ORP/SID 72-4
   PROCEEDINGS OF SOUTHERN CONFERENCE
   ON ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION PROTECTION
         FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS,
             APRIL 21-22,1971
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     Office of Radiation Programs
    ill

-------
                        Technical Reports

                     OFFICE  OF RADIATION  PROGRAMS
                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ORP/SID 72-1

ORP/SID 72-2

ORP/SID 72-3


ORP/SID 72-i*
Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States

Environmental Radioactivity Surveillance Guide

Reference Data for Radiofrequency Emission
  Hazard Analysis

Proceedings  of Southern Conference on Environmental
  Radiation  Protection from Nuclear Power Plants
 ORP/CSD 72-1
 Estimates  of Ionizing Radiation  Doses  in  the
   United States,  1960 - 2000

-------
   PROCEEDINGS OF SOUTHERN CONFERENCE
ON ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION PROTECTION
       FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS,
               APRIL 21-22,1971
          SURVEILLANCE AND INSPECTION DIVISION

                   SEPTEMBER 1972
         U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                Office of Radiation Programs
                  Washington, D,C. 20460

-------
                               FOREWORD
     The Office of Radiation Programs carries out a national program
designed to evaluate the exposure of man to ionizing and nonionizing
radiation, and to promote development of controls necessary to pro-
tect the public health and safety and assure environmental quality.

     Within the Office of Radiation Programs, the Surveillance and
Inspection Division conducts programs relating to sources and levels
of environmental radioactivity and the resulting population radiation
dose.  Reports of the findings are published in the monthly publi-
cation, Radiation Data and Reports, appropriate scientific journals,
and Division technical reports.

     The technical reports of the Surveillance and Inspection Division
allow comprehensive and rapid publishing of the results of intramural
and contract projects.  The reports are distributed to State and local
radiological health programs, Office of Radiation Programs technical
and advisory committees, universities, libraries and information serv-
ices, industry, hospitals, laboratories, schools, the press, and other
interested groups and individuals.  These reports are also included in
the collections of the Library of Congress and the National Technical
Information Service.

     Readers of these reports are encouraged to  inform  the Office  of
Radiation Programs of any omissions or errors.   Comments  or requests
for further information are also invited.
                                                  W. D. Rowe
                                        Deputy Assistant Administrator
                                             for Radiation Programs
                                    iii

-------
                                PREFACE
     The Southern Conference on Environmental Protection from Nuclear
Power Plants was convened in St. Petersburg, Florida, on April 21-22,
1971, to discuss potential health hazards associated with nuclear
power plants.  Specifically, the purpose of the conference was to pre-
sent techniques used to identify and monitor radionuclides contained
in liquid and gaseous effluents produced by operating nuclear power
plants.  A second purpose was to specify pathways through which radio-
active materials released by the nuclear power industry may reach the
population.  Such information assists in determining the radiation
dose that may be contributed to the national population by the nuclear
power industry.

     The conference was sponsored jointly by the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Florida Division of Health with the co-
operation of the Florida Power Corporation.  Participants listed in
the Appendix came from Federal and State governmental agencies, uni-
versities, the utility industry, and from other companies having an
interest in the nuclear power industry.

     This report is a compilation of the papers presented at  the
conference and the deliberations following their delivery.  Additional
information of this type is sought on a continuing basis and  the
interest and comments of individuals concerned with various aspects
of radiation protection of man  and his environment are  solicited.
                                            Charles L. Weaver
                                            Acting Director
                                   Surveillance  and Inspection Division

-------
                              CONTENTS


Foreword ..............................

Preface  ..............................    v
What the Future Holds for Nuclear Power
     Ernest B. Tremmel
Man and His Environmental Responsibilities .............    1
     Joseph A. Lieberman

Problems in Meeting AEG Reporting and Complience Requirements   ...   15
     Billy H. Webster

Evaluation of Environmental Factors Affecting Population Exposure  .   29
     John F. Honstead, Thomas H. Essig

Region IV Radiation Office Activities Related to
  the National Radiological Data Management Project  ........   58
     Douglas H. Reefer

Waste Management ..........................   66
     Roger M. Hogg

PWR Nuclear Power Plant Systems for Reducing Radioactive Releases  .   87
     H. J. Von Hollen

Regulatory Experience and Projections for Future Design Criteria . .  102
     Carl C. Gamertsfelder
The Terrestrial Radiological Monitoring Programs at
  Duke Power Company's Oconee and McGuire Nuclear Stations  ..... 131
     Lionel Lewis

Aquatic Radiological Monitoring, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant   .... 161
     Gilbert F. Stone

An Ecological  Approach to Marine Radiological Monitoring at
  the Florida  Power Corporation Crystal River Nuclear Plant   .... 177
     William E. S. Carr

Panel Discussion:  Interrelationships  of Federal, State, Academic,
  and Industrial  Interests  in Environmental  Studies   ........
     E. David  Harward, Wallace B. Hohnson, Robert L.  Zimmerman,
     Joel  T. Rodger s, W.  Emmett Bolch, G. K. Rhode

Nuclear Power  and a Protected Environment   .............  221

Appendix,  Conference  Participants   .................  235

                                  vii

-------
            MAN AND HIS  ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES


                       Dr.  Joseph A. Lteberman*
                Acting Commissioner, Radiation Office
                   Environmental  Protection Agency


     In recent years, demands to  act upon the condition  of  our

physical environment have intensified  to such a  point  that  1970

became "The Year of the Environment."  A growing public  concern  for

the state of our environment has  resulted in a great outpouring  of

demands for prompt national action at  every level of government.

In my mind, this manifest public  concern is a reaction somewhat

overdue.  Over the years, it has  become  increasingly clear that  we

must know more about our total environmental system—the land that

grows our food,  the water we drink, and the air we breathe.  I am

pleased, then, to be here in the fine environment of Florida in

April to discuss my concept of man and his environmental responsi-

bilities.

     The use  of  technology in American Society has expanded for

decades to such  an  extent that,  for many,  the "American Way" now

includes acceptance  of the equation that "technology equals progress."

Guidelines such  as  the Gross National Product have often been used

as  the  only indicators of "progress" in  our  society.  We have now

reached a  point, however, where  we  can no  longer afford to simply

automatically apply technological innovations to solve  our immediate
 * Present Position, Chairman, EPA Energy Policy Committee

-------
 problems without  first assessing  the direct and indirect effects the




 application may have on the environment.  One of the key roles of




 the Environmental Protection Agency, for example, will be to initiate




 a more orderly system of performing technology assessments.  And




 we're going to have to decide in  favor of the environment if the choice




 ever comes down to that—but it need not!  I believe that we can




 achieve a quality environment, and at the same time enjoy a high




 level of material progress.




      How we go about doing that depends on a lot of different things.




 For one,  it depends on whether we are successful in developing a




 new environmental  ethic in this  country.   And  the  core  of this




 ethic  must  be  a  profound  respect for life—in  all  of its  forms.




 Man,  of  course,  is included,  but man cannot  survive on  this  planet



 alone.




     All  life  depends on certain cycles of energy and material




 conversion, powered ultimately by  radiation  from the sun:  the




 oxygen-carbon  cycle, the water cycle, and many others.  All  living




 things take part in, and affect, these natural cycles, but today




man's activities are affecting them  on a massive scale.  And we cannot




 limit our concern only to the effects of our activities to this




generation.   Our environmental ethic must include recognition that




others will follow us here--and perhaps we should temper our use of




resources so that we leave as our inheritance sufficient quantities



for them to  use.

-------
     So in meeting the legitimate needs and desires of our present




society, in reaching the high level of material progress that we  hope




to reach for our people, we must recognize that we have no greater




cause--we have no greater duty--but to enhance and to protect the




environment so that we ourselves and future generations will be able




to enjoy living on this earth.  That is the thrust of "man's environ-




mental responsibilities"--and that is the core of the mission of  the




Environmental Protection Agency.




     The Environmental Protection Agency was established December 2,




1970.  On that same day Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus was confirmed  as




Administrator of EPA by unanimous vote of the Senate.  The principal




functions of the Agency include:  (1) the establishment and enforce-




ment of environmental protection standards consistent with national




environmental goals;  (2) the conduct of research on the effects of




pollution and on methods and equipment for controlling  it;  (3) the




collection of surveillance and monitoring data, and the use of this




information in strengthening environmental protection programs and




recommending policy changes.  One of our principal roles  is also to




assist other groups which have environmental responsibilities  through




grants and technical  assistance.




     We will also be  working with the Council  on Environmental Quality




in developing and recommending to the President new policies  for the




protection of the environment.  Six  offices have been established to




assist the Administrator in carrying out these functions:   the Water

-------
 Quality, Air Pollution Control, Pesticides, Solid Waste Management,



 Noise Abatement and Control, and Radiation Offices.




      I am the Acting Commissioner of the Radiation Office, whose




 mission is to conduct a program designed to protect  man and  the



 environment from adverse effects of exposure to both ionizing and



 non-ionizing environmental  radiation.   Our responsibilities  are




 aligned with the major functions of the Agency,  and  are carried out




 by four operating Divisions.   The Division of Surveillance and




 Inspection will have the job  of providing information on radiation




 levels in the environment through the assimilation of these  data




 from all sources.   The  Division of Technology Assessment will carry




 out  the  requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act through




 the  review of environmental  impact statements, and will provide an



 evaluation of developing technology through  analysis and special




 studies.   The  Division  of Research will  provide basic supporting




 information  for all  Radiation Office activities,  including studies




 on the biological effects of radiation.  The Division of Criteria



and Standards has the job of developing environmental radiation




protection standards, functions formerly within the Federal Radiation




Council and  the Atomic Energy Commission.  Two of our Division




Directors, Mr. Chuck Weaver and Mr. Dave Harward, are scheduled  on



the program of this conference.

-------
Nuclear Power and the Eiwireminent



     It is clear that the national concern over the state of our




environment and the concurrent expansion of nuclear power generating




capacity in the United States have placed great responsibilities on




industry and on both State and Federal agencies charged with environ-




mental protection.  We must seek to achieve a rational balance between




an adequate supply of electric power and a quality environment.




Dr. Edward E. David, Jr., Director of the President's Office of




Science and Technology reminded us of this responsibility quite



candidly in the 1970 report, "Electric Power and the Environment."




Dr. David said the following, and I quote:




     "The growing controversy over the siting of electric power




     facilities—both nuclear and fossil-fueled--makes  it




     imperative that we  take action to improve  the role  of



     government in establishing a balance between  the need




     for power and the need to preserve  our environment.




     The power shortages experienced this summer remind  us  that



     we live in an age of energy.  The demand  for  electricity




     continues to grow at a rapid rate but concerned  citizens  are




     increasingly objecting to the construction of new




     capacity and associated transmission lines because  the




     facilities may  pollute the  surrounding environment.




     Legislation  to  implement  the basic  recommendations  to

-------
       alleviate the concerns contained in this report will be




       proposed by the Administration early in the next



       Congress."






       With the endorsement of the President,  the  National  Power  Plant




  Siting Act of 1971 has  been introduced  in the Congress.   The purpose




  of this bill is  to provide for  establishment  within  each  State  or




  region a single  agency  with responsibility for assuring that




  environmental concerns  are properly considered in  the certification




  of specific  power  plant sites and transmission line routes.  Enactment




  of this  Presidential proposal would constitute a landmark in this



  environmental decade.




      Another  significant milestone was the passage of the National




 Environmental Policy Act of 1969.  All Federal agencies are now




 required to consider explicitly the environmental implications of




 their actions.  The other  Federal agencies with expertise  in




 environmental matters are  required to  review  these  actions,  and




 State and local agencies and the public  can review  the environmental




 implications  of a Federal  project before  the project  is undertaken.




 In  essence,  this  legislation provides  at  least part of the mechanism




 to  apply  a  preventative  rather than a  curative approach to the




 conduct of activities having a potential  impact on  our environment.




While I believe there is some "shaking down" to do  in  connection with




 the implementation of this  legislation, and future candid evaluation

-------
of its effectiveness will obviously be in order,  I also believe  it




is sound in concept.



     Draft environmental impact statements for the construction  or




operation of nuclear power plants are prepared by the Atomic Energy




Commission.  The draft impact statements and environmental reports




written by utility companies are sent to Federal agencies having




special expertise or regulatory authority relative to potential  environ-




mental effects of operating these facilities.  The Environmental




Protection Agency submits specific comments on the statements to the




Commission.  Our comments, along with those of other Federal agencies,




are incorporated into a final environmental statement which is submitted




to the President's Council on Environmental Quality, and made public.




We, as a matter of course, send copies  of our reviews  of  the impact




of nuclear power plants  to appropriate  State  agencies.




      Our technical review activities  for  nuclear  facilities are




significant, we believe,  because not  only are they based  on technical




information developed by  an unbiased  technically  competent  agency




but also because they now play a vital  role  in judging the  environmental




impact as  required  by the National Environmental  Policy Act.  This




established review  procedure  for Federally  conducted or controlled




actions has become  an important mechanism by which the Environmental




Protection Agency provides  information and  influences  these actions.




Evaluations of nuclear  facilities  consider  the effect of the  operation




of the  facility on  population do.,.- 
-------
  this effect, the environmental effects of operating the facility, the




  suitability of the site, and the design of the facility relative to




  reducing radioactive waste discharges to the lowest practicable



  levels.




  Public Concern




      Radiological  questions  have been among  those  raised  by  the




  public about nuclear power during the past year.   These have  included




  the  adequacy of  the  radiation  standards used by the Atomic Energy




  Commission  in their  regulatory program, and  the long-term effects




  of extremely low level radioactive discharges to the environment




  from nuclear  power plants.  Some State authorities have proposed the




 adoption of  their own set of discharge limits for nuclear power plants




 which are more restrictive than those established by the Atomic Energy




 Commission;  other States find themselves in a dilemma of whether or




 not to  follow suit.  These and  other related  factors have  created a




 significant  national  controversy  concerning the use of nuclear power.




      There are probably  many  reasons  why the  controversy is  taking




 place.  In retrospect, it appears that perhaps  some of the public




 relations problems  the nuclear  power  industry is now facing may




have  been lessened  if appropriate  information from  operating nuclear




power plants, had been made available at an early date and more exten-




sively to the health  and  scientific community for interpretation  to




the public in terms of radiation dose  to people.

-------
     In any case, it was not until the results of the Radiation Office




field studies at operating nuclear power stations became available




that our own technical staff could begin to make realistic judgments




on some of the radiation exposure implications of routine nuclear




plant discharges.  Up to that time, our evaluations of nuclear reactors




were largely dependent upon the analysis of safety reports and limited




published data as the principal mechanism for reaching conclusions




regarding population exposure.




     The concept of radiation dose to people—and its relation to an




estimate of risk--sometimes appears to be a missing element in the




public's demand to protect and preserve the quality of the environment.




The principle of keeping discharges of radioactivity to the environment




to the lowest practicable levels  is obviously an appropriate goal,




however, there is unfortunately sometimes an interchange  of words so




that "practical" is equated with  "possible," a substantial difference.




In each instance, there should be a thorough analysis of  the actual




benefit gained in terms of dose reduction to the people and this




compared with the risks involved.  The evaluation of risks should not




be limited to radiation but,  from the public interest standpoint,




should also include other considerations.  One such consideration




that obviously occurs to me would be  the public health and welfare




implications should loss of the plant's capability to produce electric




power occur because discharge  limitations cause the plant to be shut




down.

-------
 10
       In an ultimate sense,  of course,  the solution of benefit-risk




  equation is a societal decision or function.   Our job is to assure



  that to the maximum extent  possible proper inputs are provided  to



  the  development  of  the equation.




       This  is  the type  of  question  that must be  answered  in  the  future




  and  it  will be necessary  for  environmental and  health agencies  to




  produce independent dose  assessments made  on a  professional and technical




  basis that  can be utilized  in ascertaining compliance  with environmental




  radiation standards and,  as deemed required, risk assessments.  The




  data from our field studies at operating nuclear power plants thus




  far have shown that radiation exposures to the public have been



 minimal to the extent that they are, as best,  difficult to measure




  quantitatively and often too low to be  measured at all.  This excellent




 record must be continued for all future plants.   As new technology and




 procedures in waste  treatment methodology are  developed,  further




 reductions even in these low radiation  doses  should be made  where



 reasonable and practicable.   However, the public health need to  further




 reduce radiation  doses  from  nearly  immeasurable  levels must  be




 rationally evaluated in terms  of overall  public  health considerations



 and appropriate allocation of  resources.




     What are  some of the  issues with regard to  nuclear power  plants?




In our opinion, the  issue  is not whether nuclear  power  plants  are




within the current standards, because all present  plants are operating




within these standards and there is no reason why  future plants

-------
                                                                       11




 cannot be  operated well within  these standards.  A key issue, it




 seems to me,  is that  the public and the critics want honest answers



 to  the questions  of what is going to happen to the environment if a




 nuclear power plant is built, of how well we understand this effect




 and what is being done to minimize it, and how we will assess the




 effects and take  protective action if any adverse effects are observed.




 As many of you know, many of us now in the Environmental Protection



 Agency have been  dealing with the public information—nuclear power




 question for a long time.  We, I believe, are in the position of being




 able to work this problem from a middle-ground and hopefully from an



 unbiased perspective.




 Radiation Standards and Information




     One of our most  important responsibilities In the coming months




 will be to establish environmental radiation standards to protect man




 and the environment and to ascertain that environmental contamination




 levels are kept as low as practicable.  I would like to make it clear




 that we do not have responsibility for licensing nuclear reactors--




 that has remained with the Atomic Energy Commission--but it seems




 to me there is little question that we can exert considerable influence




 on the design, construction, and operation of nuclear power plants




 through the environmental standards we establish.  We have underway




a major review of all existing Federal radiation protection criteria,




 standards,  guidelines, and policies.   Until this review is completed,




we will be developing at least an interim EPA position with respect to

-------
12






  environmental  radiation  standards  and  guidance  levels—based on current




  knowledge, experience, and  technology.




       Our basic policy for radiation standards is that no man-made




  environmental radiation  exposure should be allowed without a reasonably




  demonstrated benefit.  In establishing environmental standards relative




  to this policy, the EPA  is going to look to inputs from the scientific




  community and the public.  We do not pretend to be omniscient,  and we




  do not intend to make these kinds of decisions behind closed doors




 without appropriate involvement of the scientific community and the




  public.  We are,  as Administrator Ruckelshaus has said,  "an advocate of




  the environment," but we  recognize  that we  have  a responsibility to



 be fair.




      The  manner in which  we  in the  Environmental Protection Agency




 carry out our  functions is extremely important.   Obviously  we must




 seek  the  facts  regarding  radiological contamination of the  environment




 with  independence  and objectivity;  and  we must present these facts the




 same  way.   There  is  a basic necessity for continuing  studies on which




we will be  able to make judgments on the environmental impact of the




nuclear power industry in order to provide  information both to the




public and  to the  scientific community.  We must refrain from acting




defensively to critics of "technology equals progress," but must




provide the facts necessary to resolve issues.  I assure you that one




of the major goals of the Radiation Office will be to maintain both




integrity and credibility in these areas.  I believe that we are going

-------
                                                                       13




 to adequately meet  this challenge  in order to assure that environmental




 problems will be resolved  in  the public interest.




     It is also the responsibility of those who operate nuclear power



 facilities to continue to  recognize that one of their key roles is to



 make factual data related  to  the environmental effects of operating




 their facilities available to both the public and the scientific




 community.  We must all be responsive to these needs.  The Radiation




 Office is currently developing a system for the routine publication of




 environmental radiation and radioactive materials discharge data in




 "Radiological Health Data and Reports."  Surveillance activities are




 being expanded to provide  information on population exposure from




 nuclear power operations on a regional and nationwide basis.  I




 earnestly solicit'the cooperation of all of you, both States and industry




 representatives, to ensure that all operational and environmental data




 from nuclear facilities are made publicly available through this




mechanism.  I sincerely believe that this will be in the public




 interest and to our collective mutual benefit.




 Conclusion




     In conclusion, we in the Radiation Office believe that an




 important environmental responsibility is for the appropriate




State agencies and power companies to establish a working relationship




during the planning stage of  a nuclear power plant.  An interchange of




 information must be forthcoming in'order that each other's position




may be clearly understood.  A working relationship that incorporates

-------
mutual trust and respect is a key element in establishing the basis




for the effective conduct of environmental programs essential to the




maintenance of the quality of the environment and the public health.




Accomplishment of this relationship is, I believe, one of our most




important environmental responsibilities and one we should all strive




to meet.

-------
                                                                      15
                   PROBLEMS IN MEETING AEG REPORTING
                      AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

                           Billy H.  Webster
                 Principal Radiation Control Engineer
                   Carolina Power and Light Company
     I have been asked to discuss today problems  in meeting AEC

reporting and compliance requirements as related  to the Carolina Power

and Light Company H.B. Robinson plant.

     For those of you who are not familiar with the plant,  I  would

like to begin with a brief description of the plant and the site.

     H.B. Robinson Unit Two is a Westinghouse pressurized water  nuclear

power plant rated at 2,200 megawatts thermal and  is the first nuclear

power plant to go into operation in the southeast. We have operated

at 100 percent power for a short period of time.

     The plant was built on the existing site of  a 200 megawatt  coal-

fired unit which is designated as H.B. Robinson Unit  One.  Both  units

are located on the southwest shore of Lake Robinson about 4-1/2  miles

west northwest of the town of Hartsville, South Carolina.

     The plant site including Lake Robinson exceeds 5,000 acres; the

exclusion distance and low population zone distance are 430 meters and

7,240 meters, respectively.

     Lake Robinson was built by Carolina Power and Light Company as a

cooling lake, and the company owns all of the land surrounding the

lake, at least to the high water elevation.  It is an onstream lake

and subject to the water quality standards as set by the State of

South Carolina.  The lake is about 4,000 feet wide at the plant site

-------
 16
  and  about  7-1/2 miles  long  at  its maximum water elevation; it covers
  about  2,200  acres.
      Condenser cooling water is taken from the lake at a point near
  the  dam and  discharged through a canal about 4 miles from the plant
  site.  In effect most of the lake is used as a cooling pond for the
  two  generating units.
      In January when I was asked to discuss this subject, I thought we
 would have had considerable operating experience prior to this meeting.
 However,  as mentioned before, due to numerous operating problems at
 the plant,  most of which have been associated with the secondary side
 of the plant, our  operating experience to date has been somewhat
 limited.
      I  know of no  real problems we have  encountered in meeting the
 AEC reporting requirements.   By this I mean we have had no  problems
 with the AEC  and compliance  in  regard to  the  information we have
 supplied them.  Collecting and  compiling  this  information has  been
 quite difficult at  times  and this  is  what I plan to  discuss today.
 I would like  to go  over briefly our  reporting requirements, and  show
 how we  have either  met these requirements or plan  to meet them.  Also,
 I would like  to review briefly  the new AEC reporting requirements, how
 they  differ from our present requirements, and some of the associated
problems we might expect to  encounter.
     I would  like to look first at the liquid releases from the plant.
The following seven items are the reporting requirements as listed in
our technical specifications.
     1)  Total curie activity released exclusive of tritium,

-------
                                                                       17
     2)  total curie activity of  tritium discharged,




     3)  total volume of liquid waste discharged,




     4)  total volume of dilution water used,



     5)  the average concentration of the outfall  at  the discharge  canal,




     6)  maximum concentration of release for  any  consecutive 24 hours




during the reporting period, and




     7)  the MFC used, and the basis for this  MFC.



     In our particular case at the Robinson site, these reporting




requirements do not have the same meaning that they  might normally




have.  As I said before, Lake Robinson is a fairly large onstream lake




containing about 31,000 acre feet of water, and is used essentially as




a cooling pond for the two generating units.




     Although the lake is an onstream lake, the normal flow in the




stream and the outfall of the lake are small compared to the circu-




lating water flow through the condensers.  This means that our radio-




active discharge limits are based on buildup in  the lake rather than




on concentrations in the discharge canal.




     We have calculated that the residence time  for water in the  lake




based on  average stream flows for a 6-year period is about 64 days.




However,  our technical specification  limits are  based on a reference




3-month dry season when the average outflow from the lake was about




117  cubic feet per second and residence  time for water  in the lake was




137  days.



     This in effect  limits  our  discharge to  the  lake to a concentration




in the discharge canal of 10  percent  of  the  limit of 10 CFR 20.   What




we are actually saying is that  on  the average, water from the lake

-------
 18



 passes through the condenser ten times.




      Our technical specifications further state that this addition




 rate amounts to 26 mCi/day based on unidentified beta activity with




 an MFC of 1 x 10~7 yCi/cc.




      In regard to how we meet these reporting requirements I will  go




 through each of the seven items listed in the technical specifications




 and explain how we document these records.




      We have designed our liquid release authorization to contain  all




 the data required by the technical  specifications and we summarize




 this daily on a monthly data sheet.




      The first two items are the total curie activity released and the




 total curies of tritium released.  Each tank of  liquid waste to be




 released is  analyzed  in the laboratory for  gross beta and tritium




 activity using a Packard liquid scintillation counter;  the total




 activity in  the tank  is recorded on  a  liquid release authorization as




 well as  a total volume  in the tank.  As  the release  is  completed,  the




 operator records  the  actual  volume released as shown on a flow inte-




 grator  in the discharge line (item three).   He also  records  the number




 of  circulating  water pumps  in operation  during the release which gives




 us  dilution  water  available  during this  period.




     Item four  is  the total  volume in  gallons of dilution water used.




As  I stated  before, we  record on the liquid  release authorization the




number of circulating water  pumps in service during the release.  This




gives us  the total volume of water available during the actual release




time.  However, we interpret  this requirement to mean the total volume




of dilution water available during a 24-hour period.  To obtain this

-------
                                                                       19



number, a running time meter has been installed on each of the




circulating water pumps.  This enables us to calculate the average




circulating water flow for the day and the total volume of dilution




water available.



     The fifth item is the average concentration at the outfall of the




discharge canal.  We actually calculate this number two ways.   First




we calculate the average concentration during the release only, and




then calculate the average concentration based on total circulating




water flow for the day.  The latter number is the one that we report.




The concentration during the release is calculated for administrative




purposes only to insure that we do not exceed limits in the canal at




any time.



     The sixth item is  the time and date of the maximum concentration




for any consecutive 24 hours during a reporting period.   As I  indi-




cated before, all liquid released is summarized daily  on  a monthly




basis  so it  is  only a matter of determining the date of the maximum




concentration from the  summarized data.  This  number  is based  on  total




circulating  water flow  for  the  24-hour period.



     The seventh item is  the MFC used  and  the  basis for this MFC.  To




date we have only used  the  MFC  for unidentified beta  activity  of




1 x 10~7 yCi/cc.  We do,  however, apply  this limit to  the lake rather




than in  the  discharge  canal.  The corresponding  limit  in  the  discharge




canal  is 1 x 10~8 uCi/cc  with three  circulating water pumps running.




However, the controlling  limit  I stated  before is 26  mCi/day.




     We  think  this satisfies  record  keeping and reporting requirements




 as far as  liquid releases are concerned  except for one other  potential

-------
 20


 point of release to the circulating water systems.



      Our steam generating blowdown goes to a flash tank which then



 overflows into a line which discharges into the circulating water



 system.  With steam generator leaks, this presents a possible release



 mechanism to the environment.  The steam generating blowdown line has



 a radioactivity monitor which will isolate the blowdown lines as well



 as the tank discharge line before the MFC is reached in the discharge



 canal.



      The monitor's  sensitivity is not,  however, high enough to record



 low-level releases.   We routinely make radioactive analyses of the



 secondary system water.   If we begin to see  significant radioactivity



 in the  secondary system, we will then calculate the activity released



 based on blowdown flow and the activity.   This  will be summarized by



 day on  our  summary  sheet.   To date,  we  have  not detected any radio-



 activity in the  secondary  system.



      Our technical  specifications  are not  as specific  in regard  to



 record keeping and  reporting of  gaseous waste.   The following



 reporting and record keeping requirements  are contained  in  the techni-



 cal  specifications.



      The first is a total  of  the curie activity  discharged.  The



 second is the time and date of maximum activity  released for any con-



 secutive 24 hours during the reporting periodt   The third item is the .


                               —8
MFC used if greater than 3 x 10   yCi/cc for noble and activation


                   —13
gases and 1.43 x 10    yCi/cc for halogens and particulates having a



half-life greater than 8 days.



     I should note  here that this MFC for halogens and particulates

-------
                                                                       21




contains the 1/700 factor which the AEC has  been  inserting  into the




technical specifications recently.




     Although item one does not specify which activities  are  to be




recorded, we interpret this to mean activities are reported separately




for activation and noble gases, halogens with a greater than  8-day




half-life and for particulates with a greater than 8-day  half-life.




     I stated before that we have had some difficulty collecting  data




to meet reporting requirements and most of the difficulty concerns




airborne releases to the environment owing to the fact that we have




numerous vents where radioactivity may be released from the plant.




     I would like to identify these possible release modes and explain




how we acknowledge each of them.




     The first is our main plant vent or stack.  The main plant vent




is used to exhaust all the reactor auxiliary building ventilation and




in addition the containment building is purged through this vent.




     In addition to the process radiation monitoring equipment




furnished by Westinghouse, we have installed  on  the main plant vent a




particulant and iodine sampler.  This  sampler along with the installed




detector in the vent  enables us to keep accurate records of releases




through the main plant vent.   Also,  all gaseous  wastes released  from




the gas decay  tanks are released through  this vent.  We make labora-




tory analyses  of decay tanks prior  to  their release  and maintain these




records in  the same manner as  described for the  liquid releases.




     The second release  location is  the condenser air ejector exhaust.




The condenser  air  ejector exhausts  through  a radiation monitor di-




rectly to the  atmosphere.  When the alarm level  is reached this  vent

-------
 22




  is automatically diverted to the plant vent and the releases would  be




  monitored as described before.   This monitor is set to an alarm when




  the concentration equal to 1/10 MFC is reached.   In addition, we  can




  make fairly accurate estimates  of activities here from secondary




  system liquid analyses.




       The third possible source  of release  is from the  steam  generating




  blowdown vents.   I previously mentioned  the  steam generating blowdown




  system in regard  to  the  liquid  releases.   The blowdown  tank has an




  18-inch vent  line which  vents directly to  the atmosphere.  The blow-




 down  liquid enters the tank at  essentially primary  temperature and




 pressure.




      Due to the large vent line in the blowdown tank, the tank is




 maintained at about atmospheric pressure.  We have calculated that




 when the water enters the blowdown tank, the liquid flashes and about




 30 percent by weight is vented to the atmosphere as steam.  Again, we




 must rely on laboratory analyses of secondary system activity and




 calculate the activity released  to the atmosphere through this vent.




      The fourth place where releases to the atmosphere  can occur is




 from our fuel handling building.  We actually have two  separate  venti-




 lation exhaust systems in our  fuel handling building.   One system




 services the gas decay tank area and the  hot  machine shop  area.  The




 other  system services  the new  and  spent fuel  storage areas.   Each  of




 these  systems  contains  a  radioactive gas  monitor which  is  set to alarm




 at 10  percent  of the  annual average  release limits.




     When  an alarm is reached, that vent  is automatically  shut down.




We will depend on  periodic sampling  to determine halogen and/or

-------
                                                                       23
particulate activities.   The systems have not presented a problem  to
date since we have not had any radioactive material in these areas.
     I would like to mention one other technical specification
requirement which has presented a problem.  This is the radiochemical
analysis of the primary coolant.  Our technical specifications  defines
a radiochemical analysis as follows:
     "A radiochemical analysis shall consist of the quantitative
measurement of each radionuclide with half-life greater than 30 minutes
making up at least 95 percent of the total activity of the primary
coolant."
     To date our primary coolant activities have been relatively  low
and have been primarily activation and corrosion products which have
been difficult to identify.  We have been unable to completely satisfy
this requirement.
     I should explain this.  We run analysis for every isotope we can
think of, but when we add up all of the isotopes that we have identi-
fied, we end up with about 75 percent of the total activity.  We  never
do get the 95 percent.  We feel, however, that when we have had more
operating experience which will increase the fission product activity
in the coolant, that this requirement can be met.  Or maybe we will
get closer to 95 percent anyway.
     The radiochemical analysis also related to our technical
specification limit for primary coolant activity is 50 divided by E,
where E represents the average beta and gamma energy per disintegration.
     This, I think fairly well documents how we are handling radio-
active discharges from the plant.

-------
 24



      The other side of the monitor program is the radiological




 environmental monitoring program.  I do not plan to go into the details




 of our environmental monitoring program except to say that our environ-




 mental monitoring program is contained in our technical specifications.




      I had intended to briefly describe a special radiological




 monitoring program being carried out by the Environmental Protection




 Agency on Lake Robinson,  but I see from the agenda that this program




 will be a specific topic for tomorrow.




      To date there are probably as many different approaches to




 environmental monitoring  as there are nuclear facilities.   There have




 been no standards or firm guidelines for establishing  an acceptable




 program.   It is my observation that the AEC has  taken  the approach




 that each applicant should design his own program to suit  his  particu-




 lar site  and operating philosophy.




      The  AEC does review  these programs to determine if  they are




 adequate, but with no  attempt  to  standardize  programs, analytical




 analyses, or reports.   This  approach, however, is  changing.  I will




 discuss that  a little  later.  We have already heard  some discussion




 of  this approach  this morning.




      I would  like now to discuss briefly the new AEC proposed  uniform




monitoring and reporting standards.   The first, monitoring effluent




releases; the second, monitoring environmental radiation levels; and




the third, reporting the results of these monitoring programs.




     I have reviewed the AEC draft Safety Guide for "Monitoring and




Reporting of Effluents and Environmental Levels" and my comments will




be related to this draft Safety Guide.

-------
                                                                       25
     The Safety Guide contains guidelines  for environmental monitoring
programs; the location, frequency and types of samples  to be  taken;
analyses to be performed; programs for recording of data; and the
format and frequency of making reports to  the Commission.
     It appears now that the AEG is going  to be very explicit in
regard to what samples will be taken, the analysis that will  be run,
and the manner in which these results will be reported.
     One of the major differences is that the proposed requirements
will require the licensee to identify all radionuclides associated
with the radioactive releases and report these releases by isotope
rather  than by gross activity.
     The monitoring guide further states that this  identification of
principal  radionuclides  shall account  for  more  than 90 percent  of the
gross  activity present.  It  then specifies which nuclides should be
identified in each of  the  categories;  gaseous,  iodine, particulate,
 and liquid effluents.
      I am not going to go  into the details of the requirements  of  the
 Safety Guide, but I would  like to summarize just a few of those
 requirements.  As far as the atmospheric  releases are concerned, the
 licensee will be required to maintain hourly records during  releases
 of release rates and meteorological conditions.  In addition, there
 are requirements for isotopic analyses and analysis for tritium at
 varying frequencies, depending on release rates and plant conditions.
 There are similar requirements in regard  to  iodine and particulate
 releases  as well  as for liquid releases.
      I  am not a radiochemist, but I do have some feeling for the

-------
  26




  amount of additional laboratory work necessary to meet these




  requirements.  In fact, at the low levels normally associated with




  these releases, I am not sure that the requirement can be met.  I do




  know that we do not have the equipment or manpower available at the




  Robinson plant to comply completely with the Safety Guide.   I should




  throw in a little explanation here.  We have staffed and  equipped our




  laboratory to perform process analyses,  and  at  the low levels we are




  talking  about and the isotopic identification,  I  don't think this  can




  be done  in the same  laboratory with process  samples.




       As  I  indicated  earlier,  the Commission  has not previously  given




  any definite  requirements for environmental  monitoring programs.




       This  draft guide does contain, however, explicit guides  in regard




  to  the types  of samples to be  taken, location of sampling points,




  frequency  of  sampling, isotopic analyses to be performed and details




  of reporting requirements.  The guide actually identifies  two levels




 of environmental monitoring,  the first level would apply with esti-




 mated  exposures of less than  3 percent of those  that might result




 from annual continuous exposure to  Part 20,  Appendix B, Table II




 concentrations with an increase in  the monitoring  frequency  above



 these  levels.




     I am presently doing  a comparison with our present  environmental




monitoring  program and what it  might  cost to  comply with the  require-




ments  of this  Safety Guide.  Based on prices  of analytical analyses




furnished by our contractor, the cost of the program for the Robinson




plant would increase by a factor of about six.

-------
                                                                      27
DISCUSSION:



     MR. LIONEL LEWIS:  Bill, what does the word,  "guide," mean?




     MR. WEBSTER:  If you read the words in the draft safety guide,




there is frequent use of the word "should," however, I interpret  this




to mean "shall."  Once these requirements are a part of the technical




specifications then they mean shall.



     MR. KAHLSON:  When you discussed your computations on effluent,




could you  tell us how you are doing it?  Is it automated or manual?




     MR. WEBSTER:  It is manual.  We go  in  the laboratory and do the




 laboratory analyses and calculate all  releases manually.




     MR. KAHLSON:  Are  there  any  people  doing  this  on an  automated




basis?



     MR. WEBSTER:  To my knowledge, no.  There very well  could be.




 Equipment  is being automated and  I  assume  that you  probably could




 get monitoring equipment  that would feed into  a  computer  that would




 spit out anything you want it to.  But we  are  not equipped to do that.




     MR. KAHLSON: Bill,  if that equipment were  available,  would you




 prefer to  have it automated?                '<



      MR. WEBSTER: Well,  I think you  would have  to  know what the




 price of that equipment was before you could really make  a judgment.




 My personal preference would be yes,  I would prefer to have it  automated.




      DR. GOLDMAN:  There are some plants that are incorporating automated




 tabulations of releases and analysis and this is being done usually




 with an inplant on line computer--a data logger.  The output of a

-------
28
  spectrometer,  for example,  is analyzed by the plant's data logger




  and  those results combined  with information on pump operation which




  are  already  part of the  data  logger input.




       I don't know that it is  being  done,  but it is  planned in several




  of the new plants that are  coming along.

-------
                                                                        29
                 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
                    AFFECTING POPULATION EXPOSURE
                        Mr.  John F.  Honstead*
                        Mr,  Thomas H.  Essig,
                    Radiological Physics  Battelle
                        Northwest Laboratory


     What I am going to be presenting  here today isn't  all my work, but

represents the work of a lot of people over a  rather  long time  and I

would like to recognize the efforts  of many other  people in  all of

this.  Also, I would like to point out that the work  we have done at

Hanford in environmental evaluations is not at all applicable to anyone

else's problem and I am not going to prescribe a model  all of you should

adopt.

     Perhaps many of you have considered  environmental  models  in

detail, but I hope that you can step back and  recognize some of the

logic that went into the model that  we followed and possibly use this logic

and apply it to some particular problems  that  you may be  faced  with.

     Neither the radionuclides that  were  of interest to us at Hanford

nor the environment we had to evaluate is duplicated anywhere  else and

obviously in our evaluation, problems  are not  directly  applicable to

anyone else1s.
Deceased - August 1971

-------
 30




       Everybody has  complained that  they can't measure radioactivity.




 We  had the problem  of evaluating  the environment  of  a nuclear  facility




 in  which  there was  radioactivity  present in measurable amounts.  At




 least it was  present  in measurable  amounts until  the last production




 reactor was retired in February 1971.   So, what I am talking about,




 then,  is a  little bit  ancient history.




       To start  off with, let's talk  about what we are  using for a




 "yardstick" in  our  evaluations.  We are  evaluating the dose received




 by  individuals  in the population around  the plant, that received by




 an average of the population and comparing these doses with dose




 standards, as shown in Figure 1.




      When radioactivity is released into an aquatic  environment,




 you can expect something such as  is  shown in Figure 2 to  happen.




At  time zero,  the radioactivity will  be all in the  water and all of




 the organisms  present  are  essentially free of radioactivity.   As  time




 moves on,  radioactivity will find  itself in the sediments  and  in  the




 organisms  and  no longer in the water.   You have to know something




 about this  transfer  from water into  organisms  and  the fact  that it




 changes.  A very important consideration in our  case  is the  species




 of fish present.  The  relationship between  the  concentration that you




 find  in a fish  or other  organism and in the water  itself is called




 a concentration  factor.  These factors  differ among various species




 of fish and radionuclides.

-------
                                                                 31
       Figure 1.  Exposure Limits for the Public.
TIME "O'
   <1  HOUR
        ©
                          ©
&
©
                      0
                  a
                            
-------
 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

-------