to the letter,
we are holding semiannual coordination meetings with all the people
-------
211
who are involved at the Crystal River nuclear facility environmental
effort.
We have two of them to date. The concept is working beautifully and
if you have ever tried to put that group of people in a room together
and expect to come out with your hide you're fooling yourself. I wouldn't
even agree to be the moderator. They were scared of us and each other,
but why could't we talk to each other. They were all afraid the slides
weren't any good. So we just talked a little bit about the program.
The second one was absolutely phenomenal.
Now, there were some EPA people there. We don't open this to the
press or the public for, I guess, obvious reasons in spite of the fact
that having done it twice now I am sure that we could get away with it.
I think we will get out with our hide. I think you do have to
understand the public has to know that what you are doing is in their
interest and you have to have this complete honesty with each other.
We are very pleased that the University of Florida and South Florida
go along with us and we are most proud of the association. We also have
the two State agencies working with us on environmental research. We
anticipate an even greater involvement in the State with the University
of Miami and Florida State University. We want you to go home and take
the trouble to see what your university can do to assist your company
in protecting the environment.
We have had dealings with many universities; Cornell University,
and North Carolina State University. The University of Florida, the
-------
212
University of South Florida and the Georgia Tech Health Physics group
is another area where we have worked. We have good relationship
at all these universities. We don't put any restrictions on work that
they are doing. We outline initially what the program is and then
they take off. We are not operating in a vacuum and this, I think,
is extremely important.
-------
213
W. Etnmett Bolch, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering
University of Florida
I would briefly like to cover two points, the first is the
question of how, and why the university should be involved in environ-
mental surveillance. The second point, is the question of how best
can the university meet the needs of society, especially in terms of
training the right kinds of people.
Maybe I should review briefly the history of our involvement with
Florida Power Corporation. I had been teaching several courses in
Radiological Health for a number of years and suddenly came to the
realization that I was not in tune with some of the new concepts in
environmental surveillance for radioactivity. For this reason, I set
up a special seminar series in the Winter of 1969-70, and invited a
number of experts who were currently dealing with the problem of
environmental surveillance to come and talk to my students. In
addition, we discussed all the current literature on environmental
surveillance for radioactivity.
Our speakers included Wallace Johnson, State Board of Health,
John Hancock, Florida Power Corporation, and a lot of other people
from in and out of State. It was a very successful seminar series.
I believe it is fair to say that John Hancock was impressed with our
facilities and "up-to-dateness," and before dinner was over I had
agreed to put in a proposal to perform the third party preoperational
environmental surveillance for Florida Power at Crystal River.
-------
A few months later the contract was signed. There was full
agreement between the industry and the university that the investigators
would be able to innovate and try new approaches to this problem of
environmental surveillance. Of a special importance in our proposal
was the application of ecological principles to the sampling and
analysis. The university considered the contract a research contract
and we could investigate new ways of approaching the subject. We
would, of course, want to do things right and collect sufficient amounts
of base line data to more than satisfy any regulatory requirements. I
agree with what has been said at this conference about some necessity
for standardizing procedures. There has been some talk out in the halls
about having a special conference on this subject. I think that that
would be a good idea. I am not sure exactly who should respond or
where it should be, but we ought to give it some thought.
Let me get back to my first point. I think it is safe to say
that the university does not want to be and shouldn't be in the business
of routine environmental surveillance. That is a responsibility for
somebody else. If there are problems that occur, we would like to
look at these problems and find solutions, or we would like to investi-
gate new ways to approach old problems. As Bob Zimmerman has said,
"we do have a lot of expertise" at a university. When I first came
into the academic world several years ago, the word, "interdisciplinary"
was being thrown about quite a lot. A lot of paper organizations were
tried, but many really didn't work. I truly believe that our inter-
disciplinary group is working. It is an exciting experience to see
-------
215
a Nuclear Engineer and a Marine Biologist working together and
learning from each other. The faculty members involved in such a
project benefit greatly from the application of principles to a real
problem. Some personal experience is a tremendous asset when you
stand up before a group of students.
As an end result of the type of project the University of Florida
is carrying on for Florida Power Corporation, the industry benefits
from the expertise brought to bear upon the problem, the investigators
benefit from the interaction with other faculty members and the
industrial personnel, the teaching program benefits from the interjection
of real problems, and, of course, finally, the students benefit both
from the improved classroom teaching and from working on these projects
as graduate assistants.
Let me briefly go into my second point. I am in a department that
has the audacity to call itself Environmental Engineering. We supposedly
cover water pollution, water treatment, radiological health, ecology,
environmental biology, environmental chemistry, and solid waste.
Our most important product is, of course, students. We are in the
business of trying to train the people that are going to be your
employees. I would like to mention a few things that I see as trends.
We are currently only a graduate department awarding only masters,
and Ph.D.'s. In the last few years we have seen the ratio of masters
to Ph.D.'s, change toward more masters candidates. What this means to
the industrial and governmental people in this audience is that we
are training more people to be hired in these organizations, and less
-------
216
people to be hired by other educational institutions. How far should
this trend go? We are meeting in a faculty retreat this weekend,
and one of the subjects is going to be that, undergraduate education
in Environmental Engineering.
I have mixed emotions about undertaking such a program. We need
inputs from industry and government. Do you need this type of person?
Do you need someone with a Bachelor of Science in Environmental
Engineering? It is a rather difficult job to set up an undergraduate
program, and we would like to know if it would be of service to you.
We always appreciate comments, criticisms, and suggestions from the
people that are going to hire our graduates. It is difficult to get
this type of feedback. We have tried various procedures, including
questionaires to our past graduates. In the last couple of weeks a
Blue Ribbon Commission was formed to visit our department and tell us
what type of individual needs to be trained.
I am told that there are several reasons why people go into teaching.
One is for revenge, two is because they get a call similar to a preacher,
and three is they like to have a captive audience just to ramble on
whatever subject they want to. I probably fall into that third category
here. My time is limited and I thank you for your attention and will
welcome any questions.
-------
217
G. K. Rhode
Representing
Atomic Industrial Forum
I am very pleased to represent the Atomic Industrial Forum today,
because we wanted to make this group aware that we have a relatively
new Ad Hoc Working Group on Radiation Protection which is presently
working very actively on several projects, including environmental
monitoring guidelines. Some of my remarks this afternoon will include
ideas our group has been discussing; others represent my personal
feelings regarding proper interrelationships.
There have been suggestions that industry—and particularly
electric utilities—spend at least one percent of their income on
research and development. Whether you agree or disagree with this
figure, the question still remains, "Do environmental studies fall
in this category at all?" or "Is basic research fundamentally a public
agency responsibility?" Already the public has come to look upon
some segments of our collective industry as representing something
they call the "Establishment" and to view these entities with consider-
able suspicion. I think it will be necessary to consider this problem
at the very top of the list as we plan for future environmental
studies. I agree that universities will play a major role here. I
also feel that a cooperative effort between the plant operator and
public health agencies is necessary and desirable across the board.
However, some division of responsibility is feasible. The plant
-------
218
operator, for example, should take the lead in controlling and tracking
emissions from his own facility, while public health agency responsi-
bility takes over in areas such as interpretation of data for public
health purposes, setting of standards, the undertaking of new research
which might be needed, and assessing public exposure from all radiation
sources. From an operator's standpoint, it makes little difference
which agency takes the lead in monitoring our activities, but it would
obviously not be desirable to see duplication of inspection efforts
as Dr. Beck touched on.
It is clear that new nuclear plants will incorporate effluent
cleanup systems which are likely to hold down emissions, most of the
time, to levels that are extremely difficult if not impossible to
distinguish in the natural environment. Therefore, the question
of continuing full blown environmental monitoring programs, collecting
a continuous string of zeros,--a question which has always been with
us--now seems more pertinent than ever. Several of us at the Forum
are convinced that graded surveillance programs, such as have been
described by other speakers, are the appropriate answer.
I don't think it is particularly relevant which standard these
graded programs are geared to; the standard could be a fraction of
10 CFR 20 dose limits as described by Dr. Beck; it could be more
restrictive state standards, or perhaps the yardstick might be total
man-rem exposure to large population groups. In any event, three
-------
219
significant guidelines are applicable:
1) Continuing operation of a full scale environmental surveillance
program below a distinguishable measurement threshold is not warranted.
2) Graded surveillance programs, which can be scaled up or down
in accord with in-plant monitoring results, should be utilized.
3) These activities should be designed for easy assessment of
exposures above normal background actually received by people--not
necessarily fence posts!!
Utilitization of these graded environmental surveillance programs
will place additional reliance on in-plant measurements of what is
being released so that doses can be better predicted. In my opinion,
the practices being conducted today in nuclear facilities are more
than adequate for this purpose. However, anyone who has been accustomed
to thinking that in-plant measurements are private domain will have to
recognize that these data are also extremely important to public health
and regulatory agencies. Here again, a cooperative system for data
review will have to be worked out.
Joel touched on my last comment, but I think it is worth repeating.
We do indeed have a problem, but it will do no good to overreact to
environmental pressures and set up conditions none of us would welcome.
I think the vast majority of the public expects us to determine a
proper balance between all environmental considerations and will
keep the pressure on us until we do just that. Frankly, our power
needs are too urgent for us to get caught in the middle of any such
controversy. The power industry has been accused on many occasions
-------
220
of trying to foist nuclear plants on a completely unwilling public--
presumably for reasons which no one has yet been able to define.
The fact of the matter is that nuclear plants are a tremendous
added burden to our industry:
1) They have a much higher capital cost--at a time when we are
finding it harder and harder to raise capital.
2) They require at least a two year longer construction period--
making long-range planning more difficult and requiring an earlier
financing program.
3) They have a most difficult regulatory climate which casts a
heavy shadow on construction schedule plans and requiring continuous
management attention from beginning to end.
One of the main reasons why we volunteer to take on these added
burdens is because all of us are convinced that nuclear power is the
"cleanest" way we know of today to produce electricity. But, how
many times have utilities been forced to turn to other forms of
generation because of nuclear roadblocks? Is this the balance the
public really wants? I think not--and we must be very careful not
to create a framework which forces industry in this direction.
-------
221
NUCLEAR POWER AND A PROTECTED ENVIRONMENT
Dr. Morton I. Goldman, Vice President
Environmental Safeguards Division
NUS Corporation
I have been increasingly involved over the last several years in
what have become known as confrontations with the so-called environmen-
talists, particularly with regard to nuclear power plants. Therefore,
I welcomed the last minute invitation to come here, and to make a
presentation on the future role of nuclear power in a protected
environment. I say this because I see trends at the present time
which lead me on occasion to doubt our ability to maintain a balanced
perspective with regard to the role of nuclear generation of electricity
in supplying the energy demands of our country. Unfortunately a good
part of this trend has been aided and abetted by some public agencies
who should know better.
I don't think it is necessary to go into the role of electric
energy in maintaining and improving what some people call "the quality
of life" or what others call "the standard of living." There is a
debate at the moment as to whether our use of energy has or has not
approached the conspicuous consumption stage and therefore resulted
in an expenditure of resources that are out of proportion to the
benefits.
This debate about national energy policy, both as to the source
of the energy and its usage, is one that is continuing and I think,
encompasses a fairly broad spectrum of society. However, the present
-------
222
use of electricity constitutes only about ten percent of the total
per capita usage of energy in the United States. It doesn't take
too much of an examination of the environment and other energy usage
to reach the conclusion, at least with regard to the environment,
that electric energy may be the most beneficial of any of the other
forms of energy usage at the present time.
This is a decidedly arguable thesis to some of my frequent opponents
on the other side of the table. But there have been enough studies done
on environmental effects of alternative energy usage to indicate that
the generation of electric energy by central stations, particularly
through use of nuclear fuel, provides by far the least environmental
impact of any other available alternatives.
In trying to look at the future of nuclear power and its role in
supplying our energy needs, I thought it might be of some interest,
especially in view of my own recent exposures to the environmentalists,
to examine this role in the light of the present debates with regard
to nuclear plants. These debates usually encompass a number of
topics. Although the specific details vary, the topics can be
broadly characterized as those related to: first, low-level discharge
from nuclear facilities; second, the ultimate disposal of high-level
wastes; third, nuclear accidents and public health; and fourth, thermal
effects. Each of these, brought up in different ways and with different
variations, has been discussed on a number of occasions and in a wide
variety of forums ranging from formal hearings to television debates.
-------
223
I think unless we manage to resolve these debates in some reasonable
manner, the promise of nuclear power will be sharply curtailed. Several
States have "moratoria" legislation under consideration. Several
utilities have rejected nuclear plants in favor of fossil alternatives
largely on the basis of an unfavorable response from the public. I
don't think these actions are necessarily in the direction of an
improved environment.
The resolution o£ these debates may not necessarily be reached with
many of our more vocal opponents. Some are obviously irreversibly
committed. For example, Dr. Gofman testified under oath a few months
ago in Maryland that one percent of the AEG standards are, and I quote,
"grossly unsafe." I am quite sure we are not going to change his mind.
On the other hand, some of our opponents are not as unreasonable
as they are misinformed. It is almost universally the case that the
public is at the very least uninformed and (more usually) misinformed
about any particular nuclear power plant proposal. Until we can inform
and educate this latter group, that is, the partially informed, the
present difficulties are going to escalate in many areas.
I propose to look at two of the areas of concern that I mentioned
earlier; those of low-level wastes and thermal effects. I think that
to some extent they share a very common emotional element.
The low-level waste discharge question is one upon which the
attention of this meeting has largely been focused. The questions in
this area are based on the broader inquiry into the validity of present
radiation protection standards, particularly as they apply to licensed
-------
224
nuclear facilities. I don't think that it is necessary for me to
review the waste discharge values that you have seen on a number of
occasions in the last few days, or the history of our present protection
standards, or the degree of control that has been exercised both by
industry and regulatory agencies over this potential problem.
Certainly, as has been said on several occasions here and on many
occasions elsewhere, the history of licensed nuclear facilities is
unmatched by any other human activity in the degree of care that has
been exercised before rather than after a problem has arisen. One of
the fairly widespread misunderstandings that I have found in dealings
with the public and with some people in regulatory agencies relates to
the application of these protection standards by the AEG to nuclear
facilities and to the significance of the most recent changes in AEC
regulations relating to waste discharges.
It is not unusual at all to find people who are firmly convinced
that the AEC regulations permit regular exposure of individuals near
nuclear facilities to the legal limit of five hundred mrem per year,
and exposure of substantial populations to one hundred seventy mrem
per year; and that the AEC considers only air and water concentrations
and doesn't consider food chain reconcentration. It has been extremely
difficult to convince some of these people that it is almost impossible
to reach the maximum dose levels to individual members of the public.
The only way to reach maximum dose levels is by a combination of
extremely poor performance of both fuel and waste control systems.
-------
225
Even under those circumstances one would have to be that delightful
hypothetical individual who lives outdoors in his skin on the most
unfavorable site boundary twenty-four hours a day, three hundred
sixty-five days a year, and who also has a long enough neck to get
his head down in the discharge canal to get his water and proteins
from that source.
Furthermore, under no attainable conditions can a significant
population be exposed, through nuclear plant operations, even to a
small fraction of that appropriate limit without greatly exceeding the
individual limits at the site boundary. A combination of both
calculations and measurements (such as those that were presented
yesterday for Carl Gamertsfelder by Charles Pelletier) have indicated
that for the plants currently in operation there exist factors of
difference between the site boundary exposures and population exposure
within about fifty miles in the range of several hundred to several
thousand, depending upon the site, considering both direct and
indirect exposure routes, i.e., through the food chain.
In view of the fact that radioactive discharges from presently
operating plants have ranged from a few tenths to a few percent of their
licensed limits and that these plants were designed and built before
the present regulations relating to "as low as practicable" were in
effect, it is pertinent to ask what useful things have been accomplished.
Certainly the surveys of Dresden and Yankee-Rowe did not indicate any
perceptible change in population exposure as a result of operation of
these plants.
-------
226
That these regulatory changes have had some effect is unquestioned.
They have made every potential intervenor and review board or agency
instant experts as to how low "as low as practicable" really is.
The modifications also have undoubtedly served to increase the gross
national product by increasing the amount of hardware that can be sold
to utilities for incorporation into power plants and by increasing the
amount of paper necessary to design, license and operate the stations.
What the regulatory changes probably will not do, except in a few
instances, is to materially change the radiation burden borne by
either plant neighbors or the population at large.
There are instances where the application of better management
methods can have a significant effect on population doses. Leaving
the nuclear power field for just a moment, there is a real need for
substantial reductions in the huge population dose due to excessive
and unnecessary use of medical X-rays. However, in the nuclear power
area, there are instances where provisions for added systems can be
of benefit. One of these is to augment the decay of gaseous radioactive
effluents in the off-gas systems of the boiling water reactors. This
also has the benefit to the operator of providing him with flexibility
in operating with defective fuel elements which do show up from time
to time.
A second less specific improvement as a result of the modification
of regulations may well result from requiring the use of installed
waste management equipment at nuclear plants. This has not always
been the case. There are a number of plants that have waste treatment
-------
227
systems that have never been used, except to be tested. This use can
be expected to improve effluent quality.
A third instance of significant benefits to be derived from
requiring improved waste management lies in the fuel reprocessing plant
area, particularly in the control of noble gases and tritium. The
control of noble gases, as we have heard, is technically feasible at
these plants at present. The control of tritium is something that
remains for the future.
Aside from these instances, I find it almost impossible to identify
examples of significant public radiation dose reduction attained from
the application of more stringent management of low-level discharges
from nuclear facilities, and I submit it is that reduction of public
radiation exposure which should be our objective in all of these
activities. Nevertheless, we are seeing at the present time, a
significant number of other systems being considered for incorporation
in other plants as described in this meeting.
It is my own judgment that for the most part, although we will
see relatively little difference if any resulting from incorporation
of these various systems, we will see a significant increase in the
average radiation exposure of the plant workers due to increased
maintenance and handling requirements for these systems. Further,
having had the momentary vision of a so-called "zero release" concept
dangled before them, concerned citizens groups are hardly likely to
settle for much less, not realizing that they are paying for a commodity,
improved radiation protection, which they are not going to receive.
-------
228
This situation will very probably continue until sometime in the
future when either the public will become sufficiently well-informed
about nuclear power and radiation that these fears will be dealt with
more rationally, or we will reach a state of irrationality such that
we begin to control where and in what structures people may live because
of incremental natural radiation dose contributions. One day we may
even reach the extreme point of controlling medical uses of radiation.
We need to recognize and to clearly state the relationship between
those research-oriented activities directed at improving our existing
knowledge of radioisotope transport and ultimate fate, and the existing
regulation of human radiation exposure which is entirely adequate and
done with sufficiently satisfactory accuracy to assure the public health
and safety.
We don't need five decimal places to assure the public health and
safety. As desirable as this additional research may be, we have to
make very clear to the public that it is not necessary that we await
all of these results before proceeding with nuclear power programs.
With projected population exposures from nuclear power in the range
of one tenth mrem per capita per year or less, I cannot accept the idea
that we may have catastrophe awaiting us in the years to come from
these radioactive wastes. Furthermore, considering that the cost of
these perhaps unnecessary activities are being borne by the public,
any honest individual might ask himself where these dollars can best
be invested for a return in improved public health and welfare.
-------
229
I would submit that the best return in improved health will not
be from the three to five million dollars per station in additional
waste systems as much as it would be in a municipal sewage treatment
plant or in rebuilding slums for both of which the public is expected
to pay.
The area of thermal effects is one that bears a number of
similarities to the radiation area, and I thought it might be refreshing
for a change to listen to someone else's problems. I think this is an
area that also threatens the full realization of the future potential
of nuclear power, and for that matter all benefits of electric
generation.
Of course, the laws of thermodynamics were not really part of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; Congress really doesn't have
that much to do with steam cycle efficiency, and resulting waste heat
rejection needs were defined quite a few decades before fission was
discovered. However, it seems environmental thermal effect problems
have largely been examined because of nuclear plants.
Now, it is a fact that cooling water in the light-water nuclear
plants discharges more heat per kilowatt than in the most modern
fossil plants. It is also a fact that nuclear plants are being built
with larger unit capacity than fossil plants resulting in the require-
ment for more heat discharged from a given site. The combination of
these two factors results in a thermal discharge and a potential for
harm which is greater than has been usual in the past.
-------
230
The problems of heat rejection, though, have not gone entirely
unrecognized by the organizations that design and build these facilities.
Heat rejection has always been a major consideration in siting and
designing power plants. This may be made somewhat more important and
somewhat more difficult to solve by the introduction of the light-
water reactor plants, but in the present climate of insistence on
instant environmental purity, the political responses to uninformed
pressures produce in some instances "solutions" which will in my
opinion result in net harm to the public.
These are number of examples of this kind of solution. Temperature
limits significantly lower than the natural range of temperatures
observed in the unaltered Bay water, have been established for unmixed
discharge into the Chesapeake Bay. This may have the effect of requiring
plant output at Calvert Cliffs to he reduced at precisely those times
of the year when it will be needed by both myself and my neighbor,
Mr. Ruckelshaus, to run our air conditioning systems'directly off the
P.J.M. system. But the difficult part to understand is that there
is no net benefit to the biota in the area who have the freedom (and
exercise it) to leave uncomfortably warm water for the season, so to
speak.
A second example is the prohibition of once-through cooling at
the Trojan site on the Columbia River, despite the fact that the
Hanford plants on that river have added substantial heat loads in the
past with no significant effect on the fishery resources on the
-------
231
Columbia. The giant cooling tower under construction at that site
may increase the frequency of fogs and precipitation in the area
somewhat to the detriment of the human inhabitants, to say nothing of
adding a substantial visual impact for those concerned with aesthetics.
It is hard to hide a fifty-story structure covering the area of one
and one half football fields.
The Illinois Water Pollution Control Board denied permission for
the Dresden 3 unit to be operated this summer because the cooling
lake under construction will not be completed until late in the year.
Considering that fish are scarce, to say the least, in the Illinois
River near Dresden largely because of the presence in the water of
sewage and waste from Chicago, it seems to me to be a very poor trade
off for the people served by Commonwealth Edison to be deprived of a
badly needed eight hundred thousand kilowatts this summer for the
benefit of almost non-existent fish.
A final example of official nonsense is the pending action by
EPA in the matter of the Lake Michigan Enforcement Conference. Here,
the Enforcement Conference heard testimony and, because there was so
much of it, set up their own technical committee to evaluate all of the
evidence that had been presented. The findings of the Conference's own
technical committee was "that there has been no significant damage
at large presently operating stations, that any effects at all are
largely localized, and there is time to demonstrate the extent of
more subtle effects before the lake is remotely endangered." EPA
totally ignored these findings and the Conference was directed to
-------
232
define limits which would require alternate heat rejection schemes for
large power plants, i.e., requiring use of cooling towers in northern
climates, perhaps the poorest overall choice for the people that can
be imagined. These installations which are and would be required to
operate through the winter will create, at the very least, highly
adverse conditions of fog and precipitation during the fall and
winter and, at the very worst, may on occasion result in injury or
death from the creation of local icing conditions on adjacent highways.
I expect, however, that the fervor for alternate heat rejection methods
where there is no valid basis for their choice will continue until
these units have been in operation, and the public has an opportunity
to see what they have bought and paid for. At that time, I think
there will be a reevaluation of the direction in which the scale
should be balanced with perhaps the immediate human environment taking
precedence again.
In summary, I would say that the role of nuclear power in maintaining
and improving our environment can be a major one, but that its full
potential is being threatened by the current wave of emotionalism
which has found an all-too-ready home in some of our public agencies
which should be leading, rather than following, the uninformed.
It is also true that there have been occasions when some
representatives of the industry have been less than fully responsible
in their actions. However, unless the scientific and engineering
communities can effectively and honestly inform the public about the
-------
233
balances and the trade-offs involved in these plans or decisions, the
political and industrial responses are going to result in providing
needed electric energy at a premium price with no net environmental
gain.
We do need electrical energy, more of it than ever before, not
only to continue to provide for the personal standard of living that
we enjoy, but to provide the needed improvement to the environment
itself, by producing the energy to run the pumps and the blowers and
the process equipment that we need to clean up our presently really
polluted water and air.
It is a fact, not a fancy, that nuclear power provides this
energy with the least overall detriment to the environment. With
these considerations in view, I would suggest that we would spend
our time better talking less to each other and more to the public.
-------
235
APPENDIX
Conference Participants
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Dr. Clifford K. Beck - AEC (Office of Regulation)
Mr. William Brink - EPA (Radiation Office)
Dr. Melvin Carter - EPA (Western Environmental Research Laboratory)
Mr. Howard Chapman - EPA (Radiation Office)
Mr. James M. Conlon - EPA (Region IV)
Mr. John G. Davis - AEC (Region II—Division of Compliance)
Mr. David H. Flora - EPA (Radiation Office)
Mr. Robert Frankel - PHS (Region III—Radiological Health)
Dr. Karl C, Gamertsfelder - AEC
(Division of Radiological and Environmental Protection)
Mr. Ernest D. Harvard - EPA (Radiation Office)
Dr. Bernd Kahn - EPA (Radiation Office)
Mr. Douglas H. Keefer - EPA (Region IV)
Dr. Joseph A. Lieberman - EPA (Radiation Office)
Mr. Waller Marter - AEC (Savannah River Laboratory)
Dr. James Martin - EPA (Radiation Office)
Mr. Sylvan C. Martin - NIH (Environmental Health Sciences)
Dr. James McTaggart - PHS (Region VI—Radiological Health)
Dr. James MiHer - PHS (Radiological Health)
M ™ R*chard Payne - PHS (Region IV—Radiological Health)
nr. uiarles Porter - EPA (Eastern Environmental Radiation Laboratory)
M rrn! Shearin ~ EPA (Eastern Environmental Radiation Laboratory)
. filbert F. Stone - TVA (Environmental Research and Development)
Mr. Ernest B. Tremmel - AEC (Division of Industrial Participation)
Mr. Charles L. Weaver - EPA (Radiation Office)
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Dayne H. Brown - North Carolina Board of Health
Mr. Richard H. Fetz - Georgia Department of Public Health
Mr. Richard Frey - Kentucky Department of Health
Mr. Eddie S. Fvente - Mississippi State Board of Health
Mr. Wallace B. Johnson - Florida Division of Health
Mr. Francis Jung - Tennessee Department of Public Health
Mr. George McCall - Pinellas County (Florida) Health Department
Dr. Chester L. Nayfield - Florida Division of Health
Dr. Roy Parker - Louisiana Board of Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Lamar Priester - South Carolina State Board of Health
Mr. Bryce P. Schofield - Arkansas State Board of Health
Mr. Heyward Sheabey - South Carolina State Board of Health
Mr. William T. Willis - Alabama Department of Public Health
Mr. Jack Wilmik - Pinellas County (Florida) Civil Defense
Mr. Frank Wilson - Arkansas Department of Health
-------
236
UNIVERSITY
Col. James R. Bohannon, Jr. - North Carolina State University
Dr. W. Enunett Bolch - University of Florida
Dr. William E. Carr - University of Florida
Dr. Billy G. Dunavant - University of Florida
Dr. John F. Gamble - University of Florida
Dr. M. J. Ohanian - University of Florida
Dr. Carlyle J. Roberts - Georgia Institute of Technology
Mr. Robert Zimmerman - Georgia Institute of Technology
INDUSTRY
Mr. S. A. Brandimore - Florida Power Corporation
Mr. W. F. Cobler - Florida Power Corporation
Mr. William H. Cox - Florida Power Corporation
Mr. Wilson E. Craig - Carolina Power and Light Company
Mr. H. A. Evertz, III - Florida Power Corporation
Mr. K. E. Fenderson, Jr. - Florida Power Corporation
Dr. Morton I. Goldman - NUS Corporation
Mr. J. A. Hancock - Florida Power Corporation
Mr. James F. Hilley - Southern Services, Inc.
Mr. J. C. Hobbs - Florida Power Corporation
Mr. R. M. Hogg - Babcock and Wilcox Company
Mr. Harlan T. Holmes - Arkansas Power and Light Company
Mr. John F. Honstead - Battelle Northwest Laboratory
Mr. J. 0. Howard - Babcock and Wilcox Company
Mr. W. C. Johnson - Florida Power Corporation
Mr. William Johnson - Eberline Instrument Corporation
Mr. Donald Kahlson - Spectro-Sciences
Mr. Lionel Lewis - Duke Power Company
Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger - Southern Nuclear Engineering, Inc.
Dr. M. L. Littler - Spectro-Sciences
Mr. J. A. Mohrbacher - Allied Chemical Products
Mr. Fred Norman - Babcock and Wilcox Company
Mr. A. P. Perez - Florida Power Corporation
Mr. W. B. Reed - Southern Services/, Inc.
Mr. G. K. Rhode - Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (AIF Rep.)
Mr. D. W. Richmond - Florida Power Corporation
Mr. Joel T. Rodgers - Florida Power Corporation
Mr. Roy Snapp - Bechhoefer, Snapp, and Tripp
Mr. Clyde H. Stagner - Florida Power Corporation
Mr. Charles Steel - Arkansas Power and Light Company
Mr. Ruble Thomas - Southern Services, Inc.
Mr. Henry J. vonHollen - Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Mr. William H. Webster - Carolina Power and Light Company
Mr. Daniel W. West - Florida Power Corporation
Mr. L. W. Williams - Southern Services, Inc.
OU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1972 514-147/51 1-3
-------