radiological surveillance studies at the oyster …...the oyster creek nuclear power station, a 640...
TRANSCRIPT
~A.520/5.76-003
-1
I'---~-~----~)
RADIOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE
STUDIES AT THE OYSTER CREEK
JWR NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION./'
c''''-''-----
OFFICE OF RADIATION PROGRAMSU.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
I~EPRODUCEDBY' iNATIONAL TECHNICALINFORMAliON SERVICE
u. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCl. SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161
EPA-520/5-76-003
RADIOLOGICAL SURVEILLANCE STUDIESAT
THE OYSTER CREEKBWR NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
Richard L. BlanchardWilliam L. BrinckHarry E. KoldeHerman L. KriegerDaniel M. MontgomerySeymour GoldAlex MartinBernd Kahn
June 1976
u. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYOffice of Radiation Programs
Eastern Environmental Radiation FacilityRadiochemistry and Nuclear Engineering Branch
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Radiation Programs, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Mention oftrade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement orrecommendation for use.
ii
FOREWORD
The Office of Radiation Programs of the Environmental Protection Agency carries out a nationalprogram designed to evaluate population exposure to ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and to promotedevelopment of controls necessary to protect public health and safety. In order to carry out theseresponsibilities relative to the nuclear power industry, the Environmental Protection Agency hasperformed field studies at nuclear power stations and related facilities. These field studies have requiredthe development of means for identifying and quantifying radionuclides as well as the methodology forevaluating reactor plant discharge pathways and environmental transport.
Electrical generation utilizing light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors has experienced rapidgrowth in the United States. The growth of nuclear energy has been managed so that environmentalcontamination is minimal at the present time. The Environmental Protection Agency has engaged instudies at routinely operating nuclear power stations to provide an understanding of the radionuclides inreactor effluents, their subsequent fate in the environment, and the real or potential populationexposures.
A previous study at the Dresden 1 reactor (210 MWe) provided an initial base for evaluating theenvironmental effects of operating boiling water reactors. This particular field study was performed atthe Oyster Creek nuclear power station, a 640 MWe boiling water reactor. Results from this study haveallowed the evaluation of the operational and environmental effects of larger boiling water reactors, andwill provide a better basis on which to evaluate larger reactors not yet operating. This is the last in a seriesof four studies which also included the Yankee Rowe (185 MWe) and Haddam Neck (573 MWe)pressurized water reactors. The Oyster Creek study was the only one in the series directed atenvironmental impacts in a salt water coast environment.
Comments on this report would be appreciated. These should be sent to the Director, TechnologyAssessment Division of the Office of Radiation Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 MStreet, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.
W. D. Rowe, Ph.D.Deputy Assistant Administratorfor Radiation Programs
iii
"-.. \"
1.
2.
3.
I. Contents '
INTRODUCTION .1.1 Need for Study1.2 The Station1.3 The Study1.4 References
RADIONUCLIDES IN WATER ON SITE2.1 Water Systems and Samples .
2.1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1.2 Reactor coolant system .....2.1.3 Reactor cleanup and demineralizer system2.1.4 Circulating water system . . . . . . . . . .2.1.5 Paths of radionuclides from the reactor coolant system2.1.6 Other liquids on site2.1.7 Samples
2.2 An.alysis . . . .'2.2.1 General2.2.2 Gamma-ray spectrometry2.2.3 Radiochemistry
2.3 Results and Discussion .....2.3.1 Radioactivity in reactor water2.3.2 Tritium in reactor water .
2.4 References .AIRBORNE RADIOACTIVE DISCHARGES\ -.~ .3.1 Gaseous Waste System and Samples ~ .
3.1.1 Gaseous waste system ->~.~---~~-
3.1.2 Radionuclide release ./.3.1.3 Sample collection
3.2 Analysis . . . .3.2.1 Gamma-ray spectrometry3.2.2 Radiochemical analysis .
3.3 Results and Discussion .....3.3.1 Gaseous radionuclides discharged from reactor coolant at mam
condenser steam jet air ejectors .3.3.2 Radionuclides discharged from air ejector at turbine
gland seal condenser . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.3.3 Radionuclides in building ventilation air .exhaust ..3.3.4 Radionuclides in reactor drywell air .3.3.5 Radionuclides in effiuent from startup vacuum pumps3.3.6 Radioactive gases discharged through the stack ..3.3.7 Radioactive particles discharged through the stack3.3.8 Radioiodines discharged through the stack3.3.9 Estimated annual radionuclide discharges
Page11I2355557778999
10101010161719191920
. \. 2121212122
. 22
2425272727293031
------~~-------,
~~@©®~~~~ ~(£)~@ ~~QJ~~ jv
3.3.10 Estimated maximum radiation dose to individuals3.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. RADIONUCLIDES IN LIQUID WASTES 0 •
4.1 Liquid Waste Systems . . . .4.1.1 Waste processing4.1. 2 Radionuclide release
4.2 Samples and Analyses .4.2.1 Samples .4.2.2 Analysis of waste solutions
4.3 Results and Discussion .4.3.1 Radionuclides in waste sample tank4.3.2 Radionuclides in laundry drain tank
4.4 Radionuclides in Coolant Canal Water ...4.4.1 Estimated radionuclide concentrations in coolant canal water4.4.2 Sampling and analysis of coolant canal water4.4.3 Field testing of concentration techniques .4.4.4 Coolant canal sampling and results . . . .4.4.5 Summary of coolant canal measurements
4.5 References .5. RADIONUCLIDES IN THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT'
5.1 Introduction -5.1.1 Oyster Creek and Barnegat Bay hydrology .5.1.2 Studies near Oyster Creek .5.1.3 Aquatic surveillance studies by station operator5.1.4 Aquatic surveillance studies by the State5.1.5 Other aquatic studies .
5.2 Surface Water Concentration of Radionuclides and Stable Elements5.2.1 Sampling and analysis .5.2.2 Stable elements in surface water5.2.3 Radionuclides in surface water5.2.4 Hypothetical radionuclide concentrations in the discharge canal
(Oyster Creek) .....5.3 Radionuclides in Algae and Grass .
5.3.1 Sampling and analysis .5.3.2 Results and discussion of stable element concentrations5.3.3 Results and discussion of radionuclide concentrations .5.3.4 Significance of radionuclides in marine algae and grasses
5.4 Radionuclides in Fish .5.4.1 Introduction .5.4.2 Collection and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.4.3 Results and discussion of stable element concentrations5.4.4 Results and discussion of radionuc1ide concentrations5.4.5 Hypothetical radionuclide concentrations in fish
5.5 Radionuclides in Shellfish5.5.1 Introduction .5.5.2 Collection and analysis5.5.3 Results and discussion5.5.4 Hypothetical radionuclide concentration in shellfish
5.6 Radionuclides in Crustacea ..5.6.1 Introduction .5.6.2 Collection and analysis5.6.3 Results and discussion
vi
Page323335353536373737373739404040444550515353535454545555555758
616161646774757575777984868687879295959595
5.7 Radionuclides in Sediment .5.7.1 Sample collection and preparation5.7.2 Description of sediment samples5.7.3 Radioactivity measurements5.7.4 Results and discussion of analyses
5.8 References .6..ENVIRONMENTAL AIRBORNE ACTIVITY~
6.1 Introduction .6.1.1 Purpose.............6.1.2 Environment of Oyster Creek6.1.3 Meteorology .6.1.4 Off-site surface air surveillance by the State
6.2 Short-Term Ground-level Radiation Exposure Rates and Radionuclide Concentrations6.2.1 Exposure measurements6.2.2 Concentration measurements .6.2.3 Description of tests .6.2.4 Estimated atmospheric dispersion6.2.5 Air sampling results .6.2.6 Exposure rate results .
6.3 Helicopter-Borne Measurement of Radiation Exposure6.3.1 General........6.3.2 Procedure .6.3.3 Description of plume6.3.4 Comparison of airborne and ground-level measurements6.3.5 Conclusions .
6.4 Direct Gamma-ray Radiation from the Station6.5 Long-term Radiation Exposure Measurements
6.5.1 Measurements6.5.2 Results .
6.6 References .7. _SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .
--'7.1 Radionuclides in Effiuents from the-.Oyster Creek Station7.2 Radionuclides in the Aquatic Environment at the Oyster Creek Station7.3 Radionuclides in the Terrestrial Environment at the Oyster Creek Station7.4 Monitoring Procedures '-', .7.5 Recommendations for Environmental Surveillance7.6 Suggested Future Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ','
APPENDICESA Acknowledgments................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B.l Oyster Creek Average Monthly Power and Reactor Coolant Chemistry Statistics
from Semiannual Operating Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B.2 Oyster Creek Radioactive Waste Discharges from Semiannual Operating ReportsB.3 Oyster Creek Noble Gas Discharges from Semiannual Operating ReportsB.4a Radionuclides Discharged in Liquid Wastes by the Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, 1971 .B.4b Radionuclides Discharged in Liquid Wastes by the Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Jan.-June 1972 .B.4c Radionuclides Discharged in Liquid Wastes by the Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, July-Dec. 1972 .B.4d Radionuclides Discharged in Liquid Wastes by the Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Jan.-June 1973 .
Vll
Page
969698
.100 .
.101
.106
.109
.109
.109
.109
.110
.110
.110
.110
.111
.112
.115
.115
.117
.124
.124
.125
.126
.126
.128
.128
.130
.130
.132
.137
.139
.139
.140
.142
.143
.143
.145
.147
.149
.150
.151
.152
.153
.154
.155
B.4e
C.lD.l
D.2
D.3
D.4
E.l
E.2
E.3E.4F.lF.2
Radionuclides Discharged in Liquid Wastes by the Oyster Creek NuclearGenerating Station, July-Dec. 1973 .
Calculated Generation Rate of Fission Products in Fuel at 1930 MWt PowerConcentrations of Radioactive Gas Effiuents from Main Condenser Steam Jet Air
Ejectors after Passage Through 75-minute Delay Line .Release Rates and Estimated Annual Discharges of Radioactive Gases from
Main Condenser Air Ejector Delay Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .Release Rates and Estimated Annual Discharges of Noble Gases in Turbine
Gland Seal Condenser OfT-Gas, February 29, 1972 .Release Rates of Gaseous Radionuclides from End of Steam Condenser Air
Ejector Delay Line and in Stack, IlCi/s .Radionuclide Concentrations Measured in Aquatic Samples by the Station
Operator .The Average Radionuclide Concentrations in Aquatic Samples Reported by the
State of New Jersey (BRP) .Estimation of Airborne Radioactivity in the Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . .Atmospheric Dispersion and Plume Rise Estimates for Short-term Air SamplingRelation of Airborne Radionuclide Concentration to Dose RateRelation of Daily Radionuclide Intake in Water to Dose Rate .
viii
Page
.156
.157
.158
.159
.160
.161
.162
.163
.164
.166
.167
.168
Figures
.131
.133
.135
.136
.137
131935444456
Page56
589798
.114
.117
.118
.118
.119
.120
.121
.122
.122
.1~3
.124
.127
2.1 Coolant Flow Schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.2 Oyster Creek Electrical Production .2.3 Gamma-ray Spectrum of Radionuclides from Reactor Water Retained on
Cation Exchange Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.4 Gamma-ray Spectrum of Radionuclides from Reactor Water Retained on
Anion Exchange Paper . 122.5 Gamma-ray Spectrum of Radionuclides from Reactor Water Not Retained
on Cation or Anion Papers3.1 Gaseous Waste Disposal System4.1 Liquid Radioactive Waste System4.2 Radionuclide Concentration System4.3 Ion Exchange Column for Concentration of Co, Cs, and Mn from Seawater5.1 Aquatic Sampling Sites Near the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station5.2 Aquatic Sampling Sites in the Area of the Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.3 Sediment Sampling Sites Near the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station5.4 Distant Sediment Sampling Sites at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station6.1 Sampling Locations for Environmental Radiation Measurements6.2 Net Exposure Rate in Test la, January 18, 19726.3 Net Exposure Rate in Test Ib, January 18, 19726.4 Net Exposure Rate in Test Ie, January 19, 19726.5 Net Exposure Rate in Test 2a, April 11, 1972 .6.6 Net Exposure Rate in Test 2b, April 11, 1972 .6.7 Gross Exposure Rate Profile East of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
During Stable Plume Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1206.8 Gross Exposure Rate Measurements in Plume During Change from Stable to
Unstable Meteorological Conditions, Test 3c, August 23, 19726.9 Net Exposure Rate in Test 4c, December 13, 1972 .6.10 Net Exposure Rate in Test 4d, December 14, 1972 .6.11 Locations of Ground and Aerial Plume Measurements, April 3 and 4, 19736.12 Radiation Exposure Rates 1.5 km East of Stack (I-min Averages) .6.13 Radiation Exposure Rates Measured in Helicopter, April 4, 1973 .6.14 Gross Exposure Rate Profile East of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station,
December 12, 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1306.15 Gamma-ray Spectrum of 16N Direct Radiation from Turbine Building, Measured
0.2 km West of Building .6.16 Locations of TLD Measurements, September 29, 1971 to June 15, 1972 .....6.17 Comparison of Measured and Estimated Exposure Rates, March 14 to
April 20, 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.18 Locations of TLD Measurements, April 17 to July 2, 1973 .6.19 Comparison of Measured and Estimated Exposure Rates, April 17 to July 2, 1973
ix
Tables
2929
25262728
Page2
14
30313638404142
4345464747484849505157596061626365
. 24
. 15
1.1 Operating Data on Selected BWR Nuclear Power Stations, 1973 ...2.1 Radionuclide Concentration in Reactor Water, uCi/ml . . . . . . . . .2.2 Comparison of Radionuclide Concentrations Measured and Calculated
in Reactor Water, IlCilml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1 Concentrations of Longer-Lived Radioactive Gases Released from
Main Condenser Steam Jet Air Ejectors 233.2 Release Rates and Estimated Annual Discharges of Longer-Lived Radioactive
Gases from Main Condenser Air Ejector Delay Line .3.3 Long-Lived Radioactive Gases from the Turbine Gland Seal Condenser
Air Ejector, February 29, 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.4 Long-Lived Radioactive Gases in Building Ventilation Air, March 28, 1973 ....3.5 Long-Lived Radioactive Gases in the Reactor Drywell Atmosphere, April 11, 19723.6 Concentrations of Long-Lived Radioactive Gases in Stack Effiuent .3.7 Release Rates and Estimated Annual Discharge of Long-Lived
Radioactive Gases in Stack Effiuent .3.8 Concentrations of Longer-Lived Particulate Radionuclides in Stack Effiuent3.9 Average Concentration and Release Rate and Estimated Annual Discharge
of Longer-Lived Particulate Radionuclides from Stack .3.10 Gaseous lodine-131 Concentrations and Release Rates in Stack Effiuents4.1 Radionuclides Discharged in Liquid Waste, Ci/yr .4.2 Radionuclide Concentrations in Liquid Waste Sample Tank, pCi/ml ..4.3 Chemical States of Radionuclides in Liquid Waste Sample Tank, Sept. 25, 19724.4 Radionuclide Concentrations in Laundry Drain Tank, pCi/ml4.5 Radionuclides Discharged from the Laundry Drain Tank ...4.6 Estimated Radionuclide Concentrations in Oyster Creek Based on
Measured Effiuent Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.7 Recovery of Radionuclides on Concentration System, September 19724.8 Recovery of Radionuclides on Concentration System, July 19734.9 Radionuclides III Coolant Canal Water on January 18. 19724.10 Radionuclides III Coolant Canal Water on April 12, 1972 .4.11 Radionuclides III Coolant Canal Water on May 16, 19724.12 Radionuclides in Coolant Canal Water on September 25-26, 19724.13 Radionuclides in Coolant Canal Water on July 17-18, 19734.14 Radionuclides in Background Seawater (Great Bay), pCi/liter4.15 Particulate Radionuclides in Coolant Canal . . . . . . . . . .5.1 Concentration of Stable Elements in Surface Water .5.2 Average Measured and Estimated Stable Elements in Water, mg/l5.3 Concentration of ""Sr and "'Cs in Barnegat and Great Bay Water Samples5.4 Radionuclide Concentrations in Water Samples Collected May 15-16, 19725.5 Particulate Radionuclides in Water Samples Collected September 28, 19725.6 Average Radionuclide Concentration in the Discharge Canal, pCilliter5.7 Stable Ion Concentrations in Algae and Marine Plants, mg/g Ash .....
xi
. 72
5.8 Average Stable Element Concentration in Algae and Marine Plants, mg/g Ash5.9 Radionuclide Concentrations in Algae and Marine Plants, pCi/g Ash ..5.10 Average Concentration of Radionuclides in Species of Algae and Spartina
Collected from the Three Principal Sampling Sites in Barnegat Bay,pCi/kg Fresh Weight .
5.11 Radionuclide Concentrations in Algae and Spartina Samples from Great Bay(Background Area), pCi/kg Fresh Weight .
5.12 Fish Collected in Barnegat and Great Bays . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.13 Concentration of Stable Elements in Fish, gikg Fresh Weight5.14 'Radionuclide Concentrations in Fish Muscle or Whole Fish and
Bone, pCi/kg Fresh Weight .5.15 Radionuclide Concentration in Fish Gut, pCi/kg Fresh Weight5.16 Concentration of 1J4Cs in Fish Samples .5.17 Average 137Cs Concentration in Uncontaminated Fish .5.18 Hypothetical Radionuclide Concentrations in Fish from Oyster Creek5.19 Radiation Dose from Eating Fish .5.20 RadionucIide Concentrations in Shellfish, pCi/kg Fresh Weight .5.21 The Concentration of 2lOPb and 2IOpo in Shellfish Samples .5.22 Radionuclide Concentration in Barnacles and Annelid Tubes, pCi/kg Fresh Weight5.23 Hypothetical Radionuclide Concentrations in Shellfish Muscle .5.24 Radiation Dose from Eating Clam Meat .5.25 Radionuclide and Stable Element Concentrations in Crab Exoskeletons5.26 Mineralogical Analysis of Sediment Samples .5.27 Clay Mineralogy of Sample 305 from Oyster Creek .5.28 Effects of Sample Preparation and Dispersion Technique on Particle Size Analysis5.29 Radionuclide Analyses of Oyster Creek Sediment Samples, pCi/g Dry Weight ..5.30 Average Background Concentrations of Radionuclides in Great Bay Sediment Samples5.31 Radionuclide Concentrations in Composite Core Samples, pCilg Air-dried .5.32 Net Count Rate of .oCo with Underwater Probe and Measured
.oCo Concentrations in Related Sediment Samples .6.1 Conditions for Radiation Dose Measurements of Stack Effluent in the Environment6.2 Xenon-l33 in Environmental Air Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .6.3 Radiation Exposure Rates from Plume at Ground-Level on April 3, 1973, uR/hr6.4 Aerial Measurement Locations .6.5 Radiation Exposure Rates at Centerline of Plume West of Plant6.6 Radiation Exposure Rates at Centerline of Plume East of Plant .6.7 External Radiation Exposure Rates on-Site .6.8 Comparison Between Ionization Chamber Measurements, uR/hr6.9 Long-Term Exposure Rate Measurements, uR/hr (September 29, 1971 to June 15, 1972)6.10 Comparison of Operating vs. Shutdown Period Exposure Rates, uR/hr
(September 29, 1971 to June 15, 1972) .6.11 Long-Term Exposure Rate Measurements, uR/hr (April 17 to July 2, 1973)
Page
67.. 68
737678
80828383858688909293949699
.100
.100
.102
.104
.104
.105
.113
.116
.123
.125
.126
.128
.129
.130
.134
.135
.137
Xll
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Need for Study
Radiological monitoring is an integral part ofroutine operation at a nuclear power station.Radionuclides in discharges and direct radiation at thestation are measured to demonstrate compliance withoperating regulations and to compute the populationexposure with radiation exposure models.Measurements of radionuclides and radiation in theenvironment can check the models, yield theradionuclide transfer or dispersion factors mostappropriate to the site, and assure that populationexposures are within established limits.
Unless the environmental surveillance program iscarefully planned in terms of the models with regard tocritical radionuclides, pathways, and exposedpopulations, much of it will be uninformative andresult in a large number of inappropriate "less-than"values. An effective program uses the results of on-sitemeasurements to select sample types, locations,collection times, and amounts, as well as proceduresand instruments for the analyses. To provide guidancefor applying these on-site and environmentalmeasurements to evaluate population radiationexposures, the Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) ofthe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)undertook a program of studies at commerciallyoperated nuclear power stations. The NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC), the Energy Researchand Development Administration (ERDA), statehealth or environmental protection agencies, andstation operators have participated in these studies.This report describes the fourth and final project in thisseries of studies - two at pressurized water reactors(PWR's) and two at boiling water reactors (BWR's).Results of the first three projects, at the Dresden IBWR, the Yankee-Rowe PWR and the Haddam NeckPWR, have been published. (1-J)
Guidance for evaluating population radiationexposures by emphasizing the observation of criticalradionuclides, pathways, and exposed populations inthe environment has been available for some time. (4)This approach concentrates efforts on the few mostimportant ("critical") causes of exposure in the
1
presence of many potential ones. Models for computingradionuclide transfers - for example, from water tofish, stack to vegetation, stack to cows' milk for 1311, andstack direct to man - have been utilized in the earlierreports, (1-J) and are described fully in the AEC, NRCand EPA models.(5-7) During the last few years,considerable information has been publishedconcerning the movement and transfer of radionuclidesin the environment at nuclear facilities, (8-16) as well asadditional guides for environmental monitoring.(17-18) There are also at least two additional reportsavailable describing environmental studies atcommercial nuclear power stations in the U. S.(19,20)
The four stations were selected for study so as toprovide generally applicable information. Because theprogram was begun during the initial expansion innuclear power production, the first two stations studiedat Dresden and Yankee-Rowe were relatively smallwhile the third and fourth were at the larger HaddamNeck and Oyster Creek stations. Hence, care must betaken in applying observations at these stations tolarger or newer stations that are different in design andoperation. Oyster Creek was selected for study in partbecause it included a marine environment, whereas, thethree previous stations studied were sited on bodies offresh water. The study was planned to contributeinformation specific to large BWR stations on theradionuclide content of effiuents, their sources andpathways, evaluation of population radiationexposures, techniques of measuring radionuclides andradiations at the station and in its environment, andprovide additional guidance on environmentalmonitoring.
1.2 The Station
The study was undertaken at the Oyster CreekNuclear Generating Station, a direct cycle BWRmanufactured by the General Electric Company for theJersey Central Power and Light Company. The stationbegan operating in 1969 and reached its presentmaximum power level of 1930 megawatts thermal(MWt)in 1971; the corresponding gross electricaloutput is approximately 640 MWe. The station hadproduced more than 16 million megawatt hours (1.84
GW-yr) of electricity at the end of 1973. Operation ofthe station is described in several publications. (21-24)
During the study, the reactor was partially refueledtwice - in September 1971 and May 1972. The fuelelements consist of uranium dioxide (VOl) pelletsenriched to 2.42% in mU, enclosed in annealedZircaloy-2 tubes.(21,22) Water serves as bothmoderator and coolant.
The station is located in a relatively flat marshlandarea ofOcean County, New Jersey, about 3.2 km inlandfrom the shore of Barnegat Bay. The site is situated14.5 km south of Toms River, New Jersey and 56 kmnorth of Atlantic City, New Jersey. It is bounded on theeast by the Central Railroad of New Jersey ~nd U.S.Route 9; on the west by the Garden State Parkway; onthe north by the South Branch of Forked River and onthe south by Oyster Creek. (22)
The study was undertaken at Oyster Creek becauseit was on~ of only two large BWR stations - the otherwas Nine Mile Point - in the U. S. that had beenoperating for more than a year in 1971. Forcomparison. the commercial BWR stations that hadbeen operated for a full year in 1973 are listed in Table1.1 with their radioactive discharges in curies (Ci)during that year. (24) All of the stations listed in Table1.1 contain reactors manufactured by the GeneralElectric Company. The gross radioactivity at OysterCreek in both liquid and airborne waste is shown by
Table 1.1 to have been similar to values at otherstations. The relatively high amounts of IJII released atOyster Creek reflected in the last column is attributedto fission produced 1311 leaking through the fuelcladding. The very low radioactivity in liquid wastereleased at Monticello is due to their recycle ofprocessed wastes and the shipment of laundry off-site,resulting in a near-zero release to the environment.
1.3 The StudyField trips to the station and its environs were
conducted between October 1971 and November 1973,scheduled to observe radionuclide concentrationsthroughout the station operating cycle and in theenvironment at various seasons. Because liquideffiuents were discharged into a marine environmentabundant with aquatic life, often utilized as food, theaquatic portion of this study was greatly expandedrelative to the previous three studies. Measurementswere considered to approximate average or totalradionuclide values for sources and pathways sufficientfor the generic purpose of the' study. The computedaverages or totals from this study are compared, whenpossible, with values obtained on a more frequent basisby the station operator to evaluate the applicability ofthe measurements during the field trips. The field tripswere not intended to be inspections of· operatingpractices at the station.
Table 1.1 Operating Data on Selected BWR Nuclear Power Stations, 1973
Liquid waste , CiYear of Rated 1973 power MFP* &ini tia1 power, generation, activation
3HStation operation MWe 106 MWt-hr products
Dresden I 1959 200 2.4 9.2 19
Millstone 1970 652 6.0 33.4 4
Vernont Yankee 1972 514 6.1 2 x 10- 5 0.1
Monticello 1970 545 9.9 at at
Nine Mile Point 1969 625 11 40.8 47.
Oyster Creek 1969 640 11 2.4 36
Pilgrim 1972 664 13 0.9 0.4
Dresden 2, 3 1970/71 809 ea. 27 25.9 26
Quad Cities I, 2 1971/72 800 ea. 31 21.4 25
Airborne waste, CiParticulates
Gases & Halogens **
8.4 x 105 0.3
0.8 x W5 0.2
1. 8 x 105 0.1
8.7 x 105 6.5
8.7 x 105 5.9
8.1 x 105 30.7
2.3 x 105 8.2
8.8 x 10 527. a
9.0 x 105 12.5
t MFP - Mixed fission products.
**All halogens are included.
t No liquid release.
2
The Radiochemistry and Nuclear Engi~eering
Facility at the EPA National Environmental ResearchCenter, Cincinnati, perfonned the study with. thesupport of the Technology Assessment Division, ORPEPA, and other EPA laboratories. Cooperating inthese studies were the persons listed in Appendix Afrom the New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection, the Health and Safety Laboratory, ERDA,the Health Services Laboratory, ERDA, the U.S. CoastGuard Station at Floyd Bennett Field, New York, theJersey Central Power and Light Co., the ERDA andthe NRC.
The study was planned on the basis of resultsobtained at the similar but smaller BWR station atDresden-I.(l) In addition, the following infonnationprovided guidance: pUblications describing the OysterCreek station and environment, (22,23,25-28) semiannual station operating reports, and the state'senvironmental surveillance reports. (29,30)
This information suggested that:(1) several sources at the station emit gaseous and
liquid effiuents of possible dosimetric import;however, the off-gas from the steam condenserair ejectors and the liquid from the test tankswould probably be the major sources;
(2) critical radiation exposure pathways probablyinclude fish and clams caught in Oyster Creekand in Barnegat Bay near the mouth of OysterCreek, external radiation from effiuent gases,and direct radiation from the plant;
(3) bottom sediments in Oyster Creek and aquaticvegetation and macro-algae in Oyster Creekand Barnegat Bay would contain readilydetectable radionuclides from the station;
(4) radioiodine might be at detectable levels in thethyroid of cattle, if any grazed near the station;
(5) dilution factors for radionuclides in BarnegatBay would be difficult to calculate due to thecomplex hydrology of the Bay.
The measurement program accordingly emphasizedthese aspects of the station and its environment. Itdiffered from previous station studies with respect to(1) terrestrial sampling was minimal because of thestate's thorough environmental sampling program andsparse sampling media, and (2) most in-plant samplingwas conducted by the AEC. (31)
1.4 References
1. Kahn, B., R. L. Blanchard, H. L. Krieger, H. E.Kolde, D. B. Smith, A. Martin, S. Gold, W. J. Averett,W. L. Brinck, and G. J. Karches, "RadiologicalSurveillance Studies at a Boiling Water Nuclear Power
Reactor," U.S. Public Health Service Rept.BRH/DER 70-1 (1970).
2. Kahn, B., R. L. Blanchard, H. E. Kolde, H. L.Krieger, S. Gold, W. L. Brinck, W. J. Averett, D. B.Smith, and A. Martin, "Radiological SurveillanceStudies at a Pressurized Water Nuclear PowerReactor," EPA Rept. 71-1 (1971).
3. Kahn, B., R. L. Blanchard, W. L. Brinck, H. L.Krieger, H. E. Kolde, W. J. Averett, S. Gold, A.Martin, and G. Gels, "Radiological Surveillance Studyat the Haddam Neck PWR Nuclear Power Station,"EPA Rept. EPA-520/3-74--007 (1974).
4. Committee 4, International Commission onRadiation Protection, "Principles. of EnvironmentalMonitoring Related to the Handling of RadioactiveMaterials," ICRP Publication no. 7, Pergamon Press,Oxford (1965).
5. Directorate of Regulatory Standards, U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, "Final EnvironmentalStatement Concerning Proposed Rule Making Action:Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and LimitingConditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion 'AsLow As Practicable' for Radioactive Material in LightWater-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effiuents,"AEC Rept. WASH-1258 (1973).
6. Office of Radiation Programs, "EnvironmentalAnalysis of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, Part II - NuclearPower Reactors," EPA Rept. EPA-520/9-73--OO3-C(1973).
7. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EffiuentTreatment Systems Branch, "Calculation of Releasesof Radioactive Materials in Liquid and GaseousEffiuents from Boiling Water Reactors (BWR's) Principal Parameters Used in BWR Source TennCalculations and Their Bases," Regulatory Guide1.CC, Appendix B, Draft (1975).
8. Peaceful Uses ofAtomic Energy, Proceedings ofthe Fourth International Conference, Vol. 2 and 11,United Nations, New York (1972).
9. Radioecology Applied to Man and HisEnvironment, International Atomic Energy Agency,Vienna (1972).
10. Thompson, S. E., et al, "Concentration Factorsof Chemical Elements in Edible Aquatic Organisms,"AEC Rept. UCRL-50564 Rev. 1 (1972).
11. Jinks, S. M. and M. Eisenbud, "ConcentrationFactors in the Aquatic Environment," Rad. HealthData Rept. 13,243 (1972).
12. Radioactive Contamination of the MarineEnvironment, International Atomic Energy Agency,Vienna (1973).
13. Environmental Behavior of RadionuclidesReleased in the Nuclear Industry, International
3
Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna (1973).14. Environmental SurvelJlance Around Nuclear
Installations, International Atomic Energy Agency,Vienna (1974).
15. Physical Behavior of RadioactiveContaminants in the Atmosphere, InternationalAtomic Energy Agency, Vienna (1974).
16. Radiological Impacts ofReleases from NuclearFacilities into Aquatic Environments, InternationalAtomic Energy Agency, Vienna, to be published.
17. "Environmental Radioactivity SurveillanceGuide," EPA Rept. ORP/SID 72-2 (1972).
18. Directorate of Regulatory Standards, U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, "Regulatory Guide 4.1.Measuring and· Reporting Radioactivity in theEnvirons of Nuclear Power Plants," USAEC,Washington, D. C. (1973).
19. Lentsch, J. W., et a1., "Manmade Radionuclidesin the Hudson River Estuary," in Health PhysicsAspects ofNuclear FaclJity Siting, P. J. Voilleque andB. R. Baldwin, eds., B. R. Baldwin, Idaho Falls, Idaho499 (1971).
20. Lowder, W. M. and C. V. Gogolak,Experimental and Analytical Radiation DosimetryNear a Large BWR, IEEE Trans. NS-21, 423 (1974).
21. Jersey Central Power and Light Company,"Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report,Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant," Vol. I and 2,AEC Docket No. 50-219-1 and 50-219-2,Morristown, N. J. (1967).
22. Jersey Central Power and Light Company,"Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating StationEnvironmental Report," Amend. no. 2, Morristown,N. J. (1972).
23. Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission, "Final Environmental Statement Relatedto Operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation," AEC Docket No. 50-219 (1974).
4
I24. Office of Operations Evaluation, U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission, "Summary of RadioactivityReleased in Effluents from Nuclear Power PlantsDuring 1973," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionRept. NUREG-75/001 (January 1975).
25. Loveland, R. E., et a1., "The Qualitative andQuantitative Analysis of the Benthic Flora and Faunaof Barnegat Bay Before and After the On-set ofThermal Addition," Rutgers State University, ProgressRepts. 1-7 (1966-1970).
26. Wurtz, C. B., "Barnegat Bay Fish," Dept. ofEnvironmental Sciences, Rutgers State University,Rept. to the Jersey Central Power and Light Company,Morristown, N. J. (1969).
27. Westman, J. R., "Barnegat Reactor FinfishStudies," Department of Environmental Sciences;Rutgers State University, Rept. to the Jersey CentralPower and Light Company, Morristown, N. J. (1967).
28. Carpenter, J. H., "Concentration Distributionfor Material Discharged Into Barnegat Bay,"· JohnHopkins University, Rept. to the Jersey Central Powerand Light Company, Morristown, N. J. (1965).
29. McCurdy, D. E., "1971 EnvironmentalRadiation Levels in the State of New Jersey," NewJersey State Department of Environmental ProtectionReport (1971).
30. McCurdy, D. E. and J. 1. Russo,"Environmental Radiation Surveillance of the OysterCreek Nuclear Generating Station," New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection Repts. (1972and 1973).
31. Pelletier, C. A., "Results of IndependentMeasurements of Radioactivity in Process Systems andEffluents at Boiling Water Reactors," USAEC Rept.,unpublished (May 1973).
2. RADIONUCLIDES IN WATER ON SITE
2.1 Water Systems andSamples
2.1.1 General. The power-producing systems atOyster Creek are, in general, typical of BWR's. Water.flow pathways in the reactor coolant systems are shownin Figure 2.1. (1) Other water systems on site includereactor cleanup and demineralizer, circulating water,standby core cooling, primary containment spraycooling, standby liquid control, fire protection, makeupwater, service water, reactor building closed coolingwater, turbine building closed cooling water, fuelstorage pool filtering, demineralizing and cooling, andsewage treatment. Plant electrical production andperiods of operation are indicated on Figure 2.2. (2)
2.1.2 Reactor coolant system.(3) The reactor atOyster Creek is a direct-cycle BWR. During routineoperation, feed water at 1500 C and 1000 psig enters thereactor vessel through the feedwater nozzle and is
mixed with recirculating water. A mixture of steam andwater is generated as the reactofcoolant passes upwardthrough the reactor core and is heated by fissioning inthe nuclear fuel. At this stage the water-steam mixtureis considered "low-quality" steam. The excessentrained water is removed by steam separators locatedin the reactor vessel directly above the core and thesteam is then dried in a steam dryer assembly above thesteam separators. The dry steam at 2850 C and 950 psiflows to the turbines at a rate of 900 kgls (7 x 10"1blhr). Approximately 2.0 x lOs kg of water plus 6 x 103
kg of steam are in the reactor coolant system. (4)Water removed in the steam separators is returned
to the main recirculation flow within the vessel and ispumped through the five recirculation loops. Flow ratethrough the recirculation loops is varied to controlreactor power. When the reactor is operating at ratedpower, rapid power maneuvers can be accomplished by
9xl0 2 kg/sec
950 psig, 285°C
Reactor
Circulating Water
(from Canol)
RecirculationLoops (5)9x 103 kg/sec
Power - 1930 MWtReactor Coolant Water
Moss - 2xl05 kg
Figure 2.1 Coolant flow schematic.
5
600
~600
~
CD.J::
0'-
500Ql500~
:::EII>
400II> 4000 STEPWISE APPROACH'"Q TO COMMERCIAL
8'" 300 OPERATION (PLANT Cl 300... Z~ START UP TESTING) ::i...0 :>Q.
200 ...200......
'"Cl ....c(c('" ;:::...
100'" 100>c(c(Q.
J F M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M1970 1971 1972
600
500
400
300
200
100
® 12
- rt..@r' @,.--~
'-@ ®r- ®
,....-
ClZ::i
Cl ...:>z ...
::i ...... '":> ....... c(...1='" '"c(Q.
AMJ J A SONDJ F MAMJ J A SON 0
1972 1973
1. INSPECTION AND TESTING OF MAIN STEAMISOLATION VALVES
2. HIGH LEVEL IN MOISTURE SEPERATOR DRAIN TANK3. OVERHAUL OF CONTROL ROD MECHANISMS4. HIGH AMBIENT TUNNEL TEMPERATURE
S. SCHEDULED-INTEGRATED CONTAINMENT LEAK RATETEST
6. SCHEDULED-TURBINE CONTROL VALVE INSPECTION
7. SCHEDULED-REMOVAL OF POISON CURTAIN AND
INSPECTION OF TURBINE & PARTIAL REFUELING
8. FLEXIBLE DISCHARGE LINE FROM AIR COMPRESSORFAILED
9. INCREASING UNIDENTIFIED LEAK IN DRY WElL
10. REFUB.ING-PARTIAL TURBINE AND GENERATORINSPECTION
11. FALSE TRIP OF SENSOR IN REACTOR PROTECTION
SYSTEM #1 DURING CALIBRATION TEST OF MAINSTEAM LINE RADIATION SENSORS
12. INCREASE OF REACTOR PRESSURE DUE TO MAINSTEAM ISOLATION VALVE TEST
13. LOSS OF GENERATOR FIELD DUE TO OPERATORERROR
14. PARTIAL REFUELING & TURBINE GENERATORINSPECTION
15. UNIDENTIFIED LEAKAGE IN PRIMARY CONTAINMENT
16. SCHEDULED-TO INSPECT & REPAIR SHOCK AND
SWAY ARRESTORS INSIDE PRIMARY CONTAINMENT
Figure 2,2 Oyster Creek electrical production {from Semi-Annual Reportsl.
6
changing the coolant recirculation pump speed whichalters the reactor recirculation flow.
Electrical power is produced by a 640,OOO-KW,1800-rpm, tandem-compound six-flow 2-stage reheatsteam turbine-generator. The turbine has one doubleflow, high pressure and three double-flow, low pressureelements. Exhaust steam from the high pressureturbine passes through moisture separators andreheaters before entering the three low pressure units.
. cThe separators reduce the mOIsture content of thesteam to less than I percent by weight.
Steam passes from the low pressure units to threehorizontal, single pass, divided-water box, deaeratingtype condensers. These are designed to produce a backpressure of 2.5 cm Hg absolute at rated load with 9° Ccooling water. Deaeration by a steam jet air ejector isprovided in each condenser to remove air from normalinleakage, hydrogen and oxygen gases due todissociation of water in the reactor, and gaseousradionuclides.
Condensate is pumped from the condenser hotwellsthrough the condensate demineralizers by the threecondensate pumps. The full-flow condensatedemineralizer system (Figure 2.1) ensures the supply ofwater of the required purity to the reactor. Thisdemineralizer system removes corrosion products fromthe turbine, condenser, and shell side of the feedwaterheaters, protects the reactor against condenser tubeleaks, and removes condensate impurities which mightenter the system in the makeup water.
The condensate demineralizer consists of sevenmixed-bed units (including one spare) sized for ratedload condensate flow. Demineralizer resins arenormally regenerated and reused. Any radioactivematerial removed from exhausted resins by rinsesolutions is trarisferred to the radioactive waste system(see Section 4.1).
From the condensate demineralizer, water ispumped by the feedwater pumps through feedwaterheaters and back to the reactor vessel.
2.1.3 Reactorcleanup and demineralizer system.(J)The primary purposes of the reactor cleanupdemineralizer system are to reduce concentrations of:
1. corrosion products;2. radioactive materials (primarily radioiodine)
produced in the core;3. transient bursts of cr ions to maintain
acceptable levels of cr in the primary watersystem;
4. coolant radioactivity during refueling.The cleanup system provides continuous
purification of a portion of the recirculation flow with aminimum of heat loss from the cycle. It can be operated
during startup, shutdown, and refueling operations, aswell as during normal operations.
Water is normally removed at reactor pressure andcooled in a regenerative and a nonregenerative heatexchanger, reduced in pressure, filtered, demineralized,and pumped through the shell side of the regenerativeheat exchanger to the reactor.
The cleanup filters are pressure precoat type, usinga nonsilicious filter aid. Two full-size filters areprovided for continuous operation, with one filter beingon standby. The flow rate through the mixed-bedcleanup demineralizer was 25 kg/s (2.0 x 10' lblhr) atthe time of the study. (4) Spent cleanup resins are notnormally regenerated because of the radioactivity ofthe impurities removed from the reactor coolant, butare sluiced from the demineralizer vessels directly tothe radwaste system for disposal.
2.1.4 Circulating water system. Circulating coolingwater is transferred from Forked River through themain condenser by 4 pumps at the rate of 1.7 x 106
kg/min (450,000 gpm). It is returned to Oyster Creekcarrying with it the heat extracted from the steaJIi.."Tne.maximum temperature increase in the circulatiIigcooling water is 12.8° C (23° F).
To limit temperature increase in the Oyster Creek,three 1.0 x 106 kg/min (260,000 gpm) dilution pumpsare available to take water from the intake and by-passthe condenser, discharging directly to Oyster Creek.The dilution flow is adjusted as required to meettemperature limits in Barnegat Bay.
2.1.5 Paths of radionuclides from the reactorcoolant system. (2-4) The radionuclides in the reactorcoolant water are fission products and activationproducts. The fission products in the water are formedwithin the uranium oxide fuel and enter the waterthrough imperfections in the Zircaloy cladding of thefuel elements. Other possible sources of fissionproducts - apparently minor - are fuel thatcontaminates the surface Of new fuel elements ("trampuranium") and fuel that passes into reactor coolantwater from failed fuel elements. The activationproducts in reactor coolant water are formed byneutron irradiation of the water and its contents(including gases and dissolved or suspended solids) andof materials in contact with the coolant (container andstructural surfaces, fuel and control rod cladding) thatsubsequently corrode or erode.
The radionuclides in the reactor coolant watercirculate and decay within the system and may depositas "crud" (which may later recirculate). They areretained by the cleanup demineralizer or condensatedemineralizer or leave the system with gases andliquids. The cleanup demineralizer resin is periodically
7
the condenser hotwell. It is returned tocondensate storage through the condensatepump and demineralizers.Fire protection system. The fire protectionsystem furnishes water to all pointsthroughout the plant area and to buildingswhere water for fire-fighting may be required.The fire protection water is fresh water storedon site in the 3.8 x 10' liter (10,000,000 gal.)storage pond.Makeup water system. Makeup waterrequirements for the plant are provided byprocessing well water, or water from OysterCreek, or a mixture of the two. The systemutilizes a coagulator followed by charcoalfilters, carbon filters, 2 cation-anion primarydemineralizers, and a final mixed-bedpolishing unit. A 1.1 x lOs-liter (30,000 gal.)makeup demineralizer water storage tank isprovided to store water for normalrequirements. The required quality of waterused as makeup is-
Cooling water systems. A closed loop, forcedcirculation, cooling system (reactor buildingclosed cooling water system) is employed forcooling the reactor plant equipment. Seawaterfrom the service water system cools thissystem through heat exchangers. The turbineoil coolers, hydrogen coolers, stator coolers,and similar associated equipment are cooledby another closed loop system located in theturbine building (turbine building closedcooling water system). Seawater from eitherthe service water or circulating water systemscools this system through heat exchangers.
The service water system provides 4.5 'x10' liters/min (12,000 gpm) of water forcooling plant components. Service water istaken from the Forked River intake and isdischarged into the Oyster Creek dischargecanal.Emergency systems. Three systems areprovided for emergency shutdown and coolingofthe reactor:a. Standby liquid control system. The liquid
poison backup systems can shut down thereactor should the control rods fail to
replaced and processed for shipment off-site as solidwaste. The condensate demineralizer is periodicallyregenerated, and the regenerant solution is processed inthe liquid waste system.
During routine operation, water and associatedgases leave the reactor coolant system through leaksand by intentional discharge for volume control. At thetime of the study, losses of 6.5 x 10' liters/day (17,200gpd) from the reactor coolant system included 5.7 x 10'liters/day (15,000 gpd) water leakage to equipmentdrains and 8.3 x 10) liters/day (2,200 gpd) of water assteam leakage to turbine building, reactor building andradwaste building air. (4) Another estimate of reactorcoolant water loss was based on the AEC 1200-MWemodel BWR.(5) Adjusted to Oyster Creek plant size,this estimate is 1.9 x 10' liters/day (5,000 gpd) loss toequipment drains and 4.5 x 103 liters/day (1,200 gpd)loss to building air for a total loss of 2.34 x 10'liters/day (6,200 gpd).
Radionuclides in the leaking water are expected tobe equal to or less than the concentrations observed insamples of reactor coolant water. Those leaks whichrelease steam or condensate would be expected to havehigher concentrations of volatile radionuclides andlower concentrations of nonvolatile radionuclides.Volatile radionuclides are vented continuously fromthe reactor, turbine and radwaste buildings, butaccumulate in the drywell until it is vented.
2.1.6 Other liquids on site.(3) Several ancillarywater systems exist at the station, but only the firstthree of the following are believed to result inradioactive discharge:
1. Radioactive waste treatment system. Thesystem for gases is described in Section 3.1.1,and for liquids, in Section 4.1. 1.
2. Fuel storage pool filtering, demineralizing andcooling. This system is designed to filter anddemineralize the pool water and remove decayheat from spent fuel which is stored in the fuelpool. The fuel pool filter and demineralizer,which may become radioactive, are located inthe radwaste building. Cooling water for theheat exchangers is supplied by the reactorbuilding closed cooling water system.
3. Refueling water. The cavity above the reactorvessel is flooded during refueling. Purity of thewater during refueling is maintained by thereactor cleanup demineralizer. Fuel removedfrom the· reactor is transferred underwater tothe fuel storage pool. Excess primary systemwater after the completion of refueling isdischarged through the pool filter anddemineralizer and reactor cleanup system to
'8
4.
5.
6.
7.
pHConductivitySilicaChloride
7.0
< 1.0 micromho at 25' C<0.01 ppm as Si02
<0.01 ppm as cr
function. This system consists of deviceswhich can inject a sodium pentaboratesolution from a 15,OOO-liter storage tankinto the reactor vessel.
b. Standby core cooling system. Thestandby core cooling system is designedto remove the decay heat from the corefollowing a postulated loss-of-coolantaccident. Duplicate independent systemsare available to take water from the 2.4 x106-liter absorption pool and spray it overthe core.
c. Primary containment spray coolingsystem. A containment system is installedwithin the primary containment structurewhich would take water from theabsorption pool and from service water toremove decay heat from the primarycontainment system in the event of anaccident.
8. Sewage treatment system. Water for domesticand sanitary purposes is taken from a deepwell on the site. Domestic and sanitary wastesfrom the unrestricted, nonradioactive areas ofthe plant are treated in a packaged sewagetreatment facility. The aerobic system utilizesthe activated sludge process, and treats about4000 liters/day of raw wastewater. Effiuentfrom this system is chlorinated and released tothe discharge canal.
2.1.7 Samples. To identify potential radioactiveeffiuents at the Oyster Creek nuclear power station,samples of reactor water where radionuclides occur atmuch higher concentrations and are therefore moreeasily detected than at the point of release wereobtained from the recirculation loops (see Figure 2.1).The following reactor water samples were provided inplastic bottles by station personnel:
1. I liter, acidified, collected Aug. 31, 1971 at1522;
2. 500 ml, collected Aug. 31, 1971 at 1522;3. 100 ml, acidified, collected Nov. 30, 1971 at
1100;4. 20 ml, collected Nov. 30, 1971 at 1100;5. 1 liter, acidified, collected Mar. 14, 1972 at
1000·6. 500 ~l, collected Mar. 14, 1972 at 1000;7. 150 ml, collected Dec. 13, 1972 at 0825.The unacidified samples were analyzed for JH, "c,
J'S, and radioiodine; the acidified samples, which
contained 10% by volume of cone. nitric acid to reducedeposition of radionuclides on the walls of the bottle,and sample no. 7 were analyzed for otherradionuclides.
2.2Analysis
2.2.1 General. Aliquots of all samples were countedfor gross alpha and beta radioactivity, examined withgamma-ray spectrometers and analyzedradiochemically. Analyses were performed for highyield fission products and common activationproducts. Because radioactive decay between samplingand analysis was usually more than 24 hours,radionuclides with half-lives less than 6 hours could notbe measured. Aliquot volumes for individual analysesranged from 1 to 200 ml.
A special effort was made to measure radionuclidesthat emit only weak beta particles, such as 12.3-yr JH(maximum beta particle energy, 18 keY), 5,730-yr t·C(158 keV), 88-d J'S (167 keY), and 92-yr 6JNi (67 keY).Radionuclide concentrations were computed fromcount rates obtained with detectors calibrated withradioactivity standards as functions of gamma-ray oraverage beta-particle energies. All values werecorrected for radioactive decay or ingrowth, and aregiven as concentrations at sampling time. Half-livesand branching ratios are from recent publications. (6-9)
The difficulty of retaining radionuclides in solutionwas reported in earlier publications,(10-12) and wasalso observed during this study by measuringradionuclides that remained on the empty plasticsample containers when the liquid samples were pouredout after contact periods of days to weeks. Even withacidification, losses of 10-50% were observed forradionuclides such as 'tCr, "Mn, ,sCo, 60Co, and '9Fe.The following techniques were applied to preventunderestimating the radionuclide content of liquidsamples:
1. Cutting the empty sample bottles into smallpieces and measuring gamma-ray emitters bycounting them in a container for which thecounting efficiency had been determined.
2. Collecting the liquid sample on a dried spongein a container to saturate the sponge with theliquid at a volume calibrated for the countingefficiency of gamma-ray emitters:
3. Passing solutions of low ionic contentimmediately through cation- and anionexchange membrane filters· to collect
*Acropor SA-6404 and Acropor SB-6407. distributed by the Gelman Instrument Co., were found to besatisfactory for this ionic separation.
9
particulate and ionic radionuclides on thefilters for analysis by a gamma-rayspectrometer. The filtrate was also analyzed.
2.2.2 Gamma-ray spectrometry. Radionuclidesemitting gamma rays were identified by theircharacteristic gamma-ray energies in aliquots ofreactor coolant water by multichannel spectrometrywith a Ge(Li) detector. Spectral analyses were obtainedat appropriate intervals to eliminate interference byshorter-lived radionuclides, to measure half-lives andconfirm the identity of the radionuclides.
The large number of nuclides and the largedifferences in concentration in the reactor watersamples made identification after collection on ionexchange papers convenient. This technique alsodifferentiated between particulate, ionic and neutralspecies of the radionuclides. Sample no. 7 (Section2.1.7) was analyzed by filtering a 35-ml aliquot of thereactor water through a suction apparatus whichconsisted of 3 cation- and 2 anion-exchange papers inseries. The papers were separated and transferredindividually to containers for spectral analysis. The 35ml filtrate was collected and also analyzed. Figures 2.3,2.4, and 2.5 show the Ge(Li) spectra of each fraction 5days after collection.
The radionuclides "Co, 60Co, 134CS, 136CS, 137Cs, and239Np were predominant on the cation papers and 51Cr.99Mo, 1311, ml, 1351, 133Xe and "oLa on the anion paper.The 133Xe was produced by beta decay of the 1331. Onlyabout 1 percent or less of the radionuclides passedthrough both filters and were in the filtrate.
Sample (6) and another aliquot of sample (7)(Section 2.1.7) were analyzed by adding 20-ml to a drysponge in a falcon container. This volume justsaturated the sponge and expanded it to the 35 mlgeometry selected for calibration. This techniqueenabled the liquid to be transported without losses fromspillage or from deposition on container. walls.Calculation of individual radionuclide concentrationsfrom Ge(Li) spectra of these samples agreed withresults obtained utilizing the ion-exchange techniqueabove.
Reactor water samples were analyzed by obtainingrepeated spectra over a period of several weeks aftercollection. Initially, gamma rays of energies below 160keY from relatively short-lived radionuclides wereobscured by the high 133Xe content, which alsoproduced an excessive counter dead time. Thisinterference was totally eliminated by boiling andstirring a 35-ml aliquot with 5 ml conc. HCI. Replicatetests indicated that less than 1% ofthe 1311 volatilized inthis process.
10
Samples were analyzed by either an 11.4- or 54-cm3
Ge(Li) detector or a lO-cm x 10-cm Nal(Tl) detectorwith multichannel spectrometers. For those s~mples
containing fewer radionuclides at lower levels ofradioactivity, the higher energy resolution of theGe(Li) detector was generally unnecessary, and thehigher counting efficiency of Nal(Tl) detectors wasadvantageous.
2.2.3 Radiochemistry. Radiochemical separationswere performed to confirm spectral identification bygamma-ray energy and half-life, measure radionuclidesmore precisely and at lower concentrations than byinstrumental analysis of a mixture, and detectradionuclides that emit only obscure gamma rays ornone at all. (13) After chemical separation, thefollowing detectors were used: Nal(TI) crystal plusmultichannel analyzer for photon-emittingradionuclides; low-background end-window GeigerMueller (GM) counter for "c, 32p, 3SS, 89Sr, 9OSr, and18SW; liquid scintillation spectrometer for 3H, ,.c and63Ni; and xenon-filled proportional counter plusspectrometer for sSFe. Measurements with the GMdetector included observation of the effect of aluminumabsorbers on count rates to determine maximum betaparticle energies and thus confirm radionuclideidentification.
2.3 ResultsandDiscussion
2.3.1 Radioactivity in reactor water. lodine-B3,ml, 99mTc, and 239Np were the most abundant of themeasured radionuclides listed in Table 2.1. The sum ofall measured radionuclides, except 3H and the noblegases, for each sampling period ranged between 0.07and 0.16 uCilml. In comparison, the sum of allmeasured radionuclides reported by Pelletier except 3Hand the noble gases was 0.29 uCi/mI.(4) However,radionuclides with half-lives less than 6 hourscontributed 0.22 uCilml to the latter value. Majorshort-lived contributors were 2.71-hr 92Sr, 2.28-hr ml,52.3-min 1341, 32.2-min 138Cs, 83.2-min 139Ba and 18.3min 141Ba.
Several high-yield fission products could not bedetected at the limiting sensitivity of approximately 1 x1O-<i uCilml (see footnote 3 to Table 2.1). Most of theother radionuclides are neutron activation productsthat have been reported earlier.(l0-12) They areformed in water, steel, boron (in the boron controlcurtains), antimony (in the Sb-Be neutron sources), andzirconium (in the Zircaloy-2 cladding). The activationproducts 14C and 124Sb were found at relatively lowconcentration, as in previous studies.(1l,12) The grossalpha radioactivity was low in all samples, 5 x 10-7
II
136~ Cslb7) 239 Np(b81
137 C5 Ibb2)
239c::: Np 1210)
r 239 239Np (254) Np (22&1
__ .... --- 239NP{1l7NJH\~:)
~-==_'40 121
239 Ba (lb3) 136Np(l82) 136
Cs(177) Cs{lb41
140 (92~\La 925 I
139 Np (392)
~'40Ba (424)
"oLa (433)
,..::-- 134 Cs (bOS)
? 140 9'Lo (752) 5r(750)
134 {79b \!! 54 Cs :~~o (811) 140Mn (8]51 La (81b)
;=,.$;:=====,......2.239 N {27 B1140 P
3) Ba130S) 239 285,,~P (31b)
91 La (329)136 Cs (341) 239Np (334)
131 I 13b4)" 239
'<::. Np (384)
140 La (487);~==-==5::'=co==(5='=0)==-
133 1 IS ]01 1408a
(5371
~ ~'34csl~:~191 5, 155b)
o 0 0 0 0 0
o p---- -.c= 1.~9.' Q t' t J'"L ----.....:..:_5, (l024)r
""oo
-0oo
'"oo
~
oo
(5o
...,oo
'"oo
'"oo
(5oo
.....oo
c:~Ul
o~ooo7'lI)
<
-(;3..~al!lSl:l!al...~
(;
i:::I~Q.
o:::InSo:::I~
>cn:::ral:::IIClI)
'0al'0
~
no
~
n...~Q.
C~
n
5....~
Ul-~~3
...W
...CP'001IVIII....oCDIVU1
"T'Ice'I:..~
!'JW
(")CIlC ClOal~alI: 3 .... 3;a ~ ~ 3.. CD "'" D:lC., O •~ (") ~ iil[lSCl<
_. ~ Ul... 0 -'0U1:::1 r-~• _. n.... ~:-~CP n I:'ooI:::r 3.!'l g :... 0CPIC n :-u 3 iilCll'C WQ.III • _.
3'0 0_.~ :::I:::I.. I:S n !l~ 0Ul :::I....
~.:::I
cSIIIn~.
I S~6)t0~6 01
0 "
c.iQ)
o"tl!lJQ)
olJ
LtlNCOo
EoN
EE....
M...
:>Q)
""oooN
o
ooo
N
o
IL90LI I1£ sOil I" I _'c:'::'=,,!§L;;.==.:.._.----
(LE ~ II I,EI'--====-==SI!~
I£L LL) 0) 09--==~-~;;'"
M
o
(s LSI I CC I -======~-~==19sa) I (EI;----::=;;::::=:>-
19 Le) 01 0 ",__-===-,.r.J
(eLLlow 66 _~==-=~_....:s:169LI ICC1-===--~
ow 66 .:-~_=======-_3i~ltOL) I IE'
ILOL) I E" _== 2"
(O~L)
(eu) dN 6El-=......-.7
101~1 dN 6 'l
ULL) I IE'
o
lLE9) I lEI
(e L91
{
90L} ILLl) dN~O L d N ~=6=':::l-=.:::::=OOL 6'l
(08) I IE,
lo£s) I -====~:=:===~~~~-~CCI lOIs) I(EI
(£OS) IlLe~) D1 0" _'_(_'_=...::~
(L8 L)oW 66
(1)9£1 I --=======~;;.~££:;IE,
12
lObI I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I i I I I I i I
10 5
10'
0"''''~S!~
...<Xl
~
1000900800
<Xl
__- 0
-ooONU
-oo-Olll'" ...... eEl VI--..0 ~
Z v~
M
600500
0 .....~~ ;;;- P>
..... ~
'" o '"0 '"
~ V:: ~- '"
m M
'L~~ M' U
;~ I'"'"'::.
-
Q.
Z
..<Xl
'"
...'"'"
;:;
..'"'" '"
'" Q.Z
Q. 0'Z M
0' N
N
~
<Xl'"
..... '"~
Q.
Z0'
N
<Xl
'"~Q.
o Z
~~Q.
Z0
N='".,.
0'_M ..... _
~.=.£
Q.
z0'
N
~
V
Q.
Z
o<Xl
1« I I I I I "I " •
o
10 3
10'
....~
Figure 2.5 Gamma-ray spectrum of1radionuclides from reactor water not retained on cation or anion papers. 0-2000 keV.
Detector: GelLi). 11.4 cm3 .Sample: Effluent from cation-anion exchange paper containing activities from 20 mi. collected Dec. 13. 1972
at 0825.Count: Dec. 19. 1972. 99.8 minutes•
Table 2.1 Radionuclide Concentration in Reactor Water, uCi/rnl
1971 1972
Radionuclide August 31 November 30 March 14 December 13
ND
.1 x 10- 4
3.0 x 10- 3
3.1 x 10- 5
3.0 x 10-5
5 x 10- 6
< 1 x 10-6
1.7 x 10-4
3.7 x 10-1,
3.3 x 10·1,
1.3 x 10-5
2.5 x 10-1,
1.1 x 10·1,
3.7 x 10.6
3.9 x 10-5
5.9 x 10.3
4.1 x 10- 4
3.5 x 10- 5
8.3 x 10- 3
1.1 x 10- 5
2.1 x 10-5
2.5 x 10. 3
NO
<5 x 10- 6
1.4 x 10.4
3.5 x 10- 3
NO
ND
NO
NO
9.5 x 10.5
4.5 x 10- 5
1. 2 x 10.4
1.1 x 10- 3
3.7 x 10- 5
ND
<3 x 10- 6
4.0 x 10- 2
< 2 x 10- 7
7.0 x 10- 5
3.0 x 10-6
4.8 x 10- 3
2.4 x 10-6
1.3 x 10-6
9.2 x 10-4
3.8 x 10- 2
1.2 x 10- 6
2.7 x 10- 4
7.6 x 10- 3
2.6 x 10- 2
2.3 x 10- 2
NA
NA
4.1 x 10- 5
3.0 x 10- 5
7.1 x 10- 5
6.1 x 10- 4
1. 7 x 10-5
NA
< 3 x 10- 6
3.6 x 10- 3
<2 x 10- 7
NA
3.3 x 10-5
4.5 x 10- 3
< 1 x 10- 6
1.1 x 10- 3
1.5 x 10-5
4.lxl0-3
2.2 x 10- 5
1.3 x 10-5
5.3 x 10-6
<1 x 10.6
9.3 x 10.5
2.0 x 10-1,
1.3 x 10-3
1.3 x 10.5
5.0 x 10-5
2.2 x 10.6
< 1 x 10.6
consLruction materialscladding! and
NA
6.1 x 10.3
2.9
2.3
3.9
9.2 x 10- 4
1.5 x 10- 5
1.9 x 10- 3
3.4 x 10- 5
8.6 x 10. 4
3.8 x 10- 3
1.5 x 10- 2
2.3 x 10-3
<1 x 10.5
1.1, x 10- 3
6.1, x 10- 3
2.5 x 10.2
NA
Fission Products
3.5 x 10- 5
3.8 x 10- 6
-7.3 x 10.3
8.2 x 10- 5
1.1 x 10- 4
8.4 x 10- 4
1.8 x 10- 2
7.8 x 10- 5
-<l.0 x 10. 4
1.1 x 10- 3
1.5 x 10- 2
-2.7 x 10- 2
6.4 x 10- 4
1.8 x 10. 2
1.7 x 10- 5
< I x 10- 5
3.0 x 10-5
4.7 x 10- 4
9.8 x 10- 5
-2.0 x 10·1,
-1.1 x 10·1,
1.5 x 10. 2
-2 x 10- 7
-3
1.4
~
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.7 x 10-5
NA
NA
1.8 x 10- 3
< 1 x 10- 6
1.4 x 10- 3
3.8 x 10. 5
7.1 x 10. 3
1.1 x 10- 4
1.6 x 10- 5
1.0 x 10-1,
-1 x 10.6
5.3 x 10·1,
3.9 x 10·1,
,1.5 x 10- 5
x 10-6
-5.8 x 10- 3
4.1 x 10- 5
< 3 x 10- 6
1.4 x 10- 3
2.1 x 10- 2
x 10- 6
NA
6.9 x 10- 3
2.2 x 10- 2
-2.5 x 10- 2
8.6 x 10- 4
1.3 x 10- 2
2.6 x 10- 5
3.2 x 10- 5
6.0 x 10- 5
6.7 x 10- 4
4.4 x 10- 5
NA
activation of water,
71. 3 -d
26
5.1 -d
21, -hr
2.7 -d
60.2 -d
50.5 -d 895r
28.5 -yr 90Sr
9.7 -hr 91Sr
65 -d 95 Zr**'
35.1 -d 95Nb"**
66.2 -hr 99Mo '**
6.0 -hr 99"'rc
39.6 -d 103Ru
36 -hr 105Rh
8.06-d 131 r20.9 -hr 133 r6.7 -hr 135 r5.29-d 133Xe
9.1 -hr 135Xe
2.07-yr 134Cs ***13 -d 136Cs ***30 -yr 137Cs
12.8 -d 1408a
32.4 -d 141Ce
33 -hr 143Ce
284 -d 144Ce
2.34-d 239Np***
gross alpha
from
15.0 -hr
14.3 -d
27.7 -d
313 ·d
2.7 -yr
41,.6 -d
270 -d
5.26cyr
12.8 -hr
21,4 ~d
12 . .3 _yr 3H**5730 -yr 14C
24Na
32p51
Cr54
Mn55 pe59pe57eo58eo60eoM eu65
zn
.hr 76As122
Sb12I,Sb _
183Ta1871<
Concentration at time of sampling; water at ambient temperature and pressure.
:I:*3H also results from ternary fission in fuel; 95 Zr , 95Nb and 99Mo may also beactivation products.
---Formed by (n,y) reactions \olith uranium or fission products.
Notes:
1. NA - not analyzed; NO - not detected because interval between sampling andcounting was long compared to the half-life.
2. <values are 30 counting errors.
3. The following fission products were not detected (usually < 1 x 10-6 ~ei/ml):
35 S, 63Ni , 93yo 97 zr • 106Ru , 127 Sb , 132Te , and 147 Nd . The radionucl1des
llOmAg and 185W were also not observed at this minimum detectable level.
14
Table 2.2 Comparison of Radionuclide Concentrations Measured
and Calculated in Reactor Water, uCi/ml
Average of measured Reported_~oncentrations Calculated fromRadionuclide concentrations* by ABC·· (4) NRC Reg. Guide 1.CCt
Fission Products89Sr 1.3 x 10- 4 -4 x 10- 51.4 x 10 490Sr 1.2 x 10- 5 5.6 x 10- 6
3 x 10-6
91 Sr 6.5 x 10- 33.5 x 10- 3 2 x 10- 3
95Nb 3.3 x 10- 5
NR 3 x 10- 6
95 Zr 3.4 x 10- 5 <2 x 10- 63 x 10- 6
97Zr <1 x 10- 6
NR 2 x 10- 6
99Mo 1. 4 x 10- 3 2.1 x 10- 3 8 x 10- 4
99TIl.rc 2.6 x 10- 22.0 x 10- 2
9 x 10-3
103Ru 2.2 x 10- 5 NR 8 x 10- 6
106Ru <1 x 10- 6 NR 1 x 10- 6
131 r 4.8 x 10- 3 3.9 x 10- 3 x 10- 3
133 r 2.1 x 10- 2 1. 7 x 10- 22 x 10- 2
135 r 2.5 x 10- 22.3 x 10- 2
2 x 10- 2
132Te <1 x 10- 6 <1.1 x 10- 5
3 x 10- 6
134Cs 4.5 x 10- 5
3.3 x 10- 52 x 10- 5
136Cs 2.8 x 10-5 <1 x 10- 58 x 10-6
137Cs 7.0 x 10- 5
5.7 x 10- 53 x 10-5
140Ba 7.1 x 10- 4
5.9 x 10-4 x 10- 4
141Ce 4.9 x 10- 5
6.0 x 10- 5 x 10- 5
144Ce 3.0 x 10- 5 NR 2 x 10- 6
147Nd <1 x 10- 6
NR x 10- 6
Corrosion and Activation PrOducts
3H 2.9 x 10- 32.5 x 10- 3
3 x 10- 3
14C -4 x 10-6tt <1 x 10- 6
NR24
Na 1.5 x 10- 31.4 x 10- 3
3 x 10- 3
32p 4.9 x 10- 52.9 x 10-4
8 x 10- 5
51Cr 3.8 x 10- 3 1.9 x 10- 3
2 x 10- 354
Mn 9.9 x 10- 44.3 x 10- 5
3 x 10- 5
55 Fe 3.8 x 10- 3 2.2 x 10- 34 x 10- 4
59Fe 6.0 x 10- 4 2.4 x 10- 52 x 10- 5
58Co 5.5 x 10-43.3 x 10-5 B x 10-5
60Co Lax 10-3 7.8 x 10-5 2 x 10-4
63Ni <1 x 10-6 <5 x 10-7 4 x 10-7
65Zn < 1.3 x 10-5 < 1 x 10-5 8 x 10-5
1871' 4.0 x 10-3 NR 2 x 10-4
239Np 1.8 x 10-2
1.8 x 10-33 x 10-3
gross alpha -2 x 10-7 <1 x 10-7 NR
* Average of concentrations given in Table 2.1; < values were averaged as 1/2 < value.Only radionuclides for which comparable values were available are included:-
**Average of 7 samples collected in January 1972; deviations from the mean were< 20%. (4)
t Concentrations given in Table C-2 of Appendix B NRC Regulatory Guide 1.CC, adjustedto the parameters of the Oyster Creek reactor. (14)
ttBased on only one analysis.
Note:
1. NR - not reported.
15
uCilml or less. The beta-decay and absorption studiesperformed on chemically purified phosphorus fractionsof each reactor water sample indicated that more than90 percent of the beta radioactivity was due to "P. Thisobservation shows that "P, if present, can be no morethan 10 percent of the '2p concentration.
The concentrations of radionuclides measured inreactor water and presented in Table 2.1 were averagedand are compared in Table 2.2 with measurementsmade by the AEC during a 7-day period in January1972,(4) and with concentrations based on the NRCmodel for a 3400-MWt boiling water reactor. (14) Inorder for the latter to be applicable to Oyster Creek, theconcentrations given by the model were adjusted asdescribed in the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.CC withrespect to the Oyster Creek reactor parameters:(14)1930MWtpower, 1.9 x lO'kg(4.2x 1O'lbs) of water inthe reactor vessel, a cleanup demineralizer flow rate of9.0 x 104kglhr (2.0 x 10' Ibs/hr), a steam flow rate of3.2 x 106 kglhr (7.1 x 106 Ibs/hr) and a ratio ofcondensate demineralizer flow rate to steam flow rateof unity (see Section 2.1). The adjustment factors,which are multiplied by the NRC reference reactorconcentrations to approximate the Oyster Creekreactor water concentrations, were about 0.67 for theradioiodines and 0.39 for all other radionuclides. Theadjustment of the NRC reference reactor water 'Hconcentration is based on an appearance rate in thewater of 120 Cilyr and the weight of reactor vesselwater in the Oyster Creek reactor, 1.9 x 10' kg, with aleakage rate of 6. 5 x 104kg/d.
For many of the radionuclides the three sets ofvalues are in agreement. The concentration predictedby the NRC model agree with those measured within afactor of 5 for more than 70 percent of theradionuclides. Of the fission products, the measuredconcentrations of 9'Nb, 9'Zr and I44Ce are significantlyhigher than the predicted values - in general, mostmeasured concentrations are high compared to thepredicted concentrations. This is particularly true ofthe corrosion and activation products, which can bepartially explained by the high concentrationsmeasured in the November 30, 1971, sample (see Table2.1). This sample was collected shortly after startup, aperiod during which high levels of corrosion productsmight be expected in the reactor water. See, forexample, the high concentrations of '4Mn, "Fe, '9Fe,"Co, 60Co, etc. for this period. Omission of theNovember 30 data produces much better agreementwith most of the predicted activation productconcentrations.
Variations between measurements at differenttimes. may be expected, as these nuclides are associated
16
mainly with "crud" and are either in or out of solutiondepending on their chemical behavior in reactor water.They may be deposited in the system resulting in lowmeasured concentrations at one time or be resuspendedor redissolved at another time. Pelletier has reportedthat concentrations of radionuclides in the OysterCreek reactor water not only vary with time, but alsodiffer by factors of 5 to 7, depending upon the locationin the system at which the sample is collected. (4)Fission and activation product concentrations inreactor water are also affected by other variables,including the quality of the fuel elements, theoccurrence of shutdowns, the length of operation, andthe rate of reactor water purification and turnover.
The activity ratios of '8CO~OCO and 54Mn/60Comeasured in the reactor water by this laboratory are0.31 and 0.55, respectively. These ratios are similar tothose reported by the AEC,(4) and are consistent withmeasurements of the liquid radwaste (see Table 4.1,and Appendix B.2). The NRC model correctly predictsthe '8CO~OCO activity ratio but not the S4Mn~oCo ratio.
2.3.2 Tritium in reactor water. The averagemeasured 'H concentration shown in Table 2.2 is inclose agreement with the concentration reported byPelletier,(4) and with that predicted by the NRCmodel. (14) During this period, the station operator didnot report 'H concentrations in reactor water at theOyster Creek station.
The probable major sources of tritium in thereactor water are: (1) ternary fission in the fuel, (2)activation of deuterium in the water, and (3) neutronboron reactions in the boron control curtain. It isdifficult to ascertain which of these sources is the mostimportant. Even though the production of 'H is 2000times greater by fission and 700 times greater fromboron relative to that from deuterium, the diffusionrate through the Zircaloy-2 cladding and from theboron is unknown.(15) Experience has indicated,however, that the latter is quite small. Estimatedformation rates of tritium from the three sources for a1930-MWt GE-BWR with a 0.8 capacity factor follow:
AppearanceFormation rate In Annualrate. (14) reactor production,
Source LocatIon ~ water, uCi/s Ci---deuterium reactor water 0.20 0.20 6.4fission In fuel 380 0.46< 14.5boron in control
elements 155 0.16« 5.0
25.9
* based on an appearance rate of 3 x 10-4 IlCiis-MWt.(15)**Assumes a transfer to reactor water equal to that fromthe fuel cladding, 0.10 percent.
2.4 References
1. Lish, K. C., Nuclear Power Plant Systems andEquipment, Industrial Press, New York, N. Y. (1972).
The 3H concentrations at other BWR stations aresimilar to those measured at Oyster Creek, and areabout three orders of magnitude lower than wereobserved at the pressurized water reactors utilizingstainless-steel-clad fuel. (J1,12)
Approximate appearance rates in the reactor water arelisted in the fourth column. The appearance rate fromthe deuterium in the water is equal to the formationrate. The appearance rate from fission is taken from theliteratu.e, (15) while the transfer to the water from theboron curtains is assumed to be of the order of thatthrough fuel cladding, 0.1 percent. The estimatedannual production of tritium from each sourceappearing in reactor water is given in the last columnwith their sum, about 26 Ci. This estimated annualproduction of 3H is low, considering that the annualdischarge was about 40 Ci in liquids (see Appendix B.3)and 27 Ci in gas, mostly as water vapor (see Section3.3.6). A better estimate of the tritium production canbe made using the NRC Regulatory Guide I.CC whichpredicts a steady-state condition to exist relative to 3Hin the reactor water and a release of 0.025 Cilyr-MWtthrough liquid and vapor pathways. Adjusted to theOyster Creek BWR, a 3H production of approximately50 Cilyr is predicted, a value more closelyapproximating the measurements. As the boron controlcurtains were removed in' October 1971 with noapparent decrease in the quantity of 3H discharged, theappearance rate of 3H in reactor water from the boroncurtains may be overestimated in the above tabulation;that due to fission may be underestimated by a factor ofabout 4. Because the production of 3H from fission isvery large compared to that by activation of deuterium,any significant transfer through the cladding should bereadily detectable in the reactor water.
The 3H concentrations measured in Oyster Creekreactor coolant during this study compare as follows tothose reported from other BWR power stations: (15)
2. Jersey Central Power and Light Co., "OysterCreek Nuclear Generating Station Semi-AnnualRepts.," Nos. 1-9, Morristown, N. J., May 3, 1969through December 31, 1973.
3. Jersey Central Power and Light Co., "FacilityDescription and Safety Analysis Report, Oyster CreekNuclear Power Plant," Vol. 1 and 2, AEC Docket No.5~219-1 and 5~219-2,Morristown, N. J. (1967).
4. Pelletier, C. A., "Results of IndependentMeasurements of Radioactivity in Process Systems andEffiuents at Boiling Water Reactors," USAEC Rept.,unpublished (May 1973).
5. Directorate of Regulatory Standards, U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, "Numerical Guides forDesign Objectives and Limiting Conditions forOperation to Meet the Criterion 'As Low AsPracticable' for Radioactive Material in Light-WaterCooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effinents," AEC Rept.WASH-1258, Vol. 1(1973).
6. Lederer, C. M., J. M. Hollander, and I. Perlman,Table ofIsotopes, John Wiley, New York (1967).
7. McKinney, F. E., S. A. Reynolds, and P. S.Baker, "Isotope Users Guide," AEC Rept. ORNLnC-19 (1969).
8. Martin, M. J. and P. H. Blichert-Toft,"Radioactive Atoms," Nuclear Data Tables A8, I(1970).
9. Bowman, W. W. and K. W. McMurdo,"Radioactive-decay Gammas," Nuclear Data andNuclear Data Tables 13,89 (1974).
10. Kahn, B., et a1., "Radiological SurveillanceStudies at a Boiling Water Nuclear Power Reactor,Public Health Service Rept. BRH/DER 7~1 (1970).
11. Kahn, B., et ai., "Radiological SurveillanceStudies at a Pressurized Water Nuclear PowerReactor," EPA Rept. RD 71-1 (1971).
12. Kahn, R, et ai., "Radiological SurveillanceStudy at the Haddam Neck PWR Nuclear PowerStation," EPA Rept. EPA-520/3-74-007 (1974).
13. Krieger, H. L. and S. Gold, "Procedures forRadiochemical Analyses of Nuclear Reactor AqueousSolutions," EPA Rept. EPA-R4-7~14 (1973).
14. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EffiuentTreatment Systems Branch, "Calculation of Releasesof Radioactive Materials in Liquid and GaseousEffiuents from Boiling Water Reactors (BWR's) Principal Parameters Used in BWR Source TermCalculations and Their Bases," Regulatory GuideI.CC, Appendix B, Draft (1975).
15. Smith, J. M. and R. S. Gilbert, "TritiumExperience in Boiling Water Reactors," in Tritium, A.A. Moghissi and M. W. Carter, eds., MessengerGraphics, Phoenix, 57-68 (1973).
0.9-4.50.91.3-1.70.2-1.00.6-0.90.6-1.1
Reactor water,nCilmlPeriod
1971-197219701968197019711971
Oyster CreekNine Mile PointDresden-IDresden-2Millstone PointMonticello
Station
17
3. ,AIRBORNE RADIOACTIVE DISCHARGES
3.1 Gaseous Waste System andSamples
3.1.1 Gaseous waste system. The gaseous wastetreatment system at Oyster Creek during this study wastypical of then current techniques at boiling light-waterreactors. Non-condensable gases are removedcontinuously from the reactor steam system, dilutedwith large volumes of air after a short delay, anddischarged through a tall stack. The effluent airborneradionuclides are either gases - fission-producedtritium, krypton, xenon and iodine and activationproduced tritium, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen - orparticles. The movement of airborne radioactivity fromthe reactor to discharge is depicted in Figure 3.1. (1-8)A program to improve the waste system to reduce theamounts of effluent radioactivity is being considered bythe station operator. (3)
Most radioactivity discharged to the stack is gasseparated directly from steam in the three maincondensers. This gas contains hydrogen and oxygenfrom radiolytic decomposition of reactor coolantwater, air that has leaked into the system, water vaporand trace quantities of fission and activation products.
After passing through the turbines, the gas is separatedfrom condensed steam by steam jet air ejectors (SlAE)on the condensers and passed to a 193-m3 pipe. Theapproximately one-hour passage through the delaypipe permits removal of most radionuclides by physicaldecay, especially the abundant activation products ofair - lO-min l3N, 7.l-s 16N and 29-s 190. Otherradionuclides with half-lives of 10 min or less arereduced to at least one percent of their initial activity.The discharged radioactivity consists mostly of 83mKr,8smKr, 87Kr,.88Kr, 133Xe, IJSmXe, 13SXe, and l38Xe.
Gas passing through the delay line is held up,according to station staff, 50 to 70 minutes, dependingon the flow rate. (2) Delay times measured in early 1972were found to be 72 and 75 min when the estimatedflow rate was 44.6 ccls (94.4 cfm) (some discrepancyexists since the station repOlted a 25 percent higherflow rate at the time(7)). At the end of the delay line,the gas passes through two high-efficiency particulateair (HEPA) filters (nominal particle removal efficiencyof 99.95 percent for 0.3-um size)to removeaccompanying aerosols, particularly the radioactiveprogeny of decayed gases.
STock heighT - 112 m
Or well VenT
(31 m3/s)Turbine Bid. Venr*(39 m 3/s)
Radwaste Bid. Vent
(7.3 m 3/s)
Standby Gas"-''':''--1 TreaTmenT
System
ParTIculaTeFillerSeries
72 minuleDelay Line
MechanicalVacuum Pump
1.75 minuTeDelay Line
From Turbine
Seals
* 17 m3 /s tram Turbine Building root exhausters
To aTmosphere during worm weaTher (at 33 m)
Figure 3.1 Gaseous Waste Disposal System.
19
Air inleakage to the turbine is prevented by passing0.1 percent of the steam through the shaft gland sealannulus. The steam is then condensed and returned tothe reactor coolant system. Noncondensable gases areremoved by a SJAE at the condenser and vented to thestack through a 1.75-min holdup pipe at a release rateof0.28 m3Is (600 cfm). (7) .
Gaseous wastes are diluted at the stack byventilation air exhausted from site structures. The airflows at 31 m3Is (65,000 cfm) from the reactor building,7.3 m3/s (15,000 cfm) from the radwaste building, and39 m3/s (82,400 cfm) from the turbine building.(J)During warm weather, air in the upper level of theturbine building is discharged directly to theatmosphere at 17 m3Is (36,000 cfm) through roofexhausters at an elevation 0£33 m (108 feet).
Building ventilation air becomes contaminatedfrom many small sources of steam leaks and fromliquid leakage through valve stems, pump seals orflanged connections. Airborne radioactivity is releasedas it separates from steam or as a portion of the liquidevaporates before drainage. The Oyster Creek staff hasindicated that small amounts of noble gases originate inthe fuel pools and cleanup demineralizer area in thereactor building and in the steam leaks in the heater bayand condensate area of the turbine building.(J) TheEnvironmental Statement assumed steam leakage ratesduring reactor operation to be 230 kg/hr in the reactorbuilding, 770 kgihr in the turbine building, andnegligible in the radwaste building. (6) These are alsothe rates estimated for a model BWR plant by theAEC(9)and the EPA. (10)
Minor sources of airborne radioactivity released tothe stack without treatment include:
1. Air in the nonnally-isolated drywell (the reactorprimary containment) and the suppression chambermay become radioactive from inleakage of radioactivegases or by activation with neutrons. The drywell andchamber are purged directly to the stack withouttreatment before they are opened for refueling ormaintenance. The free air volume has been specified tobe 8.64 x 103 m3 (305,000 ft)(4) or 5.10 x 103 m3
(180,000 fe);(1) the fonner value may include thevolume of the suppression chamber located adjacent tothe drywell.
2. Mechanical vacuum pumps removenoncondensable gases from the main condensersduring reactor startup when steam to operate the SJAEis unavailable. The off-gases are vented to the holdup
20
pipe used for turbine gland seal leakage. The pumps arenominally operated for 4 hrs during startup. (9)
The stack stands 112 m (368 ft) above ground leveland 119 m above mean sea level. Its diameter at the topis 2.5 m (8.25 ft) and, for an effiuent linear velocity of15.9 mis, the discharge rate is 77.9 m 3/s. A probelocated at 81 m (265 ft) is used to withdraw samples ofstack effiuent continuously at a nominal rate of lliterls"(2 cfm). The air sample is piped to the base of the stackand passed sequentially through a 5-cm-dia. glass fiberfilter for retention of particles, a 27-g bed of activatedcharcoal (Cesco type B cartridge) for samplingradioiodines, and a radiation detector for monitoringradioactive noble gas effiuent. At the time of the study,the filter and cartridge were nonnally changed everythree days and analyzed for radionuclide contents.
At the time ofthe study, off-gas from the SJAE wassampled daily. A gross radioactivity analysis wasperfonned with a NaI(Tl) detector after a 2-hourwaiting period. Samples taken on Wednesdays wereanalyzed for specific' radionuclides with a NaI(Tl)detector and gamma-ray spectrometer at intervals of 1,2 and 5 hours after sampling: (4)
3.1.2 Radionuc1ide release. The permissible limitsfor Oyster Creek stack effiuents have been establishedas follows by the AEC to assure confonnance to Title10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 20:
1. The maximum release rate of gross activity,except iodines and particulates with half-liveslonger than eight days, shall be limited inaccordance with the following equation:
Q 0.21/£ Ci/s
where Qis the stack release rate (Ci/s) of grossactivity and £ is the average gamma energyper disintegration (MeVIdis). (The nominallimit observed by the station is 0.26 Ci/s.(J))
2. The maximum release rate of iodines andparticulates with half-lives longer than eightdays shall not exceed 4 uCi/s.
3. Radiogases released from the stack shall becontinuously monitored except for the shorttime during monitor filter changes. If thisspecification cannot be met, the reactor shallbe placed in the isolated condition.(J)
Gaseous waste discharges of radioactive noblegases, halogens, particles and tritium reportedperiodically by the station operator(11) are tabulated inAppendices B.2 and B.3. The station has reported thefollowing annual discharges since reactor operationbegan:
Annual discharge, CiYear Noble gases Halogens Particles 'H1969 7.0 x 10' 3 X 10"· 8 x 10-' ••1970 I.I x 10' 3.1 X 10'1. 1.0 x 10,2 ••1971 5.2 x 10' 2.0 1.7 x 1O"t ••1972 8.7 x 10' 6.3 2.3 x 1O,It 7.5 x 10'1
1973 8.1 x 10' 6.7 4.2 x 10" 3.2 X 10"
* Includes only halogens with half-lives greater
than 8 d."Included with noble gas total.t No alpha-emitting radionuclides detected.
3.1.3 Sample collection. Samples of off-gas from themain condenser SJAE were obtained at a point 4minutes into the delay line on August 31,1971, January18, 1972, April 10 and 12, 1972, August 24, 1972,December 13, 1972 and March 28, 1973. All sampleswere obtained in duplicate. Samples were supplied bystation personnel in 15-cc glass serum bottles (in 4-ccbottles for August 1971 samples) stoppled with rubberinserts and covered with sealing wax.
Stack effiuent samples were collected in evacuatedmetal bottles from a port following the filter andcartridge in the stack air monitoring line. Samplescollected were:
Particulate air filters exposed in the stack monitorduring 16 sampling periods ranging from July 1971 toDecember 1972 were obtained. Also provided were 17charcoal cartridges representing essentially the sameperiods. These samples were provided by the stationstaff after they had completed their analyses thatrequired several weeks, which precluded measurementof short-lived emissions. The sample of December1972, however, was provided 6 days afterremoval.
Other samples included 34 liters of off-gas from theturbine gland seal condenser SJAE (February 29,1972), 1. 8 liters of air from the reactor drywell (April11, 1972) and 34 liters of air exhausted through theventilation ducts from each of the turbine, reactor andradwaste buildings (March 28, 1973).
As part of the joint study, the AEC Health andSafety Laboratory (HASL) obtained off-gas samples
from the SJAE on August 31, 1971, February 29, 1972,Aprrt 10 and 12, 1972, and March 28, 1973. (.i:8) Tostudy variation of individual radionuclidecOn\;enkations, HASL obtained off-gas samples on themorning and afternoon of January 18 to 20 andmorning of January 21, 1972. Their onsitemeasurements with a Ge(Li) detector andmultichannel analyzer provided data on many shortlived gases. HASL has also reported results of gassamples obtained from the stack and the turbine glandseal condenser on February 19, 1972. HASLmeasurements are tabulated in Appendices D.l to D.4.
3.2Analysis
3.2.1 Gamma-ray spectrometry. Radionuclidesthat emit gamma-rays were routinely analyzed with a10- x lO-cm NaI(TI) detector coupled with a 400channel pulse-height analyzer. Samples containingmany radionuclides were analyzed with 11.3-cc or 55cc Ge(Li) detectors and a 4096-channel pulse-heightanalyzer. Iron-55 was measured with a xenon-filled x- .ray proportional counter and a 200-channel pulseheight analyzer.
Sample analyses were begun normally two to fivedays after collection, hence only radionuclides withrelatively long half-lives were usually detectable. Offgas from the steam condenser air ejectors was countedin the collection bottles. Aliquots of 1.8-, 8.2-, or 34liter bottles were transferred to 209-cc glass flasks,sealed with rubber stoppers, aluminum bands andsealing compound. Particulate air filters and charcoalcartridges were placed directly on the detectors.
Detection efficiencies for the radionuclides,containers, sample volumes and media of interest weredetermined with standardized radioactive solutionsand gases provided by the National Bureau ofStandards. Because glass contains <OK, and charcoal,<OK and 226Ra, distinct background measurements weremade for these materials.
Counting intervals and techniques were selected toprovide, when possible, analytical precision of +10percent or better at the 95-percent confidence level.The usual counting duration for low-level radioactivitywas 1000 min. Samples were re-analyzed periodicallyto confirm container sealing integrity and radionuclidequantification and to look for longer-livedradionuclides.
Radionuclide decay scheme data were obtainedfrom compilations provided by the Nuclear DataProjecl. (J2, 13)
3.2.2 Radiochemical analysis. Krypton-85 wasseparated from other gases by a cryogenic technique
1.88.2
34.
Volume,liters
August 23, 1972December 13, 1972March 28, 1973
Date1.8
34.1.8
Volume,litersDate
January 20, 1972February 29, 1972April 10, 1972May 17, 1972 (during
refueling) 34.
21
(14) and transferred to 25-cc bottles containing 15 cc of1-mm-dia. plastic scintillator spheres for analysis by aliquid scintillation counter. Approximately one half ofthe sample volume was used.
The other half of the gas sample was used forduplicate measurements of tritium as HTO vapor andHT or other gaseous forms and "c as CO2 and othergaseous forms (CO, CH4 , etc.). Aliquots were mixedwith radioactively pure H 2, CH4, and CO2carrier gasesand if necessary, water vapor. The mixture was passedthrough a separation train consisting sequentially ofa76" C freeze trap for removal of tritiated moisture, abubbler containing Ba(OH)2 to collect I'C02, analumina-platinum (0.5 percent) catalyst heated to 750"C for oxidation of hydrogen (collected in a secondfreeze trap) or other I·C gases (removed in a secondbubbler with Ba(OH)2)' Tritium was measured byliquid scintillation counting for at least 300 min.Carbon-14 was determined by low background GMbeta particle detectors and, for samples obtained afterJuly 1972, by liquid scintillation counting.
Strontium was chemically separated from theparticulate filters and measured with low backgroundGM beta particle detectors for 100-min periods.Strontium-90 was distinguished from 89Sr by separatingand counting the 9"Y daughter.
3.3ResultsandDiscussion
3.3.1 Gaseous radionuc1ides discharged tromreactor coolant at main condensersteamjet air ejectors.Radionuclides found in off-gas from the SJAE include,as given in Table 3.1, 10ng-lived,nob1e gases, gaseousJH, and "c, both as CO2 and other gaseous carbon.Measurements by HASL of long-lived as well as manyshort-lived noble gases, lJII and, on one occasion, IJNare presented in Appendix 0.1. (7, 8) Included in thetables are the gross release rates of radioactive stackeffiuents at the time of sampling, as reported by thestation operator or measured by HASL.
Average discharge rates and estimates of annualreleases of radionuclides from the SJAE delay line aregiven in Table 3.2 (EPA measurements) and AppendixD.2 (HASL measurements). Average release ratesduring sampling were calculated by multiplying meanconcentrations (last columns, Table 3.1 and AppendixD.1) by the delay line flow rate. To obtainrepresentative annual discharges, the individualradionuclide release rates (Table 3.2, column 1) werenormalized by the ratio of the gross radioactivityrelease rates during sampling (Table 3.1, last line) to3.90 x 10' uCi/s, the average release rate during reactoroperation from July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1973. Estimates
22
of annual radionuclide discharges were based on 80percent plant availability.
The SJAE off-gas delay line discharges to the stackabout 1 x 106 Ci/yr, consisting almost entirely of noblegas radionuclides. Tritium and I·C releases are on theorder of 1 and 3 Ci/yr, respectively. Release of 'INbased on a single observation is estimated to be 500Ci/yr.
Annual releases estimated from measurementscompare as follows with values calculated from thesource term for the AEC model BWR plant (9) andvalues presented in the station EnvironmentalReport: (2)
Annual discharge, Ci
Model StationRadionuclide Measured BWR(9)* report (2)**
1.86-hr 03mKi 3.1 x 10'4.48-hr "mKr 6.9 x 10' 6.9 x 10' 8.8 x 10'
10.7 -yr "Kr Ux lO't 4.2 x 10'76.3-min "Kr Ux 10' 1.3 x 10' 2.2 x 10'
2.80-hr "Kr 1.4 x 10' 2.0 x 10' 3.0 x 10'3.16-min '9Kr 0
11.9 -d 1JlmXe 3.7 x 10'2.25-d IJJmXe 5, I x lO't 5.0 x 10'5.29-d IJJXe 1.6 x lO't 1.4 x 10' 2,0 x 10'
15,65-min "'mXe 8.8 x 10' 1.6 x 10'9,15-hr "'Xe 3.0 x lO't 3.8 x 10' 3,3 x 10'3.83-min "'Xe 2.2
14.17-min "'Xe 6.0 x 10' 4.5 x 10' 7.6 x 10'8.06-d 1JlI 1.7 8.3
20.9 -hr IJJI 4.5 x 10'Total 9.5 x 10' 1.0 X 106 1.2 X 106
• Based on source term for a 3500 MWtreactor with 30 min SJAE off-gas delay normalizedto 1930 MWt and 75 min delay,
"Applies for 32 days of steady operation at 1850 MWt,60 min delay and a delay line flow rate of5.3 x 10' eels.
t Average of values from Table 3.2 andAppendix D.2.
Annual discharges based on measurements agreevery well with values computed from the AEC model,excepting 85Kr, mmXe and 1JII. Results from the stationEnvironmental Report are consistently higher, whichprobably results from the choice of different operatingparameters.
Estimated SJAE discharges provided in the AECEnvironmental Statement(6) for Oyster Creekapproximate those of the AEC Model BWR, exceptthat mmXe and IJ7Xe releases are computed to be 500and 29 Ci/yr. Estimates given by the EPA model(lO)are very similar to the AEC model, although the 85Krdischarge is calculated to be 240 Ci/yr.
Table 3.1 Concentrations of Longer-Lived Radioactive Gases Released fromMain Condenser Steam Jet Air Ejectors
AI'r. 10, 1972 Apr. 12, 1972 Aug. 24, 1972Concentration,' uCi/cc
Radionuclide
3H (gas)
3H (H20)
14C (non-CO
2)
14C (CO )85 2
Kr133m
Xe133
Xe135
Xe
Gross radioactivityrelease rate,~Ci /5
Aug. 31, 1971
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA-21. 0+0. lxlO-12.7+0.1xlO
- -15.6+0.1xlO
3.6xI04
Jan. 18, 1972-6
+1 xlO-6
< 1 xlO-6
7.2+0.8xlO
5.5:-0.8XIO-6
NA-3
4.4+0.1xlO-1
1.0+0.1xlO- -1
2.6+0.1xlO
4.7xl04
-72 +1 xlO
- -7< 2 xlO
-73.5+0.8xlO
- -64.2+0.3xlO
- -59.9+0.1xlO
- -35.9+0.3xlO
- -11.4+0.lxlO
NA
7.8xl04
-73.9+0.7xlO
< 9 xlO- 8
-72.5+0.5xlO
- -62.3+0.2xlO
-42.7+0.1xlO-3
7 +1 xlO- -1
1.3+0.1xlO- -1
3.9+0.1xlO
7.8xl04
-7< 3 xlO
-7< 3 xlO
-71.8+0.8xlO
- -62.8+0.1xlO
- -52.2+0.1xlO
- -49.2+0.4xlO
- -22.3+0.1xlO
NA
1.4xl04
Dec. 13. 1972-7
4 +1 xlO-7
< 1 xlO-7
1. 5+0. 9xlO----: -6
1.5+0.4xlO- -5
3.0+0.2xlO- -4
4.4+0.4xlO- -2
6.7+0.1xlO
NA
4.0xl04
Mar. 28, 1973-76 +2 xlO
;5 xlO- 8
-71.0+0.5 xlO
- -71.2+0.1 xlO
NA-21.3+0.1 xlO
-13.1+0.1 x 10
-17.1+0.1 x 10
1.2 x 105
Average**
.-x 10 7-7
< 3 x 10-6
1. 4 x 10-62.7 x 10-5
7.9 x 10-3
5.7 x 10-1
1. 5 x 10-1
4.4 x 10
~
* Concentration measured at beginning of the 7S-min delay line.
**Average concentration computed for 75-min delay. Results of Apr. 10 and 12, 1972, were averaged as single sample.
Notes:
1. + values indicate analytical error expressed at 20; <values are minimum detectable concentration levels at the 30 counting error.
2. NA - not analyzed.
Table 3.2 Release Rates and Estimated Annual Discharges of Longer-Lived RadioactiveGases from Main Condenser Air Ejector Delay Line
Average release Normalized avg. Estimated annualrate during release rate,** re1ease,t
Radionuc1ide samp1ing,* ~Ci/s ~Ci/s Ci3H (gas) 3.2 x 10- 2 -2 10- 12.1 x 10 5.0 x3H (H
2O) < 1 x 10- 2 <8 x 10-3 < 2 x 10- 1
14C (non-CO2) 6.2 x 10- 2 4.0 x 10- 2 1.014C (CO
2) 1.2 x 10- 1 8.0 x 10- 2 2.0
85 Kr 3.5 3.1 7.9 x 101
133mXe 2.6 x 10 2 1.8 x 10 24.6 x 103
133Xe 6.7 x 103 4.7 x 103 1.2 x 105
135 Xe 2.0 x 104 1.1 x 104 2.8 x 105
* 4Based on a delay line off-gas flow rate of 4.5 x 10 eels.**
Average of gross radioactivity stack release rates during samplingnormalized to annual average stack release rate of 3.90 x 104 ~Ci/sreported by station during operation in period of July 1, 1971 toJune 30, 1973.
t Based on 292 d (2.52 x 107 s) of reactor operation per year (80 percentavailability) .
Because of the good agreement between measuredvalues and the AEC model, the latter may be useful forinferring discharges of those radionuclides notmeasured because they possess either weak energyemissions, low abundance or rapid decay rates. Of thefour noble gases, .'mKr is the most abundant, beingdischarged at about 3 x 104 Ci/yr.
3.3.2 Radionuc1ides discharged tromair ejector atturbine gland seal condenser. Gaseous radionuclideswith half-lives longer than 14 min were measurable inthe single sample of gas from the condenser SJAE forgland seal steam. Concentrations of long-livedradionuclides are given in Table 3.3. Noble gasmeasurements by HASL are presented in AppendixD.3.
All radionuclides measured in off-gas from themain condensers were found in gland seal condenseroff-gas. The latter, however, contained a higherpercentage of short-lived radionuclides at the point ofdischarge to the stack due to a shorter holdup period.Gaseous tritium was not detectable in gland sealexhaust (the presence of tritiated water vapor isuncertain). Carbon-14 was measurable only as CO2,
Radionuclide release rates to the stack andestimated annual discharge from this pathway are alsogiven in Table 3.3 and Appendix D.3.
24
Annual releases calculated for Oyster Creek fromthe AEC model are as follows: (6,9)
8JmKr 4.8 X 10' Ci/yr 13ImXe 6 X 10-1 Ci/yr"mKr 8.0 X 10' IJJmXe 5"Kr <1 IJJXe 1.4 x 10'"Kr 2.4 x 10' "'mXe 3.8 X 10'·'Kr 2.6 x 10' "'Xe 4.1 x 10'"Kr 6.2 x 10' IJ7Xe 1.1 x 10'1311 2.3 x 10-' "'Xe 1.2 x 10'"'I 1.3 x 10-1
Calculated releases agree within a factor of twowith measured values, except for mmXe. The agreementindicates that the computed values may be used to inferreleases of short-lived noble gases. Annual noble gasdischarge from this pathway is of the order of 4.5 x 10'Cilyr, much less than one percent of that from themain condenser SJAE. Radioiodine releases from thegland seal system are indicated to be about 0.2 Cilyr.
Gland seal steam flows nominally at 0.1 percent ofthe total steam flow (3.3 x 106 kglhr). Comparison ofthe release rate of relatively long-lived 133Xe from thegland seal condenser to the rate computed from itsmeasured concentration in main condenser SJAB offgas for February 29, 1972 (see Appendix D.l) yields aresult close to the nominal exhaust rate of 0.1 percent.
Table 3.3 Long-Lived Radioactive Gases from the Turbine Gland Seal CondenserAir Ejector, February 29, 1972
Concentration, Release rate,* Estimated annualRadionuclide ).ICi/cc ).ICi/s release,**Ci
3H (gas) < 3 x 10-10 < 8 x 10-5 < 2 x 10- 3
3H (H2
O) NAl4C (non-CO2) <4 x 10-10 < 1 x 10-4 < 3 x 10- 3
l4C (CO2) 6 + 2 x 10- 10 2 x 10-45 x 10-3
85 Kr 2.4 + 0.1 x 10- 86.7 x 10- 3 1.9 x 10- 1
l33Xe 2 + 1 x 10-5
6 2 x 102
* Based on an off-gas flow rate of 2.8 x 105 ccls (600 cfm).
**Calculated from the release rate by normalizing to the annual average stackrelease rate of 3.9 x 104 ~Ci/s and multiplying by 292 d (2.52 x 107 s) ofoperation. Stack release rate at sampling time was 3.5 x 104 ).ICi/s.
Notes:
1. + values indicate analytical error expressed at 20; <values areminimum detectable concentration levels at 30 counting error.
2. NA - not analyzed.
Annual release of uN from gland seal leakage iscalculated to be 5 x 102 Ci. This estimate is based on thesingle HASL measurement of 13N in main condenserSJAE off-gas (see Appendix 0.1) corrected for decay tothe beginning of the delay line, 0.1 percent steam flow,1.75 min of delay, and a turbine gland seal SJAE flowrate of2.8 x 105eels.
3.3.3 RadionucJides in building ventlJation airexhaust. Xenon-135 was the most abundant long-livedradioactive gas measured in the single samples of airexhausted from the reactor, turbine and radwastebuildings, as shown in Table 3.4. Tritiated water vaporand 14C as CO2 were found in all samples. Turbine andradwaste building exhaust contained long-lived noblegases; only B5Kr was detectable in reactor buildingexhaust. No radioiodines were detected in any sample.The minimum detectable concentration of 1311, forexample, in this case was < 4 x 10-8 uCi/cc at the 3 ulevel.
Turbine building air bore the highest gaseousradioactivity, due presumably to more leakage of steamto air. Its annual discharge of long-lived gases isestimated to be 3 x 10' Cilyr, while the reactor andradwaste buildings contribute about 3 Cilyr and 2 x 10'Cilyr, respectively.
Annual release values at the reactor buildingcomputed in the Oyster Creek Environmental
Statement were I Ci/yr for individual noble gasradionuclides and 1.5 x 10-1 and 6.2 x 10-2 Cilyr for IlII
and 1J31, respectively.(6) Turbine building dischargecomputed from the model contains all the noble gasradionuclides found in off-gas from the condenserSJAE (see Section 3.3.1). All nuclides, except 85Kr andl'
lmXe, are exhausted at more than 1 Cilyr, and thetotal is estimated to be 1.2 x 10' Ci/yr. (6) Calculatedemissions of IJ3Xe and 135Xe, however, are both 25 timeslower than annual discharge estimated from measuredconcentrations (Table 3.4), indicating a higher steamleakage rate than the 770 kglhr value assumed for themodel. lodine-131 and IJJI releases given by the modelare 0.53 and 3.0 Ci/yr, respectively.
Radwaste building annual discharges are notestimated in the Environmental Statement. Valuesreported elsewhere by the station operator indicate that1.9 x. 10' Cilyr are released when the grossradioactivity release rate is 3.9 X 104 uCi/s. (3)
Annual releases of 'H based on measurements byHASL in 1972 are 2.0, 8.3 and 0.8 Cilyr for reactor,turbine and radwaste building exhaust air,respectively.(J5) The two sets of results agree within afactor of3.
Additional sampling is recommended to obtaindischarge rates representative of operating cyclevariations, to obtain measurements of short-lived noble
25
26
Table 3.4 Long-Lived Radioactive Gases in Building Ventilatio~ Air,March 28, 1973
EstimatedConcentration, Release rate,* annual release,**
Radionuclide J-lCi/cc J-lCi/s Ci
Reactor Building3H (gas) <6 x 10- 11 <2 x 10-3 < 5 x 10- 2
3H (H2O) 2.1 + 0.2 x 10-9 6.4 x 10-2 1.614
C (non-CO2) <6 x 10- 11 < 2 x 10- 3 < 5 x 10- 2
14CO 3.8 + 0.5 x 10- 10 1.2 x 10- 2 3.1 x 10- 1
285 Kr . 7.9 + 0.5 x 10- 10 2.4 x 10- 2 6.1 x 10-1
133mXe < 8 x 10- 7 < 2 x 101 < 7 x 102
13\e <8 x 10- 8 <3 < 7 x 101
135Xe < 4 x 10- 7 < 1 x 101 < 3 x 10 2
Turbine Building3 x 10- 11 --3 x 10-2H (gas) <6 < 2 x 10 <6
3H (H2
O) 2.4 + 0.1 x 10- 8 9.4 x 10-1 2.4 x 101
14 x 10- 11 x 10- 3 x 10-2C (non-CO
2) < 5 < 2 < 6
14C (CO ) 8.7 + 0.3 x 10- 10 3.4 x 10-2 8.5 x 10- 1
85 21.4 + 0.1 x 10-9 10- 2
Kr 5.5 x 1.4133m
Xe < 3 x 10- 7 <1 x 101 < 3 x 102
133Xe 7.9 + 0.6 x 10-7 1102
3.1 x 10 7.8 x135Xe 2.4 + 0.2 x 10- 6 9.4 x 10
1 2.4 x 10 3
Radwaste Building3H (gas) < 5 x 10- 11 <4 x 10-4 < 1 x 10- 2
3H (H2O) 7.8 + 0.5 x 10- 9 5.7 x 10-2 1.814C (non-CO2) < 5 x 10-11 <4 x 10- 4 < 1 x 10- 2
14C (CO2
) 1.4 + 0.4 x 10- 10 LOx 10-3 3.2 x 10- 2
85Kr NA133mXe <4 x 10-6 <3 x 101 <9 x 102
133 Xe 9.8 + 0.4 x 10-7 7.2 2.3 x 10 2
135Xe 7.1 + 0.3 x 10- 6 5.2 x 101 1.6 x 103
* Based on ventilation air exhaust rates: reactor building -31 m3/sturbine building -39 m3/sradwaste bui1ding- 7.3 m3/s
**Computed for 292 d/yr (2.52 x 107 s) of reactor operation for the reactor andturbine buildings and 365 d (3.15 x 107 s) of radwaste operations.
Notes:1. ~ values are analytical error expressed at 20; <values are minimum
detectable concentrations at 30.2. NA - not analyzed.
Concentration, Estimated annual discharge,*Radionuclide ~Ci/cc Ci
Table 3.5 Long-Lived Radioactive Gasesin the Reactor Drywell Atmosphere, April 11, 1972
Annual discharge of measured gases, based on afree air volume of 8.64 x 103 m3 and two drywell purgesper year, is estimated to be about 1.2 Ci/yr.
3.3.5 Radionuclides in effluent from startupvacuum pumps. Radioactive gases in effiuent pumped
'Based on a drywe11 free air volume of 8.64 x 109 cc(305,000 ft 3) and two drywe11 purges per year.
Note:
1. ~ values indicate analytical error expressedat 20; < values are minimum detectable concentrationsat 30.
Measurements by HASL of short- and long-livednoble gas discharges on two occasions are given inAppendix D.4.(7,8) This table also compares releaserates of noble gases at the end of the delay line for maincondenser SJAE and in the stack, which shows that thispathway accounts for practically all stackradioactivity.
3.3.6 Radioactive gases discharged through thestack. Gaseous stack effiuents were sampled on sixoccasions during reactor operation and once duringrefueling. All long-lived radionuc1ides found in thevarious pathways leading to the stack were measurable,as shown in Table 3.6. Tritium, 14C and 8sKr werereleased in detectable quantities during refueling.Radionuclide release rates and estimated annualdischarges during reactor operation and refueling aregiven in Table 3.7. Gross radioactivity release rates,given in Table 3.6, were reported by the stationoperator, except the values for January 20, 1972, andFebruary 29, 1972, which were determined by HASL.
and 190 Cilyr, respectively, when the pumps areoperated 4 hrs per startup and for four startups peryear.
The averages of measured stack effiuents were usedto check some of the previously describedmeasurements at the sources of the gases. The threemost significant contributors (see Figure 3.1) weresummed: (1) SJAE otT-gas (Section 3.3.1), (2) turbinegland seal condenser otT-gas (TGSC, Table 3.3), and (3)building ventilation air exhaust (BVA, Table 3.4).These compare to discharge values from stack samples(Table 3.7) as follows:
2.2
1.7 x 10- 4
6 x 10-4
< 5 x 10- 5
9.6 x 10- 4
2.8 x 10- 2
x 10- 1
1.0 • 0.2 x 10- 8
4 ~ 1 x 10- 8
< 6 x 10- 9
5.5 ~ 0.5 x 10- 8
1.6 ~ 0.1 x 10-6
7 ~ 2 x 10- 6
1.3 ~ 0.1 x 10.4
3H (gas)
3H (HZO)14C (non-COZ)14C (CO )85 2
Kr133mXe133 Xe
gases and to measure discharges during operation ofthe turbine building roof exhausters.
3.3.4 Radionuc1ides in reactor dryweJ1 air. Thesingle sample of drywell atmosphere contained 'H asgas and water vapor, I·C as CO2, and noble gases withhalf-lives longer than two days, as shown in Table 3.5.Short-lived radionuclides could not be analyzed sincethree days elapsed between sampling andmeasurement. As indicated in Figure 2.2, thecontainment had not been purged for at least threemonths before the date of sampling.
Estimated annual release, Ci
Radionuclide SJAE TGSC BVA Sum Stack samples'H (gas) 5.0 x 10-' <2 x 10-' <6 x 10-' 5.0 X 10-' 8.9 X 10-1
'H (H 2O) <2 x 10-' 2.7 X 101 2.7 X 10' 2.5 X 10'
"c (non-CO2) 1.0 <3 x IO-J<6 x 10-' 1.0 1.0
"c (CO2) 2.0 5 X IO-J 1.2 3.2 8.1"Kr 1.1 x 10' 1.9 X 10-' 2.0 1.1 x 10' 1.7 x 10'"'''Xe 5.1 x 10' 5 5.1 x 10' 6.7 X IOJ
'''Xe 1.6 x lOs 2.1 x 10' 1.0 x 10' 1.6 x 10' 1.2 x 10'"'Xe 3.0 x 10' 4.7 x 10' 4.0 x 10' 3.0 x lOs 3.5 x 10'
from the main condensers during reactor startup werenot measured. Annual release values computed withthe AEC model BWR indicate that the onlyradionuc1ides discharged of significance are 133Xe and135Xe,(9) resulting from iodine decay. For the OysterCreek plant, these emissions are expected to be 1300
All radionuclide pathway sums and stack resultsexcept I·C agree within a factor of two. Only about onethird of 14C02 found in the stack samples was measuredin the pathways, which may be attributable to lowlevels in building ventilation air at the time the singleset of samples was obtained. It should be noted that a
27
tv00
Table 3.6 Concentrations of Long-Lived Radioactive Gases in Stack Effluent
Radionuclide
3H (gas)
3H (H20)
14C (non-C0
2)
14C (CO)85 2
Kr133m
Xe133
Xe135
Xe
Gross radioactivity releaserate, ~Ci/s
Jan. 20~
< I x 10- 8
-81. 0 + 0.6 x 10
< 2 x 10- 8
< I x 10- 8
NA
6 + 2 x 10- 6
-58.9 + 0.2 x 10
NA
4.7 x 104
Concentration, ~Ci/cc
Feb. 29, 1972 Apr. la, 1972 May 17. 1972* Aug. 23. 1972 Dec. 13, 1972 Mar. 28, 1973
< 2 x 10- 10 x 10-9 -10 < 8 x 10-9 x 10- 10 -9< 3 < 5 1.4+0,2xlO-8
3.7 + 0.5 x 10-8 -8 -8NA 1. 9 + 0.3 x 10 (total 3H) 3.7 + 0.6 x 10 1.0+0.2xI0 2.0+0.lxlO
< 2 x 10- 10 <9 x 10- 9-10 < 3 x 10-9 -9 -102.0 + 0.4 x 10 1. a + 0.6 x 10
-9 x 10- 82.5+1.0xI0 -8 - -9 -9
1. 3 + 0.5 x 10 < I (total 14C) 1. 4 + 0.2 x 10 3.7 + 0.5 x 10 2.9 + 0.1 x 10- -8 -7 -9 - -8 - -8 -78. a + 0.1 x 10 1.2+0.lxI0 2,5+0,lxI0 5,2 + 0.1 x 10 7.6 + 0.4 x 10 3.2+0.2xI0
NA 7 + 2 x 10-6 NA NA < 2 x 10-6 - -51.0+0.2xI0
-4 - -5x 10-7 -5 -5 -41.1+0.lxI0 8.7+0.lxI0 <4 3.2+0.3xI0 4.4+0.3xlO 1,8 + 0.1 x 10
NA NA NA NA NA-45.4 + 0.2 x 10
3.5 x 104 7,8xI040 1.4 x 10
4 4.0 x 104 1.2 x 105
*Obtained during reactor refueling.
Notes:
I. + values indicate analytical error expressed at 20: <values are minimum detectable concentration levels at the 30 counting error.
2. NA - not analyzed.
Table 3.7 Release Rates and Estimated Annual Discharge of Long-Lived Radioactive Gases in Stack Effluent
Average release rate,* ~Ci/s Estimated annual release,t Cireactor reactor
Radionuc1ide operation** refueling operation refueling total
3H (gas) -2'-2
-1 x 10-13.5 x 10 8.9 x 10 x 10-1 8 ..93H -1
2.9 x 1010
1 1.2x 10
1(H2
O) 9.8 x 10 (total 3H) 2.5 x 2.514
C -2(non-CO2
) 4.0 x 10 -2 1.0 10-2 1.014
C x 10-11. 9 x 10 8.4 x
(CO2
) 3.2 (total 14C) 8.1 8.185Kr -1
x 102 10-1
x 1026.9 2.0 x 10 1.7 8.4 x 1.7
133'"xe 3 x 102
x 103
7 x 103
133xe 4.9 x 10
3< 3 x 10
11.2 x 105 < 1 x 10
21.2 x 105
135 Xe 1.4 x 104
3.5 x 105 3.5 x 105
* Based on a stack flow rate of 77.9 m3/sec (165,000 cfm)and average measured concentrations in Table 3.6.
**Average of gross radioactivity release rates during sampling normalized to annual average release rate of3,90 x 104 ~Ci/s reported by plant for period of July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1973.
t Estimates based on 292 days (2.52 x 107 s) of reactor operation and 50 days (4.32 x 106 s) for refueling.
proper test of agreement requires that all pathways besampled at the same time.
3.3.7 Radioactive particles discharged through thestack. Particulate radionuclides in stack effiuents,given in Table 3.8, consisted of those found in reactorcoolant (see Table 2.1). Most were long-lived fissionand activation products; on occasion radionuclideswith half-lives of a day to several days were measuredwhen the interval between sampling and analysis wasrelatively short. The principal source of particulateradioactivity at Oyster Creek is reported to beunfiltered air exhausted from the reactor, turbine andradwaste buildings. (J5)
Table 3.9 provides average concentrations andrelease rates of the sampled radionuclides andestimated annual discharge. Particle collection wasassumed to proceed at a constant rate during theapproximately 3-day exposure of each sample. Halvesof the 10 samples collected in January 1972 werecomposited for analyses since several bore noidentification. The principal radionuclides released asparticles are 1'"Ba, 239Np and the radioiodines, 1311 andIJJI (radioiodines are discussed in Section 3.3.8).Annual releases of the longer-lived radionuclides werecomputed for 365 days of discharge per year, sincerelease of particulate radionuclides in ventilation air
Table 3.8 Concentrations of Longer-Lived Particulate Radionuclides in Stack Effluent
Concentration, ~Ci/m3July 12-15, July 24- 27 , July 27-30, Jan. I-Feb. 1, Aug. 15-18, Aug. 18-21, Dec. 12-15,
Radionuclide 1971 1971 1971 1972* 1972 ·1972 1972**
27.7 -d 51Cr < 5 x 10- 7< 5 x 10- 7
5.0 x 10- 61.6 x 10- 7 2.2 x 10-5 3.8 x 10- 6
4.0 x 10- 4
313 -d54
Mn 1.8 x 10. 75.0 x 10- 8 1.2 x 10- 7
6.4 x 10- 71.9 x 10-6
7.0 x 10- 78.9 x 10- 5
2.7 -yr55
Fe 1.3 x 10- 62.9 x 10- 7
1.7 x 10-6NA 1.9 x 10 -5 5.4 x 10- 6 4.8 x 10-4
44.6 -d 59Fe < 1 x 10- 7< 1 x 10- 7
< 1 x 10- 72.7 x 10- 7
1.5 x 10-62.5 x 10- 7
< 9.5 x 10-6
71. 3 -d58
Co 1.4 x 10- 7 x 10- 81. 3 x 10- 7
1.9 x 10- 73.3 x 10-6
7.0 x 10- 75.1 x 10-5
26-yr 60Co 4.6 x 10- 71. 3 x 10- 7
5.0 x 10- 71.7 x 10- 6 3.3 x 10-6
1.4 x 10- 63.5 x 10- 4
50.5 -d89Sr 9.8 x 10- 6 2.4 x 10-6 1. 3 x 10- 5
NA 1.5 x 10- 5 2.1 x 10- 5NA
28.5 -yr 90Sr 1. 0 x 10- 74.1 x 10- 8
8.0 x 10 -8 NA 8.4 x 10- 8 6.6 x 10- 8 NA
66.2 -hr 99Mo NA NA NA NA 2.8 x 10- 53.9 x 10-6 5.2 x 10- 4
8.06-d 131 I 6.3 x 10-6 2.5 x 10c 6 6.8 x 10- 62.9 x 10- 5 9.4 x 10-6
1.8 x 10- 51.6 x 10- 2
2.07-yr134
Cs 7.1 x 10- 81.5 x 10- 7
7.0 x 10- 85.8 x 10- 8
5.8 x 10- 74.4 x 10- 7
1.9 x 10- 4
30.0 -.yr137
Cs 4.2 x 10- 73.6 x 10- 7
2.4 x 10- 72.2 x 10- 7 9.5 x 10- 7 9.9 x 10- 7
3.7 x 10-4
12.8 -d140
Ba 1.1 x 10- 53.1 x 10. 6
1.2 x 10- 55.0 x 10-6 9.0 x 10-6
1.3 x 10- 52.3 x 10- 3
32.8 -d 141Ce 4.3 x 10- 71.5 x 10- 7
5.9 x 10- 71.7 x 10- 7
< 4.0 x 10- 8< 3.0 x 10- 8 5.6 x 10- 5
Measurement of composite set of 10 filters.** 3 65 -5 13- 7 136 5Also measuredA in ~Ci/m: 244-d Zn - 2.4 x 10 , 20.9-hr ~I - 1.6 x 10-- 13-d Cs - 2.3 x 10- ,
and 2.34-d 23~Np - 3.5 x 10- 3 .
Note: NA - not analyzed.
29
Table 3.9 Average Concentration and Release Rates and Estimated Annual Dischargeof Longer-Lived Particulate Radionuclides from Stack
Average Average Estimated annualconcentration, * release rate** discharge,t
Radionuclide ].JCi/m3 ].JCi/s Ci
51Cr 1.0 x 10- 48.0 x 10- 3
2.5 x 10- 1
54Mn 2.3 x 10- 5
1. 8 x 10- 35.7 x 10- 2
55 Fe 1. 7 x 10- 41.3x 10- 2
4.1 x 10- 1
59Fe 3.3 x 10- 6
2.6 x 10- 48.2 x 10- 3
58Co 1. 3 x 10- 5
LOx 10- 33.2 x 10- 2
60Co 8.7 x 10- 5
6.8 x 10- 32.1 x 10- 1
65Zn 2.4 x 10- 5tt
1. 9 x 10- 36.0 x 10- 2
89Sr 1. 3 x 10- 5
1. 0 x 10- 33.2 x 10- 2
90Sr 7.4 x 10- 8
5.8 x 10- 61. 8 x 10- 4
99Mo 2.7 x 10-4
2.1 x 10- 25.3 x 10- 1
131 r 3.9 x 10- 33.0 x 10- 1
9.5133r 1.6 x 10- 2tt
1.2 3.0 x 101
134Cs 4.9 x 10- 5
3.8 x 10- 31. 2 x 10- 1
136Cs 2.3 x 10- 5tt
1.& x 10- 35.7 x 10- 2
137Cs 9.5 x 10- 5
7.4 x 10- 32.3 x 10- 1
140Ba 5.8 x 10- 4
4.5 x 10- 21.4
141Ce 1. 9 x 10- 5
1. 5 x 10- 34.7 x 10- 2
239Np 3.5 x 10- 3tt
2.7 x 10- 16.8
*Mea~of the average concentrations for the July 1971, Jan. 1972, Aug. 1972and Dec. 1972 sampling periods, given in Table 3.8, except as noted.
**Computed for a stack flow rate of 77.9 m3/s.
tEstimate based on 365 days (3.15 x 107 s) of stack discharge for longer-livedradionuc1ides and 292 days for short-lived 99Mo , 133r and 239Np .
ttF . 1 1 f 2 1 2rom slng e samp e 0 Dec. I -15, 97.
was found to continue during purging and refuelingoperations. (I5) Approximately 50 Ci of particulateradionuclides with half-lives longer thanapproximately one day were estimated to be dischargedannually.
3.3.8 Radioiodines discharged through the stack.Concentrations and release rates of 131r measured on 17occasions with the cha~coal stack sampler are given inTable 3.10. Release ra.tes varied from 0.12 to 0.49 uCi/sduring the observations. The mean release rateobtained from the averages for the five individualsampling periods is 0.30 uCiis.
30
The annual 131r discharge from charcoalmeasurement is estimated to be 7.6 Ci for 292 d ofreactor operation. As indicated in Section 3.3.7,however, slightly more than this annual amount of 1311was found on the particle sampler preceding thecharcoal - presumably gaseous radioiodine entrainedwith particles. Summing these, the overall l3lI dischargeis 17 Cilyr. Since the SlAE is the expected majorsource of I3lI to the stack, it is difficult to explain thelow amount measured (1.7 Ci/yr) relative to that in thestack. Although the AEC model BWR predicts fivetimes more 1311 by the SlAE pathway (see Section
Additional sampling .at Oyster Creek is necessaryto determine the pathways ofall iodine radionuclides tothe stack and their chemical composition.
'" Analytical precision of all samples is 0.1percent or less at the 20 confidence level.Retention efficiency of cartridge assumedto be 90 percent.
"''''Computed for a stack flow rate of
77.9 m3/s(16S,OOO cfm).
3.3.1),(9) this will not account for all of the differencesince the other pathways will contribute only smalladditional amounts (see Sections 3.3.2 and 3.3.3).
The AEC has reported that, based on a single set ofmeasurements at Oyster Creek, most radioiodines werefound to be discharged to the stack from the SJAEpathway, with lesser amounts from building ventilationexhaust. (7, /5) The AEC indicated further that nearlyall of the iodine was of an organic species. Theremainder consisted of hypoiodous acid and a smallfraction of elemental iodine. The ratios of other iodineradionuclide activities to 1311 in the stack weremeasured to be:
4.2 x
3.9 x8.7 x
7. x
1.2 x6.6 x
5.4 x
6.2 x4.5 x3.2 x
8.8 x1.6 x5.1 x
3.4 x
2.9 x
5.7 x
2.4 x
Estimated annualdose at locationof highest annualconcentration ...
mrem
Estimatedannual
release, •CiRadionuclide
12.3 -yr
Gases
3.3.9 Estimated annual radionuclide discharges.The effluent values discussed in the preceding parts ofSection 3.3 provide the radioactivity source terms forplanning environmental measurements. The totaldischarged radioactivity and the associated radiationdoses (discussed in Section 3.3.10) based on estimatesfrom measured values are as follows:
'H (as HT) 8.9 x 10-'(as HTO) 2.7 x 10'
5730. -yr 14C (total) 9.110. -min 13N 1. x 10'1.86-hr 8JmKr 3.1 x lO't4.48-hr "mKr 6.9 x 10'
10.7 -yr "Kr 1.7 x 10'76.3 -min "Kr 1.3 x 10'2.80-hr "Kr 1.4 x 10'3.16-min "Kr 8.3 x 10't
11.9 -d IlImXe 3.7 x left2.25-d "'mXe 5.1 X 10'5.29-d "'Xe 1.6 x 10'
15.65-min 135mXe 8.9 x 10'9.15-hr "'Xe 3.0 x 10'3.83-min "'Xe 1.5 x lO't
14.17-min "'Xe 6.2 x 10'Particles and "II
27.7 -d "Cr 2.5 x 10-' 9.0 x 10-'313. -d 54Mn 5.7 x 10-' 1.6 x 10-'
2.7 -yr "Fe 4.1 x 10-1 3.9 X 10-"44.6 -d '"Fe 8.2 x 10-' 1.2 X 10-"71.3 -d "Co 3.2 x 10-' 4.7 X 10-"
5.26-yr "Co 2.1 x 10-' 2.0 x 10-'244. -d "Zn 6.0 x 10-' 6.8 X 10-"50.5 -d '"Sr 3.2 x 10-' 1.9 x 10-'28.5 -yr "Sr 1. 8 x 10-' 1.0 x 10-'2.76-d"Mo 6.6 x 10-1 2.7 x 10-'8.06-d "'I 1.7 x 10' 3.2 X 10-'2.07-yr Il4Cs 1.2 x 10-1 8.5 x 10-'
13. -d 'J6Cs 5.7 x 10-2 2.7 X 10-"30.0 -yr "'Cs 2.3 x 10-1 1.3 x 10-'12.8 -d "'DBa 1.4 4.0 x 10-432.8 -d '''ee 4.7 x 10-2 2.7 X 10-"2.34-d 2J9Np 8.5 1.2 x 10-'
• Except for 'H (as HT), 14C (as CO2) and "Kr.the annual release represents the sum of the pathways;annual release of the former radionuclides are based onstack measurements. 'Values apply for an average stackrelease rate of 3.9 x 10' J,ICi/s of gross radioactivity.
"Dose to critical organ specified in Appendix F.1.t Calculated release, not directly measured.
- 0.24- 0.73- 0.29- 0.38
2.3-hr 131120.9-hr "'I52.D-min 'l4I6.7-hr '''I
Table 3.10 Gaseous lodine-131Concentrations and Release Rates in Stack Effluents
Concentration, Release rate,"''''Period }JCi/m3", )JCi/s
July 12-15, 1971 2.0 x 10-31.5 x 10-1
x 10- 3 -124-27 1.7 1. 4 x 10-3 . -1
27-30 1. 6 x 10 1. 2 x 10-3 -1
Jan. 1- 4, 1972 3.1 x 10 2.4 x 10
4- 7 2.7 x 10- 32.1 x 10-1
7-10 3.2 x 10-32.5 x 10-1
10-13 2.8 x 10-3 2.2 x 10-1
13-16 3.3 x 10-32.6 x 10-1
16-19 3.1 x 10- 3 2.4 x 10-1
19-22 2.7 x 10-3 2.1 x 10- 1
22-25 2.7 x 10-32.1 x 10-1
10-3 -125-29 3.0 x 2.3 x 10
10-3 -1Jan. 29-Feb. 1 4.4 x 3.5 x 10
Apr. 7-11 3.3 x 10- 3 2.5 x 10-1
Aug. 15-18 6.3 x 10-3 4.9 x 10-1
-3 x 10-118-21 6.1 x 10 4.7
-33.9 x 10-1Dec. 12-15 5.0 x 10
31
The relative dose to persons fishing in the coolant waterdischarge canal is based on 700 hrs of fishing per year.
3.3.10 Estimated maximum radiation dose toindividuals. The annual total-body dose to an adultresiding where the highest annual averageconcentration occurs (2.4 km north of the stack) (2) isestimated to be 2.3 millirems (mrem) from airborneeffluents according to the values listed in Section 3.3.9.Practically all of the dose resulted from radioactivenoble gases. Only about 0.1 percent of this dose was tospecific organs from inhaling I31r and airborneradioactive particles, and nearly all of this results from1311. The annual thyroid dose from inhaling 13Ir at themaximum ratio of dose to intake - for a 4-year-old would be four times the listed value, i.e., 0.13mrem. (10) Additional dose increments would beexpected from exposure to particulate progeny of noblegases C8Rb, 138Cs) and other iodine radionuclides. Onthe other hand, actual dose to persons would be lowersince no adjustment was made for residential shieldingand occupancy factors.
The annual dose for each listed radionuclide wasobtained by computing the annual averageconcentration in ground-level air at the point of interestand then converting from concentration in air to tissuedose. To determine the average concentration atground level, the estimated annual discharge wasdivided by 3.15 x 107 s/yr to obtain the averagedischarge rate. This rate was multiplied by the annualaverage XIQ (see Appendix E.3). The XIQ values forvarious locations and distances were calculated by thestation operator, using meteorological data compiledduring a 12-month period.(2) The conversion factorsfrom annual average radionuclide concentrations inground-level air to the annual dose to specific criticalorgans are given in Appendix F.l.
The radiation dose at the nearest residence andother significant locations listed in Appendix E.3relative to the maximum average ground-levelconcentration are:
Because these release values. are based onoccasional - sometimes single - measurements, theycan only approximate the total discharges. Whetherthey are representative was checked by comparing: (1)measurement of the same pathway at several points, asin Section 3.3.6; (2) discharge data reported by thestation for the semi-annual periods from July 1971 toJune 1973 (see Appendices B.2 and B.3); and (3)discharge estimates in the Final EnvironmentalStatement. (6)The latter two are as follows:
Annual discharge, CiEnvironmental
Radio- Oyster Creek Statementnuclide reports estimate---'H 5.1 x 10-1
""'Kr 3.4 x 10'""'Kr 7.4 x 10' 6.9 x 10'"Kr· 4.2 x 10'"Kr 1.4 x 10' 1.4 X 10'"Kr 2.1 x 10' 2.0 X 10'S9Kr 8.3 x 10''J1mXe 3.6 X 10'IllmXe 5.0 X 10'lllXe Ux 10' 1.4 X 10'Il5mXe 3.0 x 10'Il5Xe 2.6 x 10' 3.8 X 10'1l7Xe 1.5 x 10'"'Xe 6.9 x 10' 1.1 x 10'"'I 6.2 1.2 x 101
IJJI 7.3 6.6 x 101
Annual noble gas discharges estimated frommeasurements agree with station reports. The values inthe Environmental Statement are similar except thatthese predicted quantities are two-fold higher for 8'Krand Il5"'Xe than measured values, and lO-fold lower form"'Xe. The Environmental Statement estimates form"'Xe and m"'Xe,. however, differ considerably withAEC model BWR(9) values from which they arederived. Radioiodine releases reported by the stationoperator are lower than the estimates based onmeasurements in this study or given in theEnvironmental Statement. Estimated 3H dischargefrom measurements is much higher than the reportedstation release; it is not certain whether the stationmeasures 3H discharge as HT, HTO or both.
The measurements show the predominant source ofgaseous radionuclides found in the stack to be off-gasfrom the main condenser SJAE. Most tritiated watervapor, however, comes from steam leaks in the turbinebuilding.. Based on AEC model BWR values, (9)practically all short-lived 89Kr and IJ7Xe results fromturbine gland seal exhaust.
32
Locationnearest residencenearby population groupnearby population groupfishing in canal
Distanceand
direction1.1 km N2.4 km ESE2.4 km NNE0.8 km ESE
Ratio ofannual dose
to doseat maximumlocation
0.170.910.640.05
3.4 References
1. Jersey Central Power and Light Co., "FacilityDescription and Safety Analysis Report, Oyster CreekNuclear Power Plant," Vol. 1 and 2, USAEC DocketNo. 50--219-1 and 50--219-2, Morristown, N. J. (1967).
2. Jersey Central Power and Light Co., "OysterCreek Nuclear Generating Station - EnvironmentalReport," Amend. No.2, Morristown, N. J. (1972).
3. Jersey Central Power and Light Co., "ProposedModification to the Gaseous Radioactive WasteSystem for Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station,"Morristown, N. J. (1973).
4. Ross, D. A., Jersey Central Power and Light Co.,personal communications, 1972 and 1973.
5. Sullivan, J. L., Jersey Central Power and LightCo., personal communications, 1972 and 1973.
6. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, "FinalEnvironmental Statement Related to Operation ofOyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station," AECDocket No. 50--219 (1974).
7. Beck, H., et a1., U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission, personal communication, July 1972.
8. Beck, H., U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,personal communication, April 16, 1973.
9. Directorate of Regulatory Standards, U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, "Final EnvironmentalStatement Concerning Proposed Rule Making Action:
Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and LimitingConditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion 'AsLow As Practicable' for Radioactive Material in LightWater-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effiuents,"AEC Rept. WASH-1258, Volumes 1 and 2 (July 1973).
10. Office of Radiation Programs, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, "EnvironmentalAnalysis of the Uranium Fuel Cycle. Part II-NuclearPower Reactors," EPA Rept. EPA-520/9-73--OO3C(1973).
11. Jersey Central Power and Light Co., "OysterCreek Nuclear Generating Station Semi-AnnualReports," Nos. 1 to 11, Morristown, N. J. (1969 to1974).
12. Martin, M. J. and P. H. Blichert-Toft,"Radioactive Atoms," Nuclear Data Tables A8, Nos.1-2 (1970).
13. Martin, M. J., "Radioactive AtomsSupplement I," AEC Rept. ORNL-4923 (1973).
14. Stevenson, D. L. and F. B. Johns, "SeparationTechniques for the Determination of 8sKr in theEnvironment," in Rapid Methods for MeasuringRadioactivity in the Environment, IAEA, Vienna,157-162 (1971).
15. Pelletier, C. A., "Results of IndependentMeasurements of Radioactivity in Process Systems andEffiuents at Boiling Water Reactors," USAEC Rept.(1973).
33
initial collection points to the 114,000-liter wastecollector tank. Liquid from the waste collector tank isprocessed through a precoat-type waste collector filterand a mixed-bed waste demineralizer. Spent filtermedia and demineralizer resins are backwashed to thesolid waste disposal system for solidification andshipment off-site for disposal. The processed liquid iscollected in one of two lI4,OOO-liter waste sampletanks. The liquid is sampled and analyzed forradioactivity before either (1) return for furtherprocessing, (2) transfer to the condensate storage tank,or (3) discharge to the circulating water dischargecanal. The system is designed to process about 190,000liters/day, providing approximately one day of decaytime for liquids passing through at that rate.
High conductivity wastes are low purity liquids,primarily from floor drains. The liquid is transferred
4. RADIONUCLIDES IN LIQUID WASTES
4.1 Liquid Waste Systems
4.1.1 Waste processing.(l) At the Oyster Creekstation, four categories of radioactive liquid waste aresegregated and processed according to source: lowconductivity wastes, high conductivity wastes,chemical wastes, and laundry wastes (sometimes calleddetergent wastes). The source of liquid waste and theliquid waste processing systems, at the time of thestudy, are shown in Figure 4.1.
Low conductivity wastes are high purity liquids,primarily from piping and equipment drains. Othersources include liquid waste from the fuel pool, reactorcleanup system, adsorption chambers, spent resin andfilter sludge dewatering, low conductivity condensatedemineralizer backwash, and the chemical wastecontrol subsystem. The liquid is transferred from the
HIGH CONDUCTIVITY WASTE
Rad....I'. Floor Drain Sum I (2)
ReacTor Bid . Floor Drain Sum 5 2
Turbin. Bid. Floor Droln Sum 1(3)
Dr well Floor Drain Sum
Floor DrOlnCollector
Tank(37,900 I.)
FloorDrain
Filter
WOO l,Imin)
Floor DrainSample
Tonks (2)
(37,900 I. .a.l
CHEMICAL WASTE
Chemicals
Laboralor Drains
Sam Ie Tank DraIns
Condensate Demineralizer Regenerarlol1
S.olution
Wastf!Neutralizer
Tonks(2)(45,400 I. eo)
To Solid Was'.t----. DilPosal SYII.m
LOW CONDUCTIVITY WASTEEvaporator Condensate
,To CondensareSforage Tonk
Radwasle E ui ment Drain Sum
Fuel Pool Wastes
Turbine BId. E ul m.ent Drain Tonk
Reactor BId . E ui men, Drain Tank
Or well E ui menf Oraln Tank
Siock E ui ment Drain Sum
Demineralizer Backwash
WasteCollector
FilarWOO I./mln)
LAUNDRY WASTE
LQundr
task Decon,ominaflon To Condenser CoollnqWat'r and DischargeCanal
Figure 4.1 liquid radioactive waste system.
35
Table 4.1 Radionuclides Discharged in Liquid Waste, Cilyr
4.1. The average concentration of radionuclides in thedischarge canal due to station releases can be calculatedfrom dilution volumes (see Table 4.1) as follows:
The limits in the discharge canal for an annual flowof 1.1 x lOIS ml and based on the limits listed inAppendix B, Table II, column 2 of 10 CFR 20 aretabulated in Table 4.1 with the radionuclide discharges.
*Discharge into circulating cooling water flowingat the rate of 1.1 x 1015 ml/yr and permissibleconcentrations from Table II, Column 2, 10 CFR 20.
Note: NR - not reported.
Limit,*Ci/yr
1 x 104
2 x 104
2 x 104
x 105
x 104
1 x 105
3 x 106
2 x 106
1 x 105
x 105
5 x 104
7 x 104
1 x 104
x 104
1 x 102
8 x 104
4 x 104
3 x 106
2 x 104
2 x 103
8 x 103
1.19
1973
1. 24
36.60
0.489
0.172
0.043
0.272
0.001
0.001
0.182
0.028
0.002
0.243
0.242
NR
0.082
0.078
0.754
2.221
0.083
0.082
0.147
0.005
0.020
0.233
1. 58
1.16
1972
61.62
0.118
0.630
0.153
1. 676
0.020
NR
fO.228
0.065
0.215
0.199
0.003
0.452
0.414
0.784
2.487
2.062
3.047
0.067
NR
NR
0.683
1971
21. 45
0.164
0.431
0.108
0.823
0.045
NR
f 0.343
0.050
0.129
0.101
0.003
0.382
0.291
NR
NR
0.101
0.242
0.160
NR
NR
0.656
amount released (Cilyr) x 9.5 x 10-10
amount released (Ci/yr) x 8.6 x 10-1•
amount released (Ci/yr) x 8.4 x 10-10
Radionucl ide
Dilution volume,1012 liters 1.05
1971: uCilml1972: uCilml1973: uCilml
Waste volume,107 liters 2.40
3H
51Cr54Mn58Co60Co59Fe ,
65 Zn89
Sr90Sr91
Sr99
Mo99mTc124Sb131
1133
1133Xe135Xe134Cs137Cs140
Ba_
La141Ce144Ce239Np
from collection sumps to the 37,900-liter floor draincollector tank in the radwaste building. From the tankthe liquid is processed through a precoat-type floordrain filter and collected in one of two 37,900-liter floordrain sample tanks. The liquid is transferred from thefloor drain sample tanks to a waste neutralizer tank forprocessing with chemical wastes. At a processing rateof 30,000 liters/day, approximately 3.5 days of decaytime are provided for the high conductivity liquidwaste.
Chemical wastes consist of laboratory drainage andcondensate demineralizer regeneration solutions whichhave high conductivities and variable concentrations ofradioactive material. The wastes are collected in one oftwo 45,400-liter waste neutralizer tanks along with thewaste transferred from the floor drain sample tanks.The liquid collected in the waste neutralizer tanks issampled for analysis, then neutralized and processedthrough the evaporator at a rate of 57 liters/min. Thecondensate from the waste concentrator is routed to theradwaste equipment drain sump for processing as lowconductivity waste. A flow rate of 7,000 liters/daythrough the system would provide a decay time of 3.5days for the chemical waste.
Laundry waste from the laundry operation andwaste from the shipping cask decontamination stationare collected in one of two 7,600-liter laundry draintanks. These wastes are discharged to the circulatingwater discharge canal without treatment. Flowthrough this system is assumed by the ABC to be 3,000liters/day. (1)
4.1.2 Radionuc1ide release. Radionuc1ide liquidrelease limits for the Oyster Creek station are based onthe following: (2)
I. The release of radioactive liquid effluents shallbe limited such that the concentration ofradionuclides in the discharge canal at the siteboundary shall not at any time exceed theconcentrations given in Appendix B, Table II,Column 2, of 10 CFR 20 and notes I through 5thereto.
2. Radioactive liquid effluent being released intothe discharge canal shall be continuouslymonitored, or, if the monitor is inoperative,two independent samples of any tank to bedischarged shall be taken, one prior todischarge and one near the completion ofdischarge, and two station personnel shallindependently check valving prior todischarge of radioactive liquid effluents.
The radionuclides discharged in liquid waste fromthe Oyster Creek station between 1971 and 1973 aretabulated in Appendix B.4 and summarized in Table
36
The individual radionuclides were discharged atconcentrations at or below 0.1 percent of these limits.
4.2 Samples andAnalyses
4.2.1 Samples. The following samples of liquidwaste were provided by the station staff:
1) waste sample tank "A", 1 liter, acidified,collected Aug. 30, 1971 at 0830;
2) waste sample tank "A", 1 liter, acidified,collected Jan. 18, 1972 at 0840;
3) waste sample tank "A", 500 ml, collected Jan.18, 1972 at 0840;
4) waste sample tank "A", 1 liter, acidified,collected Mar. 2, 1972;
5) waste sample tank "A", 500 ml, acidified,collected April 12, 1972;
6) waste sample tank "A", 500 ml, collectedApril 12, 1972;
7) waste sample tank "A", 1 liter, collected Sept.25, 1972;
8) waste sample tank "B", 1 liter, collected Sept.25,1972;
9) waste sample tank (unspecified), 3 liters,collected Aug. 23,1972 at 1100;
10) waste sample tank "A", 1 liter, acidified,collected July 16, 1973 at 0945;
11) waste sample tank "A", 1 liter, acidified,collected Nov. 29,1973 at 1500;
12) laundry drain tank, 3 liters, collected Jan. 22,1972;
13) laundry drain tank, 1 liter, collected Mar. 2,1972;
14) laundry drain tank, 1 liter, acidified, collectedMay 16, 1972 at 1305; and
15) laundry drain tank, 1 liter, collected May 16,1972 at 1305.
Liquid wastes were sampled from only two pointsin the liquid waste system: 1) the waste sample tanks(the treated effluent from the low and highconductivity waste and chemical waste), and 2) thelaundry waste tanks (liquids from the laundry and caskdecontamination). These samples are pertinent to theenvironmental study because radionuclides in theseliquid effiuents are discharged directly to the coolantwater canal which empties into Barnegat Bay. '" Themeasurement of radionuc1ides in the wastes, therefore,provides guidance for analyzing samples from theaquatic environment, in which radionuclides are in
many cases near or below minimum detectable levels.
The samples obtained on Jan. 18, 1972, April 12,1972, May 16, 1972, Sept. 15, 1972 and July 16, 1973,were collected while the liquids in the waste sampletank or laundry drain tank were being discharged toOyster Creek. During these discharges, large watersamples were also collected from Oyster Creek. Theradionuc1ide concentrations measured in the lattersamples are compared in Section 4.4.4 withconcentrations computed from waste sample tankliquid analyses, using the appropriate dilution factors.
4.2.2 Analysis of waste solutions. The liquid wastesamples were analyzed in a similar manner as thereactor water (Section 2.2.1), except that aliquotvolumes were 100 ml or larger since radioactivity levelswere much lower. The samples were analyzedspectrometrically with a Ge(Li) gamma-ray detector.The samples were first counted within a day to a weekafter collection and again several weeks later to identifyradionuc1ides by combining observations of gamma-rayenergies and decay rates. The identified radionuc1ideswere quantified by computing disintegration rates fromcount rates under characteristic photon peaks on thebasis of prior counting efficiency calibrations of thesedetectors. In general, the minimum detectable levelswere 1 x 10-7 uCi/ml, and only radionuc1ides with halflives of 12 hours or more could be detected. Theunacidified samples were analyzed radiochemically for3R, 14C and 1311, and the acidified samples, for 32p, "Pe,63Ni, 89Sr and 90Sr. (5)
4.3 ResultsandDiscussion
4.3.1 Radionuc1ides in waste sample tank. Theradionuclide concentrations measured in liquids fromthe waste sample tank are listed in Table 4.2. Ingeneral, concentrations were low in August 1971 andrelatively high in August and September 1972.Although the 'R concentration remained relativelyconstant during the period of sampling, theconcentrations of ··Mn, "Pe, '8CO, 60Co, 89Sr, 90Sr, 1311,134CS and 137Cs were at least 100-fold greater in the latersamples, particularly on August 23, 1972. As shown inPigure 2.2, the reactor had been down and started upon August 14, nine days before the sample wascollected from the waste sample tank. The higherconcentrations measured in this sample, therefore, maybe the result of expansion water from the reactor
-Recent operational changes include processing of laundry and cask decontamination waste through theradwaste system.(4)
37
Table 4.2 Radionuclide Concentrations in Liquid Waste Sample Tank, pCilml
Radionuclide
3H
14C
32p
51Cr54Mn55
Fe59
Fe58
Co60
Co64cu65 Zn76
As89Sr90
Sr95 Zr95
Nb99
Mo103Ru105 Rhl10mAg124Sb131 r133r133
xe135xe134cs137Cs140
Ba141Ce144
ce239Np
Aug. 30,1971
1500
< 0.1
1.1
10
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.5
NO*
NO
ND
< 0.1
< O. 01
< O. 1
< 0.1
12
< 0.1
< 0.1
NO
< 0.1
1.8
5.3
130
100
1.0
0.9
< 0.1
0.5
< O. 5
< 0.4
Jan. 18,1972
1900
0.1
5.0
13
3.7
7.5
0.6
1.0
9.4
NO
NO
18
0.5
< O. 01
< 0.1
0.3
8.5
0.2
11
NO
0.2
2.0
2.2
17
46
0.2
0.4
1.3
0.5
< 0.5
< 0.4
Mar. 2,1972
3800
< 0.1
1.2
23
6.1
21
1.0
1.5
18
NO
NO
1.0
< 0.1
< 0.01
< 0.1
0.2
6.7
< 0.1
< 0.1
NO
0.6
4.2
1.7
NA
56
0.1
0.2
0.4
2.6
< 0.3
< 0.4
April 12, Aug. 23, Sept. 25,1972 1972 1972
4000 1500 1600
1.9 <0.1 0.3
3.6 <0.5 9.7
46 30 60
0.3 330 29
0.9 32 160
0.2 <0.1 1.5
0.2 90 8.7
0.8 2000 157
5.0 NO NO
NO 67 1. 8
1.5 NO NO
0.2 30 4.0
<0.05 14 0.4
<0.1 0.4 0.3
<0.1 1.7 <0.1
20 <0.5 <0.5
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1
8.6 <0.1 <0.1
NO 0.3 0.7
<0.1 <0.1 0.2
4.2 62 19
1. 6 NA NA
1.5 NA NA
30 NA NA
0.1 3200 960
0.3 5500 1600
1.1 1.5 6.0
0.9 3.5 1.3
0.1 <0.5 <0.5
<0.4 <0.4 <0.4
July 16,1973
NA*
NA
NA
36
94
NA
16
5.4
110
NO
NO
NO
0.6
0.1
3.8
6.5
7.9
2.1
< 0.1
NO
2.0
6.3
NA
NA
NA
0.4
0.7
2.1
2.2
6.3
11
Nov. 29,1973
1900 + 200
NA
1.1 + 0.1
26 + 1
39 + 1
2.4 + 0.1
7.6 + 0.8
2.4 + 0.3
51 + 1
NO
0.5 + 0.2
NO
0.10+0.02
< 0.01
2.0 + 0.4
2.6 + 0.4
10 + 2
2.4 + 0.3
< 0.1
0.14+0.02
0.7 + 0.2
16.6 + 0.6
NA
NA
NA
0.9 + 0.1
1.8 + 0.1
0.6 + 0.1
7.7 + 0.1
4 + 1
< 0.4
NA - not analyzed; NO - not detected.
Notes:
1. The gross alpha activity was < O. 02 pCi/m1 for all samples.
2. < values are the 30 counting error.
3. Uncertainties associated with the radionuc1ide measurements are not included for the sake of clarity.However, the 20 counting erro~ are included in the last column to illustrate probable errorsassociated with the measurements.
coolant system, but more probably the higherconcentrations results from atypical operation of theliquid radwaste system. Leakage of high conductivitywater into the waste system required more frequentregeneration of the radwaste demineralizer. This, inaddition to the evaporator being inoperative, caused a
38
build-up of water in the radwaste facility preventingregeneration of the condensate demineralizers. (3) Thishigh conductivity input to the water system producedan effiuent of poor quality from the wastedemineralizer, necessitating release of the water to theenvironment rather than recirculation to thecondensate system. (3)
A. quantitative analysis of the efficiencies forremoval of radionuclides by the separate componentsof the radwaste treatment system was undertaken byAEC participants in the study. (6) Consequently, suchmeasurements were not repeated here. Radionuclideconcentrations in reactor water (Table 2.1), however,compare with those measured in the waste sample tankas follows:
I) The average tritium concentration in reactorwater and in water from the waste sample tankare nearly equal, suggesting that waste waterfrom the various sources (see Figure 4.1) is notsignificantly diluted by uncontaminatedwater.
2) The average radionuclide concentrations inliquids from the waste sample tank are lowerthan those in the reactor water by I to 3 ordersof magnitude. The ratios of the averageradionuclide concentrations measured inreactor water to that measured in liquid fromthe waste sample tank (CR/Cw) are:
Radio- d.f. fromnuclide CR/Cw* ref. #6**
'H 1.0 NRt"p 20 NR51Cr 150 > 4.6"Mn 40 > 55"Fe 590 NR"Co 300 > 17<DCo 60 43
. "Sr 480 1000··Sr 400 > 55"Mo 130 NR"'I 820 > 73"·C~ 100 >78"'Cs 100 > 190'··Ba 770 > 110"ICe 20 23
* Samples collected in August and September, 1972,were omitted from the calculation since the radwastetreatment system was not operating properly..**d.f. - decontamination factors measured across thewaste collector filter and waste demineralizercombined.t NR - not reported.
The study of the waste treatment systems at the OysterCreek station, performed by the AEC in January 1972,yielded the combined decontamination factors in thethird column of the above tabulation for the wastecollector filter and waste demineralizer. (6) Most ofthese factors are "greater than" because theconcentrations measured in the output liquid from the
components were below detectable limits. The ratiosgiven in the second column are not actuallydecontamination factors comparable to values in thethird column because all sources of radioactivity to thewaste system were not considered and theconcentrations in the reactor water do not relate in timeto that in the waste sample tank. However, sincereactor water leakage is low conductivity waste, thedecontamination through the waste collector filter andwaste demineralizer will influence the activity ratiosgiven in the second column (see Figure 4.1). Incomparison, the ratios are of the same order ofmagnitude as the decontamination factors given by theAEC study in the third column. This indicates that,except for 3H, considerable decontamination ofradioactivity in liquid effiuent wastes is achieved whenthe waste treatment system is operating properly.
To identify the physical or chemical states ofradionuclides discharged from the radwaste system,50-ml aliquots of the sample of September 25 werefiltered and then either passed successively throughcation- and anion-exchange resins, or equilibrated withcarbon tetrachloride and subjected to a silver iodideprecipitation. As indicated in Table 4.3, more than onehalf of the "Mn and 60Co and small fractions of the 13l1,IJ·CS and IJ7Cs were retained by the filter. Manganese54 and 6OCo are corrosion products and would beassociated to a large degree with particulate matter.The soluble "Mn, 60Co, IJ<CS and 1J7Cs were cationic.The solvent extraction and precipitation of 1311 suggestthat approximately one-fourth was elemental, one-halfwas r and a few percent were in the form of 103-, Inthe ion-exchange test, some of the 12 undoubtedly wasadsorbed on both resins, r was retained by the anionexchange resin, and 103- to some extent passedthrough both resin columns. However, the observedspecies distribution may not be representative becausethe radwaste system was not operating properly duringsampling.
4.3.2 Radionuc1ides in laundry drain tank. Liquidsfrom the laundry drain tank were sampled three timesduring the study (see Section 4.2.1). The sources ofthese liquids are laundry operation and the shippingcask decontamination station. As shown in Figure 4.1,these wastes are discharged directly to the circulatingwater coolant canal without any treatment.
The results of the analyses are given in Table 4.4.The major radionuclides present were s'Mn, sSFe, SHCO,6OCo and 1J7Cs. Relatively large amounts of 3H and 1311were also in the sample collected on May 16, 1972. Thetotal concentration in the laundry drain tank liquid wasabout 0.20 uCilliter. Since the tank volume is 7600,
39
Table 4.3 Chemical States of Radionuclides in Liquid Waste Sample Tank, Sept. 25, 1972
Percent retained in each separationMembrane filter, Cation-exchange Anion-exchange
Radionuclide 0.45 ll-pore size resin, Dowex-50 resin, Dowex-l Residue
54Mn 74 26 0 060Co 52 48 0 0l3l r 9 8 75 8
. 134Cs 3 97 0 0l37
Cs 3 97 0 0
Solvent extraction, Precipitation,CC14 Ag1
1311 12 23 59 6
Notes:
1. Solution was neutral.
t. Order of treatment is from left to right.
3. 50 rnl solution passed through resins in columns each 8-cm long, 1.2-cm diameter,at 1 rnl/rnin flow rate.
4; 50 ml solution equilibrated with 50 ml CC14' then mixed with 24 mg Na1 and excessAgN03 ·
liters, the total quantity of radioactivity that might bedischarged at anyone time is about 1500 ).lCi.
The average radionuclide concentrations in theliquid from the laundry drain tank are given in Table4.5. The average annual quantities discharged, based onan annual volume of9.08 x lOs liters (240,000 gal),(3)are given in the third column. In the last column aregiven the percent contribution of radionuc1idesdischarged from the laundry drain tank to that in thetotal from the laundry drain tank plus the waste sampletank (see Table 4.6). In general, the contribution ofradionuc1ides from the laundry drain tank is minor.Approximately 0.19 Ci of radioactivity is dischargedannually from the laundry drain tanks, of which about50 percent is JH.
4.4 Radionuclides in Coolant CanalWater
4.4.1 Estimated radionuclide concentrations incoolant canal water. The average quantities of specificradionuc1ides discharged annually to Oyster Creek arelisted in Table 4.6. The concentration of radionuc1idesin the liquids discharged from the waste sample tank isbased on the average measured concentrations beforedischarge (see Table 4.2) and the average annual
40
volume discharged for the three-year (1971-1973)study period, 1.74 x 107 liters. (3) Because the liquidwaste system was not operating properly prior andduring the sampling on August 23, 1972, results fromthis sample were not averaged into these calculations.The average quantity of radionuclides dischargedannually from the laundry drain tank was taken fromTable 4.5. The estimated average radionuclideconcentrations in Oyster Creek, shown in the lastcolumn of Table 4.6, were obtained by dividing thesummation of the annual average contributions fromthe waste sample tanks and the laundry drain tanks bythe average annual dilution volume for the three-yearperiod, 1.13 x 10" liters.(3) No adjustment in theseconcentrations was made for recirculation. The totalradioactivity discharged annually by the station wascalculated to be 54 Ci, which is in agreement with the1971-1973 annual average liquid discharges reportedby the station, 52 ± 18 Ci (see Appendix B.2). Theseestimated concentrations will be utilized in latersections of this report.
4.4.2 Sampling and analysis ofcoolant canal water.Radionuclide concentrations in the coolant canalduring the discharge of liquid wastes were measured todevelop and test methods for determiningradionuc1ides at very low concentrations (on the order
Table 4.4 Radionuclide Concentrations in Laundr~ Drain Tank, pCilml
Radionuclide Jan. 22, 1972 March 2, 1972 May 16, 1972
3H < 1. 5 < 1. 5 320 + 20
14C 0.2 + 0.1 < 0.1 0.2 + 0.1
32p 0.3 + 0.1 NA 0.1 + 0.151
Cr 1.6 + 0.1 0.9 + 0.1 6.6 + 0.154
Mn 41 + 2 2.0 + 0.2 11 + 255 Fe 5.8 + 0.1 3.2 + 0.1 4.9 + 0.159
Fe 6.8 + 0.1 0.5 + 0.1 4.1 + 0.158
Co 9.9 + 0.1 0.6 + 0.1 3.4 + 0.160
Co 110 + 5 7.9 + 0.1 32 + 5
~9C;r 0.20 + 0.05 < 0.1 0.6 + 0.190
Sr 0.020 + 0.002 < 0.01 0.080 + 0.00295 Zr '). 6 + 0.1 < 0.1 2.6 + 0.195Nb 1.6 + 0.1 0.1 + 0.1 4.5 + 0.1103
Ru 0.20 + 0.05 < 0.1 0.3 + 0.1124Sb 1.8 + 0.1 0.1 + 0.1 0.5 + 0.1131 1 NO < 0.1 1.1 + 0.1134
Cs 2.7 + 0.1 0.6 + 0.1 3.3 + 0.1137
Cs 5.8 + 0.1 1.6 + 0.1 4.3 + 0.1140Ba NO NO 1.0 + 0.1141
Ce 0.2 + 0.1 0.1 + 0.1 1.0 + 0.1144
Ce 1.5 + 0.1 0.2 + 0.1 1.2 + 0.1
Notes:
1. + values are 20 and < values are 30 of the counting error.
2. NA - not analyzed; NO - not detected.
41
Table 4.5 Radionuclides Discbarged from the Laundry Drain Tank
(a)Annual average
Average concentration, discharge, (h) Percent of totalpCi/l ].lCi waste discharged(c)
107,000 97,200 0.23
150 140 1.6
200 180 0.29
3,000 2,700 0.51
18,000 16,000 3.8
4,600 4,200 0.75
3,800 3,500 4.8
100 90
4,600 4,200 7.9
50,000 45,000 4.9
280 250 1.8
35 30 2.5
1,100 1,000 5.8
2,100 1,900 7.2
180 160 1.3
800 730 7.7
5,600 5,100 3.6
2,200 2,000 0.08
3,900 3,500 0.09
1,000 910 2.9
430 390 1.0
970 880 3.1
of concentrations given in Table 4.4; <values were averaged as 1/2
Nuclide
a Average< value.
b Approximately 9.08 x 105 liters (240,000 gal.) of laundry waste dischargedper year. (3)
c The total is the sum of that from the waste sample tank (Section 4.3.1) andthe laundry drain tank.
3H
14C32p
51Cr54Mn55
Fe59
Fe57
Co58Co60
Co89Sr90Sr95 Zr95 Nb103Ru124
Sb131
1134·
Cs137
Cs140Sa141Ce144
Ce
42
Table 4.6 Estimated Radionuclide Concentrations in Oyster Creek Based on Measured Effluent Concentrations
Avg. concentration Avg. annual discharge Avg. annual discharge Total annual Avg. concentrationin wast.e sample from waste sample from laundry drain discharge, (d) in Oyster Creek, (e)
Radionuc1ide tank, (a) pCi/ml tank, (b) uCi tank, (c) uCi Ci pCi/l
3H 2450 42.7 x 106 9.7 x 104 42.8' 37.7
14C 0.48 8.4 x 103 1.4 x 102 0.0085 0.007532p 3.6 6.3 x 104 1. 8 x 102 0.063 0.05651
Cr 31 5.4 x 105 2.7 x 103 0.54 0.4854Mn 24 4.2 x 105 1.6 x 104 0.44 0.3955 Fe 32 5.6 x 105 4.2 x 103 0.56 0.4959
Fe 3.9 ~.8 x 104 3.5 x 103 0.072 0.06358
Co 2.8 4.9 x 104 4.2 x 103 0:053 0.04760
Co 50 8.7 x 105 4,5 x 104 0.92 0.8164
Cu 0.7- 1.,2 x 104 ND*' 0:012 0.011
65 Zn 0.3 5.2 x 103 ND 0.0052 0.0046
76As 2.9 5.1 x 104 ND 0.051 0.04589
Sr 0.8 1.4 x 104 2.5 x 102 0.014 0.01290Sr 0.07 1.2 x 103 30 0.0012 0.001195 Zr 0.9 1. 6 x 10 4
1.0 x 103 0.017 0.01595
Nb 1.4 2.4 x 104 1. 9 x 10" 0.026 '0.02399
Mo 9.3 1.~ x 105 ND 0.16 0.14103Ru 0.7 1.2 x 104 1.6 x 102 0.012 0.011105Rh 2.8 4.9 x 10
4 ND 0.049 0.0431l0mAg 0.1 1. 7 x 103 ND 0.0017 0.0015124Sb 0.5 8.7 x 103 7.3 x 102 0.0094 0.0083
131 r 7.7 1.3 x 105 5.1 x 103 0.14 0.12133 r 2.7 4.7 x 10
4 ND 0.047 0.041133 Xe SO 8.7 x 105 ND 0.87 0.77
13\e 58 1.0 x 106 ND 1.0 0.88
134Cs 140 2.4 x 106 x 103 2.4 2.1
137Cs 230 4.0 x 106 3.5 x 103 4.0 3.5
140 Ba 1.7 3.0 x 104 9.1 x 10
2 0.031 0.027
141Ce 2.2 3.8 x 10
4 3.9 x 102 0.038 0.034
144Ce 1.6 2.7 x 104 B.B x 102 0.028 0.025
239NP 1. 7' 3.0 x 104 ND 0.030 0.026
Detected in only one sample; 64 Cu (4/12/72) and 239Np (7/16/73) .
-- ND - Not Detected.
Notes:a. Average of concentrations given in Table 4.2, omitting the Aug. 23, 1972 sample since the waste treatment
system was not functioning. All < values were averaged as 1/2 < value.
b. Average (1971-1973) annual volume of waste discharged:
Average
1971 - 2.41 x 107 liters1972 - 1.58 x 10 7 liters1973 - 1.24 x 107 liters
1.74 x 10 1 liters
Average annual discharge average concentration in waste sample tank (pCi/1) x 1.74 x 107 liters
c. See Table 4.5.
d. The sum of columns 3 and 4.
Average concentration in the discharge canal
e. Average (1971-1973) annual dilution volume;
Average
1971 - 1.05 x 10 12 liters1972 - 1.16 x 10 12 liters1973 - 1.19 x 1012 liters
1.13 x 10 12 liters
total annual discharge (Ci)/1.13 x 1012 liters
43
r-7 em.--j
Figure 4.3 Ion exchange column for concentration ofCo. Cs. and Mn from seawater.
GLASS WOOL
GLASS WOOL
'.Y(;~~';~;,
;/~li~~r~~CHELEX . 100
30 em.
FROMTUBING PUMP-
determined by reprecipitation as SrC03 and Pdl2 fordetermining the gravimetric yield and for beta-particlecounting.
4.4.3 Field testing of concentration techniques.Since few data were available regarding the physicochemical species of the radionuclides in liquid wastesdischarged by the station, the concentration techniqueswere tested in the field to verify collection efficienciesfor radionuclides in the same physical and chemicalforms present in the coolant canal. Two field tracerexperiments were conducted by adding 400 and 1000ml of liquid waste from the station to approximately200 liters of coolant canal water in a plastic-lined drum.
of 0.1 pCi/liter) in brackish or saline water, and toverify the predicted concentrations in the coolantcanal. The high salinity of the coolant canal .waterprecluded the use of the ion-exchange surveillancecolumn used in earlier studies at nuclear powerstations, where essentially all cationic and anionicspecies were concentrated from large volumes of freshwater. (7- 8)
Methods were developed for the determination of54Mn, 6OCO. 89Sr, 9OSr, 1311, 1J4Cs, and 137Cs in the coolantcanal, where these radionuclides were expected to be inthe highest concentrations. Previous studies at anotherBWR showed that these radionuclides, plus [4DBa, werein coolant canal water. (7)
The techniques for concentrating radionuclidesfrom sample volumes of 16 to 400 liters have beenreported.(9) This description includes the detailsregarding radionuclide analysis, collection efficiency,and testing of methods.
The concentration system used (see Figure 4.2)collects particulate and certain ionic species.Particulate radionuclides are collected by filtering upto 400 liters of water through a prefilter followed by a0.45-u membrane filter. The cationic fractions of Mn.Co and Cs are concentrated from the filtrate on thecolumn shown in Figure 4.3. The column consists of a3OO-cc section of a chelating ion-exchange resin(Chelex-loo) for Mn and Co, followed by a 2oo-ccsection of an inorganic ion exchanger (ammoniumhexacyanocobalt ferrate coated on silica gel) for Cs.Early measurements included a 450-cc section of anionresin (Dowex I x 8) for concentrating 1311, but thecollection efficiency was only 20--60 percent. Afterconcentration of the radionuclides by filtration and ionexchange, the filters and ion-exchange sections wereanalyzed with a Ge(Li) detector and multichannelanalyzer for gamma-ray-emitting radionuclides.
Strontium-90 and [311 were collected byprecipitating SrC03 and AgI from a 16-liter sample ofcolumn effluent. Radiostrontium and radioiodine were
TOSAMPLING
POINT
CENTRIFUGALPUMP
(~151.1min.) VALVEWATERMETER
CARTRIDGE RESERVOIR TUBINGFILTER (200-400 Iiters) PUMP
IONEXCHANGE
COLUMN COLUMNEFFLUENT
.. 15 liters/min. 12 liters/hr. ..
Figure 4.2 Radionuclide concentration system.
44
The water was circulated for one hour to simulateconditions in the canal and then passed through theconcentration system (filters and ion exchangecolumn). Aliquots of the waste solutions were retainedto determine the identity and activity of theradionuclides added to the water.
The results of the field tracer experiments are givenin Tables 4.7 and 4.8. Recoveries of 54Mn, 58Co, OOCo,1J4Cs, and 137Cs were ~ 95 percent. After correction forchemical yield, the recoveries of 90Sr and 1311 bycoprecipitation were 120 + 30 and 96 + 7 percent,respectively (Table 4.8). The first tracer experiment(Table 4.7) afforded a better test of the ion-exchangecolumn since more 54Mn and oOCo remained in thefiltrate. The second tracer experiment (Table 4.8)contained a more complex mixture of radionuclides,mostly particles, as indicated by the high recovery onthe filter. The tracer experiments demonstrated thevalidity of these techniques for monitoring the abovecited radionuclides in liquid waste discharged to theseawater environment near the station.
4.4.4 Coolant canal sampling and results. On fouroccasions the radionuclide concentrations in thecoolant canal were measured during discharge from thewaste sample tank and on one occasion, May 16, 1972,during discharge from the laundry drain tank. Samplesof the undiluted wastes were obtained from either thewaste sample tank or the laundry drain tank todetermine the identity and quantity of dischargedradionuclides (see Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2). Samples ofcoolant water from the intake or discharge canals werealso collected before or after tank discharge to correctfor recirculation of wastes discharged to Barnegat Bay.Intake and discharge coolant water could not besampled simultaneously because the additionalequipment was not available. Water samples from a
background location in Great Bay were analyzed todetermine the contribution of radionuclides depositedin atmospheric fallout.
The discharge canal sampling location was at therailroad bridge adjacent to the Route 9 bridge, and wasapproximately 0.8 km downstream from the point ofwaste discharge. The intake sampling location was atthe railroad bridge adjacent to the Route 9 bridgeapproximately 1.3 km upstream of the waste discharge.Water samples were collected by pumping water fromthe canal through the filters and collecting the filtrate.Radionuclides in the filtrate were concentrated bypassing the filtrate through the ion-exchange systemdescribed in Section 4.4.2. The pump intake waslocated in the center of the canal approximately 2meters below the surface.
The results of measurements in the coolant canaland Great Bay are given in Tables 4.9 to 4.14. Theseresults showed that the following radionuclidesdischarged by the station were at concentrationsgreater than 1 pCilliter in the coolant canal: 51Cr, 54Mn,oOCo, ""Mo, '3'1, 1J4Cs, and 137Cs. The maximumindividual radionuclide concentration in the coolantcanal was 6.3 pCilliter of 137Cs. In addition, 58Co, 59Fe,95Zr, 95Nb, 141Ce, and 144Ce were detected atconcentrations between 0.1 and 1.0 pCi/liter. Theunusually high concentration of looRu (about 3 pCill)on January 25, 1972 was attributed to fresh falloutfrom the Chinese atmospheric nuclear detonation inJanuary 1972, since ,ooRu was not detected in theundiluted waste. Great Bay samples (Table 4.14)showed the presence of several radionuclidesattributable to atmospheric fallout at concentrationsbetween 0.1 and I pCi/ I in the particles collected byfiltration on April 12, 1972 and May 16, 1972. Theseradionuclides were also deteCted in coolant canal
Table 4.7 Recovery of Radionuclides on Concentration System, September 1972
Percent recoveryRadioactivity Cartridge Membrane
Radionuclide added, pCi/Iiter fil ter filter discs Chelex-IOO NCFC Dowex-l Total51
Cr 129 + 6 102 + 5 1.8 + 0.1 < 1 < 1 < 1 104 + 5- -54Mn 61 + 3 69 + 3 0.10 + 0.01 29 + 2 < 0.1 < 0.1 98 + 4-60
Co 330 + 15 55 + 3 0.7 + 0.1 39 + 2 < 0.1 < 0.1 95 + 4131 r 400 + 18 1.8 + 0.1 < 0.1 6.7 + 0.3 < 0.1 21 + 1 30 + 1134Cs 1900 + 100 0.8 + 0.1 < 0.1 8.0 + 0.4 89 + 4 < 0.1 98 + 4l37
Cs 3400 + 200 0.8 + 0.1 < 0.1 8.1 + 0.4 90 + 4 <0.1 99 + 4-
Notes:
1. 400 ml from waste sample tank B on September 25, 1972 were added to 190 liters of coolant canal water.
2. Coolant canal water: pH 7.5, salinity 24.8 0/ 00 .
3. Total volume passed through the collection system was 170 liters.
4. The + values are based on 20 counting errors or a minimum of 5 percent; <values are 30 counting error.
45
Table 4.8 Recovery of Radionuclides on Concentration System, July 1973
Radionuc1ide
Radioactivityadded,
pCi/1iter . FilterPercent recovered
Ion exchange* Total
28 + 3
2.8 + 0.2
7.4 + 0.5
11.1 + 1.6
10.1 + 0.5
22 + 3
58 + 8
303 + IS
166 + 9
11 + 0.5
26 + 1
193 + 9
3.2 + 0.5
13 + 1
0.5 + 0.1
18 + 0.5
51Cr54Mn58Co59Fe60Co65 Zn89
Sr90
Sr95
Nb95 Zr99Mo103Ru110m
Ag124Sb131
1134
Cs137Cs140Ba141
Ce144Ce239Np
5.3 +
61 +
3.7 +
0.6 +
3.7 +
0.5
4
0.5
0.3
0.5
99 + 5
96 + 5
91 + 4
95 + 4
95 + 5
116 + 16I
NA
NA
56 + 3
121 + 11
84 + 6
93 + 13
0.1
100 + 14
57 + 6
25 + 12
26 + 6
22 + 3
82 + 4
57 + 8
35 + 5
1.2 + 0.2
0.50 + 0.04
6.5 + 0.5
0.4 +0.2
2.2 + 0.1
7 + 2
100 + 10**
120 + 30**
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
67 + 16
< 1
39 + 4**
91 + 9
73 + 5
< 1
4 + 1
< 1
59 + 10
100 + 5
96 + 5
98 + 4
95 + 4
97 + 5
120 + 16
100 + 10
120 + 30
56 + 3
121 + 11
84 + 6
93 + 13
70 + 20
100 + 14
96 + 7
116 + 15
99 + 8
22 + 3
86 + 4
57 + 8
94 + 11
46
* 134 137 .Cs and Cs were concentrated on the NCFC sectlon; all othercations were retained on the Chelex-IOO section.
**89 90 131 .. Sr, Sr, . I determlned by precipitation from a 16-liter sample.
Notes:
1. 1000 ml of waste sample tank on July 17, 1973, were added to208 liters of coolant canal water.
2. Coolant canal water: pH 7.2, salinity 16.40/00.
3. Total volume of solution passed through collection system was190 liters.
4. + values are based on a 20 counting error or a minimum of 5%;<values are 30 counting errors.
5. NA - Not analyzed
Table 4.9 Radionuclides in Coolant Canal Water on January 18, 1972
Radionuclide
Discharge canalduring discharge, pCi/liter
Predicted· Filters Filtrate
Discharge canalbefore discharge,
pCi/literFi! ters
MeasuredPredicted
5lCr54
Mn60Co99Mo106Ru
0.79 + 0.06 0.9 + 0.2 NA
0.22 + 0.02 0.15 + 0.04 < 0.1
0.55 + 0.04 0.4 + 0.1 0.2 + 0.1
0.50 + 0.01 0.40 + 0.04 NA
< 0.02 2.6 + 0.4 NA
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
NA
3.7 + 0.6
1.1 + 0.2
0.7 + 0.3
1.1 + 0.2
0.8 + 0.1
• Calculated from waste analysis and dilution factor of 17,000.
Notes:
1. Sample volumes: during discharge - 380 liters filtered and 38 liters of filtrate throughconcentration column; before discharge - 76 liters filtered.
2. Filters: 8-u and 0.45-u membrane filter discs in series.
3. NA - not analyzed.
Table 4.10 Radionuclides in Coolant Canal Water on April 12, 1972
Discharge canalDischarge canal before discharge,
during discharge, pCi/liter pCi/literRadionuclide Predicted • Fi! ters Fil trate Filters Filtrate
5lCr 2.7 + 0.1 1.8 + 0.2 NA < 0.2 NA90Sr < 0.003 NA 0.26 + 0.02 NA 0.17 + 0.0295zr < 0.006 0.36 + 0.07 NA 0.06 + 0.04 NA95Nb < 0.006 0.22 + 0.05 NA 0.05 + 0.03 NA99Mo 1.2 + 0.1 1. 06 + 0.08 NA < 0.02 NA131 1 0.25 + 0.02 0.17 + 0.04 0.12 + 0.03 < 0.02 < 0.6137Cs < 0.02 < 0.02 0.26 + 0.05 < 0.01 0.34 + 0.05l~DBa < 0.06 0.18 + 0.06 NA < 0.06 NA141Ce < 0.05 0.30 + 0.06 NA 0.07 + 0.03 NA144Ce < 0.01 0.3 + 0.1 NA 0.06 + 0.03 NAl47Nd < 0.02 0.3 + 0.1 NA 0.15 + 0.08 NA
MeasuredPredicted
0.7 + 0.1
0.9 + 0.1
1.2 + 0.2
Sample volumes: during discharge - 380 liters filtered and 330 liters of filtrate passed throughconcentration columns; before discharge - 380 liters filtered and 290 liters passed throughconcentration column.
•Calculated from waste analysis and dilution factor of 17,000.
Notes:1.
2.
3.
4.
Filters: 8-u and 0.45-u filter discs in series.
Water analyses: Oyster Creek pH 7.3; salinity 20.60/00; suspended solids 2 mg/liter.
NA - not analyzed.
47
Table 4.11 Radionuclides in Coolant Canal Water on May 16, 1972
Radionuc lide
Discharge canalduring discharge, pCi/liter
Predicted* Filters Filtrate
Discharge canalbefore discharge,
pCi/literFilters Filtrate
MeasuredPrzdicted
5lCr54Mn59Fe58Co60 Co90Sr95 Zr95 Nb131
1134Cs137Csl4lCel44Ce
0.7 + 0.1 0.6 + 0.2 NA < O. 2 NA
1.14 + 0.05 0.99 + 0.09 0.23 + 0.04 < 0.02 < 0.07
0.41 + 0.02 0.4 + 0.1 0.11 + 0.05 < 0.07 < 0.1
0.34 + 0.02 0.22 + 0.04 < 0.03 < O. 02 < 0.1-3.2 + 0.1 2.1 + 0.1 0.34 + 0.04 0.07 + 0.03 < 0.1-0.010 + 0.002 NA 0.23 + 0.04* * NA 0.23 + 0.04**
0.26 + 0.03 < 0.05 NA 0.05 + 0.03 NA
0.45 + 0.02 0.19 + 0.05 NA 0.13 + 0.03 NA
1.11 + 0.06 0.33 + 0.08 0.47 + 0.09 < O. OS 0.02 • 0.01
0.33 + 0.02 0.24 + 0.03 0.11 + 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
0.43 + 0.01 0.42 + 0.02 0.50 + 0.03 0.02 + 0.01 0.40 + 0.04
0.10 + 0.02 0.19 + 0.05 NA 0.06 + 0.02 NA-0.12 + 0.02 0.4 + 0.1 NA 0.11 + 0.03 NA
0.9 + 0.4
1.1+0.1
1.2 + 0.2
0.6 + 0.2
0.7 + 0.1
0.7 + 0.2
1.1 + 0.1
1.2+0.1
Sample volumes: during discharge - 200 liters; before discharge - 330 liters.
Filters: 8-~ and 0.45-~ membrane filter discs in series.2.
Calculated from waste analysis and dilution factor of 10,000.**
Determined by analysis of a 16-liter sample of column effluent.
Notes:1.
3. Water analyses: during discharge - pH 7.3; salinity 17.1 0 /00 , suspended solids 32 mg/liter.o 'before discharge - pH 7.3; salinity 17.1 100; suspended solids 26 mg/liter.
4. NA - not analyzed.
Table 4.12 Radionuclides in Coolant Canal Water on September 25-26, 1972
Radionuclide
Discharge canal duringdischarge on September 25,
pCi/literPredicted* Filters Filtrate
Intake canal duringdischarge on
September 26,pCi/liter
Filters Filtrate54Mn60Co90Sr131
1134Cs137Cs
0.17 + 0.01 0.29 + 0.05 0.04 + 0.02 0.3 + 0.1 < 0.05
0.92 + 0.02 1.1 + 0.1 0.21 + 0.02 0.7 + 0.2 0.24 + 0.05
< 0.01 NA 0.25 + 0.02 NA 0.24 + 0.02**
1. 12 + 0.02 0.07 + 0.01 0.37 + 0.04** < 0.05 < 0.05
5.6 + 0.1 0.07 + 0.05 3.3 + 0.2 < 0.05 2.2 + 0.2
9.4 + 0.1 0.08 + 0.05 6.3 + 0.6 < 0.1 4.5 + 0.3
* Calculated from waste analysis and dilution factor of 170,000.**
Determined by analysis of a l6-liter sample of column effluent.
Notes:
15 mg/liter.mg/liter.
Water analyses:
Sample volumes:
Filter: 0.45-)12.
discharge canal - 190 liters; intake canal - 150 liters.
membrane cartridges with prefilter at all locations.
discharge canal - pH 7.5; salinity 25 0/ 00 ; suspended solidsintake canal - pH 7.3; salinity 24 0/00 ; suspended solids 24
3. NA - not analyzed.
1.
48
Table 4.13 Radionuclides in Coolant Canal Water OIi July 17-18, 1973
Intake canalDischarge canal after discharge
during discharge on on July 18,July 17, pCi/liter pCi/liter
Radionuclide Predicted* Fil ters Filtrate Filters Fi 1trate**
5l Cr 0.9 + 0.1 1.1 + 0.3 NA NO NA54 Mn 2.4 + 0.1 1.9 + 0.1 0.02 + 0.01 0.04 + 0.01 < 0.159Fe 0.42 + 0.03 0.3 + 0.1 NO NO NA58Co 0.. 14 + 0.01 0.12 + 0.03 NO NO < 0.160Co 2.9 + 0.1 2.0 + 0.1 0.06 + 0.01 0.10 + 0.02 < 0.189Sr 0.015 + 0.001 NA < 0.04 t NA < 0.0390Sr 0.003 + 0.001 NA 0.91 + 0.04 NA 0.34 + 0.0495Nb 0.17 + 0.01 0.18 + 0.03 NA NO NA95 Zr 0.10 + 0.01 0.12 + 0.04 NA NO NA103
Ru 0.04 + 0.02 NO NA 0.06 + 0.03 NAl3l I 0.16 + 0.01 < 0.15 < O.It NO NAl34Cs 0.016 + 0.005 < 0.01 0.08 + 0.01 NO < 0.1l37 Cs 0.02 + 0.01 < 0.01 0.46 + 0.01 0.02 + 0.01 0.31 + 0.06l4lCe 0.06 + 0.01 NO 0.06 + 0.02 < 0 . 015 NA
* Calculated from waste analysis and dilution factor of 38,000.
MeasuredPredicted
1.2 + 0.3
0.8 + 0.1
0.7 + 0.3
0.9 + 0.2
0.7 + 0.1
1.1 + 0.2
1.2 + 0.4
discharge canal water - 209 liters; intake water - 152 liters.
discharge canal: pH 7.2; salinity 16.4 0 100 ; solids 33 mg/liter.intake canal: pH 7.2; salinity 18.1 0 100 ; solids 46 mg/liter.
2. Water analyses:
**16 liters were analyzed by sequential analysis.
t Determined by analysis of a l6-liter sample of column effluent or filtrate.
Notes:1. Sample volumes:
3. NA - not analyzed; NO - not detected, generally < 0.01 pCi/liter.
samples on the same dates. This illustrates the necessityof background measurements to differentiate betweeneffiuent releases and background contributions.Radiochemical analyses of Great Bay water samples(filtrate only) showed maximum concentrations of 0.2pei/liter for 90Sr and 0.5 pCi/liter for mCs.
The predicted radionuclide concentrations in thecoolant canal, given in Tables 4.9 to 4.13, werecalculated from the concentration of radionuclidesdischarged and the dilution factor in the canal. Thedilution factor was assumed to be the ratio of the canalflow rate to waste tank release rate. The waste tankrelease rates and canal flow rates were obtained fromplant personnel. For radionuclides measured withsufficient precision, the ratio of measured to predictedconcentrations was calculated after correcting for anycontribution from recirculation or fallout. These ratioswere not tabulated for the discharge on September 25,1972 (see Table 4.12), because of atypical stationoperation. Wastes were being discharged at levelsabove normal due to problems with the waste treatmentsystem (see Section 4.3.1), and the intake canal
concentrations were comparable to those measured illthe discharge canal during this waste discharge.Measurements in the discharge canal, corrected forrecirculation, were approximately 4 to 5 times lowerthan expected for this sample. Factors that couldexplain lower than predicted concentrations include:
1. the waste tank sample was not representativeof the waste being discharge during sampling;
2. wastes were not discharged during the entiresampling period;
3. the canal flow rate was higher than the stationvalue;
4. sedimentation or settling of suspendedmaterial.
With the exception of the discharge on September 25,1972, the measured to predicted values ranged from 0.6to 1.2 for the radionuclides shown to be quantitativelyretained on the filters and ion-exchange column. Themeasured to predicted ratio was also near unity for 5'Crand 59Fe. Considering the uncertainties involved in thistype of measurement, the relatively good agreementverified the dilution factors calculated from waste
49
Table 4.14 Radionuclides in Background Seawater (Great Bay), pCilliter
April 12. 1972 May 16, 1972 September 27, 1972Radionuclide Filters Filtrate Filters Filters Fil trate
51Cr < 0.2 NA < 0.0654Mn < O. OS < 0.03 < 0.159Fe < 0.0258Co < 0.0160
Co < 0.05 < 0.03 < 0.190
Sr NA 0.24 + 0.02 NA 0.24 + 0.0295
Zr 0.10 + 0.0295
Nb 0.9 + 0.1 NA 0.03 + 0.0199Mo131 r 0.1 + 0.05 NA < 0.02 NA134
Cs < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.1137Cs < 0.02 < 0.5 < 0.01 < 0.01 0.5 + 0.2140 Ba 0.2 + 0.1 NA < 0.0214l
Ce 1.1 + 0.1 NA < 0.06l44Ce 0.63 + 0.07 NA < 0.06147
Nd 0.86 + 0.09 NA
Notes:1. Sample volumes: April 12, 1972 - 300 li I37s filtered, 16 liters of filtrate
analyzed for 90Sr and Cs.May 16, 1972 - 210 liters filtered, filtrate was not analyzed.September 27, 1972 - 210 liters~ 16 liter samples analyzed for
9DSr , 54Mn, 60Co, 137Cs, and 1~4Cs.
2. NA - not analyzed.
effiuent release rates and canal flow rates. Some ofthese uncertainties include:
1. dilution factors based on nominal values ofwaste release and canal flow rates;
2. homogeneous mixing of waste and canal wateris assumed;
3. radionuclides may deposit from canal waterprior to sampling or may be resuspended fromcanal sediment;
4. recirculation effects were not measuredsimultaneously with discharge canal sampling;
5. measurements of radionuclides in liquidwastes after dilution with seawater haveconsiderable' associated uncertainties becauseof the low concentrations.
The high particulate concentration of someradionuclides in the coolant canal is evident from thedata presented in Table 4.15. From 60 to 100 percent ofthe 'tCr, 54Mn, and 60Co were associated with particlescollected by filtration. The low retention of 1J4Cs and
50
137Cs by filtration was similar to that observed in liquidfrom the waste sample tank (see Table 4.3). On May 16,1972, Aowever, 41 and 46 percent, respectively, wereassociated with particles during a discharge from thelaundry drain tank, which may have had a higherfraction of particulate radiocesium than the liquidsfrom the waste sample tank. In general, the fractions of54Mn and 60Co associated with particles in thecirculating coolant water are significantly higher thanthat observed in liquids from the waste sample tank (seeTable 4.3). This would indicate the formation of oradsorption on particulate matter in the 'coolant canal.after release. Other radionuclides retained efficiently byfiltration were 95Nb, 9'Zr, 14°Ba, 14ICe, and )"Ce.
4.4.5 Summary of coolant canal measurements.The coolant canal measurements and tracer studiesprovided an excellent opportunity to develop and verifytechniques for monitoring selected radionuc1idesdischarged by the station to a seawater environment., Itwas apparent from the variable distribution of
Table 4.15 Particulate Radionuclides in Coolant Canal
Percent of measured concentration retained on filtersRadionuclide Jan. 18, 1972 May 16, 1972 Sept. 25, 1972 July 17, 1973
51Cr* 86 + 30 100 + 20
54Mn >60 81 + 8 88 + 20 99 + 5
60Co 70 + 20 88 + 5 84 + 12 97 + 5
134C5 41 + 4 4 + 2 < 15
137Cs 46 + 5 3 + 1 < 5
* 51Filtrate was not analyzed for Cr; the predicted concentration was used insteadof the total measured concentration.
radionuclides between particulate and dissolved speciesthat monitoring techniques in the aqueous environmentof nuclear power stations should be tested under actualconditions to ensure that all physico-chemical speciesare collected. The concentrations of majorradionuclides in the coolant canal were between 0.1 and10 pCi/1 during waste discharge and generallyconsistent with predicted values. The coolant canalstudies showed that monitoring waste discharges afterdilution was difficult because oflow concentrations andrecirculation effects. The advantages and validity ofpredicting radionuclide concentrations discharged toBarnegat Bay by analysis of the liquid waste beforedilution and application of the calculated dilutionfactor were shown.
The observation that several radionuclides in thecoolan! canal were mostly particulate suggests thatrealistic predictions of radionuclide levels in aquaticorganisms based on effiuent concentrations wouldrequire additional information regarding the physicochemical species of these radionuclides in seawater.
4.5References
1. Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission, "Final Environmental Statement Relatedto Operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation," AEC Docket No. 50--219 (1974).
2. Jersey Central Power and Light Company,"Technical Specifications and :Bases for Oyster CreekNuclear Power Plant, Change No.7," Morristown, N.J. (1971).
3. Jersey Central Power and Light Company,"Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station SemiAnnual Repts.," Nos. 4 through 9, Morristown, N. J.,January I, 1971 through December 31,1973.
4. Carroll, J. T., Oyster Creek NuclearGenerating Station, personal communication (1976)..
5. Krieger, H. L. and S. Gold, "Procedures forRadiochemical Analysis of Nuclear Reactor AqueousSolutions," EPA Rept. EPA-R4--73--014 (1973).
6. Pelletier, C. A., "Results of IndependentMeasurements of Radioactivity in Process Systems andEffiuents at Boiling Water Reactors," USAEC Rept.,unpublished (May 1973).
7. Kahn, B., et a1., "Radiological SurveillanceStudies ata Boiling Water Nuclear Power Reactor,"Public Health Service Rept. BRH/DER 70--1 (1970).
8. Kahn, B., et a1., "Radiological SurveillanceStudies at a Pressurized Water Nuclear PowerReactor," EPA Rept. RD 71-1 (1971).
9. Montgomery, D. M., Krieger, H. L. andKahn, B., "Monitoring Low-Level RadioactiveAqueous Discharges from a Nuclear Power Station in aSea Water Environment," in EnvironmentalSurveillance Around Nuclear Installations, IAEA,Vienna, 243 (1974).
51
tidal forces, local wind stresses, the hydraulic headproduced by runoff of rainfall, and density differencesdue to salinity and temperature gradients. Due to theshallowness of the bay, wind can be predominant inmixing and moving water in the bay. The circulation ofwater through Forked River and Oyster Creek will alsoaffect the movement of bay water in the vicinity ofOyster Creek, since this amounts to an approximatelyone-half bay volume per month (see above).
A month-long study of bay water mixing and itstransfer to the ocean was performed by Carpenterduring August 1963. (1) Rhodamine B dye wascontinuously introduced into the water in the mouth ofOyster Creek during .a period when water-bornematerials discharged to the bay would be transferred tothe ocean at a minimum rate. Runoff into the bay wasminimal and the winds were low to moderate. Hence,concentrations near the mouth of Oyster Creek wereexpected to be near maximum during the study month.The observations can be summarized as follows:
(1) The average (minimum) exchange rate ofBarnegat Bay with the ocean is about 14percent a day and the half-life for the exchangeprocess is about 5 days.
(2) All fresh water is introduced to the bay alongthe west shore, which produces a densitygradient across the bay from west to east. Theresulting pressure gradient in combinationwith the Coriolis force produces a current tothe south. This movement is in addition to themovement produced by the hydraulic headassociated with run-off accumulation in theenclosed basin to the north of the inlet.
(3) The predominant wind from the southproduced a flow to the north during the study.This caused a pressure gradient due toaccumulation of water in the enclosednorthern portion of the bay, as the expectedcirculation to the south below the surface isprevented by the shallowness of the bay. Theresult is a reduced displacement of the water.It is expected, however, that some circulationto the south occurs near the shore where thewind speed is less. A wind from the north
s. RADIONUCLIDES IN THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 Oyster Creek and Barnegat BayhydroJogy. (1-4) Condenser cooling water is taken fromBarnegat Bay through a canal extending from the southbranch of Forked River and discharged throughanother canal to Oyster Creek which empties into thebay about 1.8km south of Forked River (see Figure5.1). Both Forked River and Oyster Creek are smallstreams. The average natural discharge of the southbranch of Forked River was estimated to be less than0.14 mJ/s, while for Oyster Creek the mean daily flowduring 196~1969 was 0.71 mJ/s with a maximum of3.5 mJ/s and a minimum of 0.34 mJ/s.(3) The stationutilizes about 1.2 x 10" liters/month which creates aflow in Oyster Creek during operation of about 45mJIs. (5) As the volume of Barnegat Bay isapproximately 2.4 x 10" liters, (3) one-half bay volumeof water is used by the station each month. Hence, thefresh water flow in these streams is insignificantrelative to this large demand which has resulted in areversal of the flow in Forked River producing abrackish water environment up Forked River from thebay through the south branch and in Oyster Creek.Also, when conditions in the bay are such that thedischarge from Oyster Creek is forced northward alongthe west shore, recirculation of station effiuents occurs.
Barnegat Bay (see Figure 5.2) is about 50 km longwith a maximum width of 6.4 km. The bay is shallow,having an average depth of 1. 5 m and a maximumdepth of 6 m. It is isolated from the ocean on the east bytwo narrow barrier beaches, Island Beach and LongBeach, separated by Barnegat Inlet which liesapproximately midway on the bay and 7 km SE fromOyster Creek. Barnegat Inlet provides the main accessto the ocean, as the bay is essentially closed to the northand contains only a small channel into Beach HavenInlet at the southern end. The maximum tidal range ofthe bay is I m, while at the mouth of Oyster Creek it isonly about 0.15 m.
The mixing of radionuclides discharged fromOyster Creek to the bay is complicated and difficult topredict. The movement of water in the bay and throughBarnegat Inlet to the ocean is under the influences of
53
would force a flow to the south, but a smallerpressure gradient would develop as flow fromthe bay would occur through Beach HavenInlet at the southern end of Barnegat Bay. Thedata show that winds can have a greaterinfluence than tidal action on the movement ofwater in the bay.
(4) The bay end of the channel to Barnegat Inletlies only 1.6 km to the south of the mouth ofOyster Creek. Materials discharged fromOyster Creek that drift south are rapidlyflushed along the channel into the oceanduring ebb tide. Hence, material that is in thisarea at the beginning of ebb tide is dischargeddirectly into the ocean. Relatively constantvertical salinity profiles in the central portionof the bay indicate the strong influence of tidalaction in this region.
(5) Concentration profiles for a constantdischarge derived from the data are notparticularly applicable to actual stationdischarges. That is, after termination of aperiodic batch discharge, the concentration atsome point in the bay, depending on theconditions discussed above, will exceed that inOyster Creek.
This complex hydrology of the bay and the batchwise discharge of wastes by the station make itextremely difficult to predict quantitatively theconcentration of radionuclides relative to time ofdischarge by the station and location in the bay.
5.1.2 Studies near Oyster Creek. The measurementsdescribed in Section 4.4 showed that radionuclidesfrom the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Station were inthe circulating coolant water discharge canal (OysterCreek) and possibly were III measureableconcentrations in Barnegat Bay. Sampling was mostlyconfined to Oyster Creek and Barnegat Bay betweenCedar Creek and Waretown. Some samples werecollected from other areas of the bay to determineoverall radionuclide distribution. Samples of water,macro-algae, aquatic plants, fish, clams, crabs andsediment were collected. These studies are described indetail in Sections 5.2 to 5.7.
5.1.3 Aquatic surveillance studies by stationoperator. Radioactivity in the aquatic environment ismonitored by the station operator and reportedquarterly. (5) Samples of surface water, silt and clamsare collected routinely and analyzed for gamma-rayemitters, 90Sr and gross alpha and beta radioactivity.Surface water is sampled at five sites: one in ForkedRiver, one in Oyster Creek, and three in the bay (nearthe mouth of Oyster Creek, 3.2 km NE of Forked River
54
and about 3 km east of Waretown). Silt samples arecollected from the same five sites as surface water,while clams are collected from the three bay sites.Average concentrations in samples are reported eachquarter for the combined sites. The station operator'saquatic analyses summarized semi-annually forJanuary 1970 to November 1973 are given in AppendixE.l. The results of the four-year surveillance programshow no increase of radioactivity in these samples withtime. Except in the few cases of 6'Zn in clam meat, theresults are similar to preoperational data. The 6'Znconcentrations were slightly above the minimumdetectable level of 0.09 pCi/gm.
5.1.4 Aquatic surveillance studies by the State. TheNew Jersey State Department of EnvironmentalProtection, Bureau of Radiation Protection (BRP), hasconducted a thorough radiological surveillanceprogram of the aquatic environment in the vicinity ofthe nuclear power station since 1970. (6, 7) This studyincluded a greater variety of aquatic samples thfln thatof the operator's program discussed above. Samplesanalyzed were surface water, silt, benthic macro-algae,aquatic plants, fish, clams and crabs. The principalstation-produced radionuclides observed in thesesamples were 54Mn and 60Co. The results of the state's1971 and 1972 surveillance program are discussedbelow. (6, 7)
Grab samples of surface water were obtainedduring 1971 and 1972 from Oyster Creek, ForkedRiver, Barnegat Bay and Great Bay. Station-producedradionuclides were detected in concentrations abovethe minimum detectable level only in Oyster Creek andForked River. However, results based on grab samplesare not particularly informative because they aredependent upon sampling time relative to the time ofstation discharge as well as conditions in the bay(discussed in Section 5.1.1). The BRP sampled.watercontinuously. in Oyster Creek at Sands Point Marinafrom April through De~ember 1972 and in the SouthBranch of Forked River at the station condenser inletfrom January to April 1973.(7) The averageconcentrations are given in Appendix E.2. Although allconcentrations are low, they reflect higher levels ofreactor-produced radionuclides in Oyster Creek than inForked River.
Average annual radionuclide concentrations forsediment samples collected in 1971 and 1972 fromOyster Creek, Forked River and Barnegat Bay are alsogiven in Appendix E.2. The 1972 concentrations of54Mn and 60Co in sediments were significantly less thanin 1971. Zinc-65 was not detected « 0.2 pCi/g) andonly possible traces of "Co « 0.15 pCi/g) and 1J4Cs« 0.15 pCi/g) were present. These results indicate that
effiuents from the station are deposited in OysterCreek, Forked River and along the west shore ofBarnegat Bay, possibly as far north as Cedar Creek.
Radionuclide concentrations were measured inbenthic macro-algae and marine grasses collected fromBarnegat Bay and several other sites in the vicinity. Themost commonly sampled species were C fragile, Ulactuca, G. verrucosa and the grass, Z marina. Theaverage radionuclide concentrations are listed inAppendix E.2 for samples collected in 1971 and 1972from sites in the bay near the mouth of Oyster Creek,near the mouth of Cedar Creek and east of Waretown.Radionuclides were concentrated from the water in allspecies. The greatest concentrations were measured inG. verrucosa and the least in' C fragile. The averageconcentrations in all species were significantly higherin 1971. The fallout radionuclide, IO'Ru, was observedonly in 1972. The two standard deviation uncertaintiesfor the 5BCO values in 1971 are included to indicate thesmall differences, in some cases, between the averageconcentration and the minimum detectable level. Stemsand roots of four samples of Z marina were analyzedseparately and the roots were found to contain morethan twice the "Mn and ,oCo (root/stem = 2.1 ± 0.3).
Radionuclide concentrations were measured inwhole fish collected from Barnegat Bay during 1971and 1972. Concentrations were generally belowminimum detectable levels. Of 13 samples collected in1972, trace amounts of'oCo were observed in 5 samples,137Cs in 6 samples, D4CS in one sample and 90Sr in 8·samples. Since the whole fish was analyzed, it is notknown with which tissues these radionuclides wereassociated.
The average radionuclide concentrations and theconcentration range observed in shellfish (Mercenariamercenaria) meat collected from Barnegat Bay nearWaretown and near the mouths of Oyster and CedarCreeks are listed in Appendix E.2. The principalradionuclides discharged by the station and detected inthe clam meat are 54Mn, 5BCO and ,oCo. As observed inthe sediment and algae samples, concentrations inclams collected during 1972 were less than in 1971.
No significant radionuclide concentrations wereobserved in crab meat collected in 1972. Two samplescollected from Oyster Creek in 1971 contained smallquantities of"Co, ,oCo and "Zn.
The results described briefly above, abstracted fromBRP reports, (6, 7) will be utilized in later discussions.
5.1.5 Other aquatic studies. A number of nonradiological environmental studies have beenconducted in Barnegat Bay near Oyster Creek. Benthicflora and fauna of Barnegat Bay have been studiedsince 1965 by Rutgers University to assess the speciespopulation before and after the onset of warm waterdischarges by the station. (8) A finfish study ofBarnegat Bay was also performed by the Department ofEnvironmental Sciences at Rutgers University.(9,JO)Acensus consisting of more than 60 species of fish wasobtained. The results of these studies will be utilized inthe discussions appearing later in this report.
Some studies are in progress from which data arenot yet available. These include the continuation of thestudies by Rutgers, and a benthic survey of the NewJersey coastal waters by the Sandy Hook Laboratory,U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, which alsoconsiders the effects of thermal addition on benthicalgae and organisms. New Jersey's Department ofEnvironmental Protection, Bureau of Fisheries, hasrecently completed a study of bay finfish and relatedphysical and chemical parameters, but the report hasnot been published.
5.2 Surface Water Concentration ofRadionuclides and Stahle Elements5.2.1 Sampling and analysis. Eight-liter water
samples were collected from Oyster Creek, ForkedRiver, Barnegat Bay and Great Bay during each fieldtrip at the sites from which flora and fauna wereobtained. Sampling was repeated four times during al2-month period at three sites in Barnegat Bay, nearWaretown and near the mouths of Oyster and CedarCreeks, and from Great Bay, the control sampling siteindicated by an X in Figure 5.2. The dates on which thesamples were collected and the site locations are listedin Table 5.1 and shown in Figures 5.1 and 5.2. Thewater temperatures and salinities were measured at thetime of sampling.* The unacidified water samples werereturned to the laboratory in polyethylene bottles foranalysis.
Two-liter aliquots of the water samples wereanalyzed for 90Sr and 1J7Cs by the sequential proceduredescribed in Section 4.4.2. Samples collected duringOctober 18-21, 1971, were also analyzed for 54Mn and,oCo using the same procedure. The stable elements,except potassium, were determined by atomic
·Water temperature determinations were made using a Model 43-TD Telethermometer of the Yellow SpringsInstrument Company. Salinities were determined with a Model 10423 Goldberg Refractometer specificallydesigned by American Optical Instrument Company for direct reading measurements.
55
56
CodarBoach
@
Barnogat Bay
M'I 0 0,5 1.0~~s II-...L....L..J'-I,''--J..'--rj__..L1 --.,
,:,0 0.5 1.0 2.0
Figure 5.1 Aquatic sampling sites near the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
Table 5.1 Concentration of Stable Elements in Surface Water
DateCollected
WaterLocation* temperature, °c
Salini ty(ppt)
Ca(mg/1 )
Sr(Tllg/ 1)
K(mg/ 1)
Oct. 18, 1971
Oct. 19, 1971
Oct. 21, 1971
Oct. 21, 1971
Oct. 21, 1971
Oct. 21, 1971
April 17, 1972
April 18, 1972
April 18, 1972
April 19, 1972
July 10, 1972
July 11, 1972
July 12, 1972
July 12, 1972
Oct. 31, 1972
Oct. 31, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 2, 1972
Nov. 2,1972
*
D
F
E
I
C
G
GB-X
H
B
G
GB-X
H
B
G
GB- X
L
H
B
G
N
M
N~1**
NM
NM
NM
16
17
13
11
15
13
24
NM
33
24
11
10
11
13
11
10
11
16
22
22
24
20
21
29
25
24
22
28
28
23
24
23
28
22
22
22
16
17
190
290
NM
281
248
257
333
281
NM
219
29S
262
219
286
NM
NM
276
267
276
228
276
4.2
5.4
NM
5.7
4.9
5.3
6.7
5.4
NM
5.1
5.6
5.2
4.6
5.3
NM
NM
5.4
5.1
4.9
4.5
5.2
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
206
205
210
190
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
See Figures 5.1 and 5.2 for sampling locations; GB-X indicates site X in GreatBay.
**NM - not measured.
Note: Stable elements below the minimum detectable level were: Fe «0.07 mg/l),Mn « O. 1 mg/ 1) and Co « 0.2 mg/1).
absorption spectrophotometry. Potassium concentrations were based on .oK radioactivity, assuming 848pCi ,oK/gK.
In addition to the 8-liter water samples describedabove, larger volumes of water were collected on May15-16, 1972, and September 28, 1972, In the earliercase, 105- to 210-liter samples from 5 sites in BarnegatBay and one site in Great Bay were filtered through 8and 0045-micron membrane filters in series, and 20liters of the filtrate were retained for sequential analysisof "Mn, oOCo, 90Sr and "'Cs. On the second occasion,
150- to 380-liter samples from 5 sites in Barnegat Baywere passed through 0045-micron cartridge filters (seeSection 404.3) and the filtrate was discarded. Themembrane and cartridge filters were analyzed bygamma-ray spectrometry with a 54-cmJ Ge(Li)detector. Since the filtrates were not analyzed in thelatter sampling, only the insoluble or particulateradionuclides were measured.
5.2.2 Stable elements in surface water. Theconcentration of stable strontium, calcium andpotassium measured in water samples from Oyster
57
Figure 5.2 Aquatic sampling sites in the area of theOyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
Creek, Forked River, Barnegat Bay and Great Bay arelisted in Table 5.1. Concentrations of iron, manganeseand cobalt were below minimum detectable levels in allsamples. Also included in the table are the watertemperatures and salinities· at the time of collection.Being an estuarine environment, the salinities andstable element concentrations vary somewhat, but notgreatly within Bameg~t Bay. The lowest salinities weremeasured in Oyster Creek (D) and at the northern endof Barnegat Bay (N), where the influence of fresh wateris greatest (see Section 5.1.1). Salinities were relativelyhigh in Great Bay, which is more open to the oceanthan Barnegat Bay. The average salinity of all watersamples is 23 ± 4 00/0 , Since the mean salinity ofAtlantic Ocean water is 34.90 00
/ 0,(4) the water in thevicinity of Oyster Creek consists of about 66 + 10percent ocean water and 34 + 6 percent fresh water.
In the first line of Table 5.2 are presented the meanconcentrations in mg/liter of stable calcium, strontiumand potassium, with the standard deviations of theindividual measurements. The Sr/Ca ratios of thewater samples from the bay varied between 17.8 and23.3 mg Sr/g Ca, with a mean and standard deviationof 19.9 + 1.3 mg Sr/g Ca. Concentrations of iron,manganese and cobalt were below the minimumdetectable levels indicated and could not be measured.Since salinity is a measure of dissolved salts, principallyNa, Mg, Ca and K, it indicates the relative amounts offresh water and sea water. In principle, it is possible toestimate the concentration of stable elements in the baywater from salinity measurements and concentrationsnormally observed in fresh and pelagic ocean water.Given in Table 5.2 are the concentrations reported tobe in fresh and pelagic Atlantic Ocean water. Allapproximate concentration is obtained by summing theproducts of the fresh and ocean water concentrationsmultiplied by the measured mean salinity fractionsgiven above, 0.34 + 0.06 and 0.66 + 0.10,respectively.t The esti~ated conoentrations are givenin the last line of Table 5.2. The calculatedconcentrations for calcium, strontium and potassiumagree with the measured mean concentrations. Thismight be expected since the concentration of theseelements are relatively uniform in pelagic ocean watersand relatively small in fresh water. The concentrationscalculated for iron, manganese and cobalt, however,depend on their normally greater concentrations infresh water, which vary greatly between geographicallocations. For these elements a concentration range hasbeen calculated which spans one or more magnitudes.
These values indicate that measurement of Mn, Feand Co requires an increase in analytical sensitivity ofat least two orders of magnitude. This can be done byaltering the analytical technique or incorporating aconcentration process ioto the procedure. Knowledgeof these concentrations is useful, as their radioactiveisotopes are discharged by the station and theirpresence influences the uptake of the radioactiveisotope by marine organisms.
5.2.3 Radionuclides in surface water. The results ofthe radiochemical analyses of the 8-liter grab samp,lescollected during October 1971 and three times during1972 are listed in Table 5.3. Since the volumes availablefor each analysis were only 2 to 4 liters and theradionuclide concentrations were quite low, the results
·Salinities are given in units of parts per thousand (ppt).
t An example of this calculation for Ca is 15 mg/I x 0.34 + 400 mg/I x 0.66 = 269 mg/liter.
58
Table 5.2 Average Measured and Estimated Stable Elements in Water, mg/l
Ca Sr K
Source' Fresh Sea Fresh Sea Fresh Sea"--_._-----------------
This study 269 + 35 5.3 ,+ 0,5 205 + 10
Ref. 11 15 400 0.1 8 3 380
Ref. 12 400 7.7
Ref. 13 11-79 400 0.02-0.18 8.0
Ref. 14 15 410 0.07 8 2.3 390
Ref. 15 400 8.1 340
Est. cone. * 270 + 40 5.3 + 0.8 245 + 40
Fe Mn Co
Source Fresh Sea Fresh Sea Fresh Sea
This study < 0.07 < 0.1 < 0.2
Ref. 11 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.005 0.001
Ref. 12 0.0001 0.00013
Ref. 13 0.03-0.2 0.01 0.005-0.03 0.002 0.004-0.007 0.0005
Ref. 14 0.03 0.007 0.002 0.001 0.0004
Ref. 15 0.002-0.02 0.002-0.004 0.0005
Est. cone. * 0.012-0.088 0.0018-0.013 0.0004-0.0027
*Computed estimated concentrations 0.34 x cone. in fresh water + 0.66 x cone. in sea water.
reflect considerable uncertainty in the measurements.The 137Cs concentration in Barnegat Bay ranged from0.2 to 1.3 pCi/liter. The "'Cs concentrations inbackground samples from Great Bay were 0.4 + 0.1and 0.3 + 0.1 pCi/liter, similar to that observed inChesapeake Bay water (about 0.3 pCi/liter).(16) Onlythree samples from Barnegat Bay had 137Csconcentrations at or in excess of 1 pCi/liter. Aftercorrecting the measured concentrations for thebackground IJ?Cs from fallout, the 1J7Cs concentrationsof all Barnegat Bay samples were less than 1 pCi/liter,and the average concentration in the bay resulting fromstation discharges was about 0.3 pCi/liter.
The 90Sr concentrations in the Barnegat Bay watersamples varied from < 0.1 to 2.6 pCi/liter. The .0Srconcentrations of two background samples from GreatBay were 0.50 + 0.06 and 0.36 + 0.04 pCi/liter, withan average specific activity of 0.070 ± 0.008 pCi.0Sr/mg Sr. The only samples having .0Srconcentrations significantly greater than that of thebackground samples were those collected during theperiod of October 18-21, 1971. The average specificactivity of these samples was 0.37 + 0.08 pCi .0Sr/mg
Sr, while in samples collected during 1972 the averagespecific activity was 0.07 + 0.04, similar to that insamples from Great Bay. After correcting themeasured values for the background contribution fromfallout, the 90Sr concentrations in the October 1971samples varied from 1.3 to 2.2 pCi/liter. These sampleswere collected during the month when the stationreported discharging the highest .oSr levels during 1971and 1972. The average .oSr concentration in OysterCreek was 1.57 pCi/liter during October 1971compared to annual averages of 0.34 and 0.21 pCi/literof ··Sr + .oSr in 1971 and 1972, respectively (seeAppendix B.4). In view of the relatively high level of90Sr discharged in October 1971, the .0Sr concentrationsobserved in Barnegat Bay water samples during thisperiod are reasonable and attributable to stationdischarges.
Manganese-54 concentrations in the Barnegat Baywater samples collected during October 18-21, 1971were less than 3 pCi/liter, and, with the exception oftwo locations, 60Co concentrations were less than 2pCi/liter. The 60Co concentrations of samples collectednear the mouth of Cedar Creek (G) and off Island
59
Table 5.3 Concentration of ·'Sr and "'Cs in
Barnegat and Great Bay Water Samples
Date 137 c5 , 90Sr ,Collected Location** pCi/l pCi/l
Oct. 18, 1971 D 0.8 + 0.2 1.7 + 0.4
Oct. 19, 1971 F 1.0 + 0.2 1.9 + 0.4
Oct. 21, 1971 E 0.9 + 0.2 1.5 + 0.3
Oct. 21, 1971 I 0.7 + 0.2 1.5 + 0.3
Oct. 21, 1971 C 0.5 + 0.2 1.8 + 0.3
Oct. 21, 1971 G 0.5 + 0.2 2.6 + 0.4
April 17, 1972 GB-X 0.3 + 0.1 0.50 + 0.06
April 18, 1972 H 0.4 + 0.1 NAt
April 18, 1972 B 1.3 + 0.3 0.58 + 0.05
April 19, 1972 G 0.2 + 0.1 0.25 + 0.05
July 10, 1972 GB-X 0.4 + 0.1 0.36 + 0.04
July 11, 1972 H 0.4 + 0.1 0.24 + 0.05
July 12, 1972 B 0.8 + 0.2 0.19 + 0.04
July 12, 1972 G 1. a + 0.2 0 ..16 ~ 0.04
Oct. 31, 1972 GB-X NA NA
Oct. 31, 1972 L NA NA
Nov. 1, 1972 H 0.8 + 0.2 0.9 + 0.1
Nov. 1, 1972 B 0.8 + 0.2 0.3 + 0.1
Nov. 1, 1972 G 0.6 + 0.2 0.4 + 0.1
Nov. 2, 1972 N 0.4 + 0.1 < 0.1
Nov. 2, 1972 M 0.6 + 0.1 0.2 + 0.1
* In all samples the 54Mn and 60Coconcentrations were < 3 pCi/l and< 2 pCi/1,respectively, except for those collectedOct. 21, 1971, at locations C and G in whichthe 60Co concentrations were 3 + 2 and7 + 2 pCi/1, respectively.
** -Locations refer to Figure 5.1; GB-X indicatessite X in Great Bay.
.l-
I NA _ not analyzed; ~ values are 20 and< values are 30 of the count rate.
Beach (C) were 7 + 2 and 3 + 2 pCi/liter, respectively.These concentrations appear high compared to theaverage calculated oOCo concentration of 1.05 pCi/literin Oyster Creek during October 1971 (see AppendixB.4). It is possible that these samples were collectedafter discharge of wastes in Oyster Creek that produced00Co concentrations substantially greater than themonthly average. Samples collected during 1972 werenot analyzed radiochemically for "Mn or oOCo.
The large volume water samples collected duringthe period May 15-16, 1972, show no "Mn, oOCo, .0Sr or
60
137Cs attributable to station operation (see Table 5.4).During this period, only laundry wastes were beingdischarged. Manganese-54 and oOCo concentrationswere less than 0.05 and 0.6 pCi/liter for the suspendedand dissolved (filtrate) fractions, respectively. Cesium137 concentrations in the filtrates ranged from 0.40 to0.57 pCi/liter, while the average 90Sr concentration wasabout 0.3 pCi/liter, near the levels that would beexpected as a result offallout.
The results for the water samples collectedSeptember 28, 1972, from Barnegat Bay, Oyster Creekand the south fork of Forked River are given in Table5.5. Since only the filters were analyzed, the reportedconcentrations refer to suspended radionuclides. Theonly detectable gamma-ray-emitting radionuclideswere "Mn and oOCo. Manganese-54 and oOCo werefound in every sample except that no 5'Mn was detectedin the sample collected from Barnegat Inlet (P). Thestation was discharging wastes on September 28, 1972,as indicated by the relatively high 5'Mn and oOCoconcentrations measured in Oyster Creek and ForkedRiver. The radionuclide concentrations in BarnegatBay samples were all lower than concentrations inOyster Creek, and the only bay sample withconcentrations higher than in Forked River was takenjust north of the river (A). The concentrations inForked River can be higher than those in Barnegat Baybecause wastes discharged into the bay from OysterCreek can recirculate through Forked River. The baymeasurements, however, cannot be related to effiuentvalues from the station because the effects of wind andtide on the dilution of wastes from Oyster Creek intothe bay cannot be predicted (see Section 5.1.1). Thesesamples were collected during a period when thestation was discharging wastes almost daily, so thatradionuclide concentrations in the bay reflect multipledischarges.
The 5'Mn and oOCo measurements were notquantitative since only the suspended radionuclideswere measured and no data regarding the distributionof radionuclides between suspended and dissolvedspecies in Barnegat Bay are available. Measurements inthe discharge canal showed that 66 percent to 96percent of 5'Mn and oOCo discharged to Oyster Creekwere associated with suspended material (see Section4.4.4). These measurements, however, reflect thefraction of 5'Mn and oOCo in particulate form in seawater after only a short residence time, and it is possiblethat the distribution between suspended and dissolvedspecies may change after longer residence times inBarnegat Bay. The measurements do show thatinsoluble radionuclides can be detected at distances of3.1 km north and 8.5 km south of Oyster Creek, as well
Table 5.4 Radionuclide Concentrations in Water Samples Collected May 15-16, 1972
Concentrations,
Sample Suspended Salini ty pCi/l
Location vol. , 1 solids, mg/1 pH g/l90
Srl37
Cs.in Forked River (E) 105 18 7.4 18.4 0.32 0.57
In Bay near Waretown (H) 105 17 7.5 20.2 0.32 0.40
in Bay near Gulf Point (L) 107 17 7.3 23.5 0.25 0.44
in Bay near Toms River (M) 105 18 7.3 16.4 NA NA
in Oyster Creek Channel (N) 210 17 7.4 22.6 NA NA
in Great Bay 210 28 7.1 28.4 NA NA
Notes:
1. Letters refer to locations in Figure 5.1.
2. Concentrations of 54Mn and 60Co in filtered solids were < 0.05 pCi/liter, andin filtrates <0.6 pCi/liter, in all samples.
3. Concentrations of 90Sr and l37Cs measured in 20-liter volumes of thefil trates.
annual total dilution volume (seeNo adjustment was made for
as in the channel leading into the Atlantic Ocean.The sampling on September 28, 1972 occurred
when levels of radionuclides discharged by the stationwere unusually high because of problems associatedwith the waste treatment system. (5) During 1972 thestation reported discharging 1.8 Ci of"OCo, of which 1.2Ci (67 percent) was released during August andSeptember of that year. (5) Likewise, a total of 0.63 Ciof 54Mn was discharged during 1972, while 0.45 Ci (71percent) of this total was released during the same twomonths of 1972. (5)
5.2.4 Hypothetical radionuclide concentrations inthe discharge canal (Oyster Creek). Becauseconcentrations of radionuclides discharged by thestation were in most cases near or below minimumdetectable levels in the discharge canal and BarnegatBay water, average water concentrations in OysterCreek were calculated from data reported by thestation. (5) The average radionuclide concentrationscalculated to be present in Oyster Creek during theperiod of study are shown in Table 5.6. The averageannual concentrations in Oyster Creek in the first threedata columns are based on quantities dischargedmonthly and the total available dilution reported by thestation (see Appendix B.4). The station reported thetotal combined activities of 89Sr and 90Sr for 1971 and1972. The average concentrations listed in the fourthdata column were taken from Table 4.6. These valueswere calculated from measured concentrations ofliquids in the waste sampling tank and the laundrydrain tank and the average annual liquid waste volume
and the averageSection 4.4.1).recirculation.
For the 17 radionuclides for which a comparison ofconcentrations obtained by the two procedures ispossible, 12 agreed within a factor of three. The valuesof 90Sr, 1331, 134CS, IJ7Cs, 1<DBa and 239Np differed by amuch larger factor. Because concentrations based onmonitoring all discharges as reported by the stationshould be superior to those based on the occasionalperiodic samples from the waste sample tank, theaverage concentrations based on the 1971-1973 valuesreported by the station will be utilized later in thisreport to indicate the concentration of radionuclides inthe aquatic pathways. For those radionuclides notmeasured by the station, the values obtained from theanalysis of liquid wastes prior to discharge andappearing in the last column of Table 5.6 will be used.However, concentrations in Oyster Creek at any timecould differ considerably from these averages becausereactor wastes are discharged periodically, and theradionuclide composition of these wastes changes withtime.
5.3 Radionuclides in Algae and Grass
5.3.1 Sampling and analysis. Three species ofmacro-algae (Gracilaria verrucosa, Codium fragile,Ulva lactuca), two aquatic grasses (Zostera marina,Spartina altemifJora) and a sponge (Ponfera) werecollected. Ten locations were initially sampled during
61
Table 5.5 Particulate Radionuclides in Water Samples Collected September 28, 1972
Concentrations,
Sample Suspended Sal ini ty, pCi/l
Location-Collection Time Vol. , 1 solids, gIl pH ppt5d
Mn 60Co
in Bay near Sunrise Beach,0920 (0) 151 NA NA NA 0.09 0.38
in Bay north of ForkedRiver 1630 (A) 151 80 7.6 25.2 0.99 2.23
in Bay near Waretown,1000 (H) 151 NA NA NA 0.31 0.66
in Bay near Waretown,1530 (H) 189 49 7.4 25.6 0.55 1. 08
ln Bay near Gulf Point,1440 (R) 114 51 7.4 26.6 0.26 0.64
in Bay near BarnegatInlet, 1400 (P) 378 9 7.6 31. 5 < 0.01 0.07
in Oyster Creek, 1030 (D) 91 15 7.5 24.8 2.19 3.98
South Branch ForkedRiver, 1115 (E) 76 30 7.3 24.1 0.67 1.72
Notes:
1. Letters refer to locations in Figure 5.1 ; times refer to beginning ofcollection.
2. Concentrations are based on analysis of cartridge fi Iter ..
3. No other photon-emitting radionuclides were detected on filter«0.05 pCi/l).
4. Tide: low-tide (0.03 m) at approx. 0810 and high tide (1. 65 m) atapprox. 1430.
5. Wind: from NE at 10-15 mph.
6. NA - not analyzed.
September and October 1971. Of these, three wereselected as sites of sufficient productivity andimportance to be resampled three additional times overa 12-month period (April, July and October, 1972): inthe bay near the mouth of Oyster Creek (B), at themouth of Cedar Creek (G) and near Waretown (H) (seeFigure 5.1). It was initially planned to use the site inBarnegat Bay at Surf City (I) to obtain backgroundsamples, but ,oCo and "Mn were found in samples fromthere. Background samples, instead, were obtainedfrom Great Bay, 36 km south of Oyster Creek (site X).To determine the extent of the distribution· ofradionuclides from the station in Barnegat Bay,samples were also collected on October 31, 1972 toNovember 2, 1972 at the northern extremity of the bay
62
at Sloop Point (N), near the mouth of Toms River (M),and at the southern extremity of the bay in Little EggHarbor (L).
The samples were dried at 960 C, ashed at 4500 C,and analyzed directly by gamma-ray spectrometry with10-- x lO-cm Nal(TI) detectors, a Nal(Tl) gamma-raycoincidence-anticoincidence spectrometer system, andwith 54-cm3 or 85-cm3 Ge(Li) detectors. Iron waschemically separated, and analyzed for 55Fe with an xray proportional detector. The stable elements, Sr, Caand Fe, were determined with an atomic absorptionspectrophotometer. To analyze, for volatileradionuclides, particularly 'H, 14C and I"l, aliquots ofthe fresh sample were analyzed prior to drying andashing. The analyses for 'H and 14C were made by
Table 5.6 Average Radionuclide Concentration in the Discharge Canal, pCi/l
Calculated from valuesreported by station* Calculated from measured
Radionuc1ide 1971 1972 1973 effluent samples,**
12.3 -yr 3H 21. 1 50.8 31. 9 37.7
5730 -yr 14C NRt NR NR 0.0075
14.3 -d 32p NR NR NR 0.056
27.7 -d 51 Cr 0.15 0.10 0.40 0.48
313 -d 54Mn 0.42 0.48 0.15 0.39
2.7 :.yr 55 Fe NR NR NR 0.49
44.6 -d 59Fe 0.05 0.02 0.008 0.063
71. 3 -d 58Co 0.10 0.12 0.036 0.047
5.26-yr 60Co 0.79 1. 26 0.24 0.81
12.8 -hr 64Cu NR NR NR 0.011
244 -d 65Zn < 0.011 < 0.036 < 0.011 0.0046
26 -hr 76As NR NR NR 0.045
50.5 -d 89Sr}0.34 } 0.21
0.18 0.012
28.5 -yr 90Sr 0.024 0.0011
9.7 -hr 91 Sr 0.05 0.05 0.002 ND t
65 -d95 Zr
}NR }<0.002 }NR0.015
35.1 -d95Nb 0.023
66.2 -hr 99Mo 0.11 0.17 0.21 0.14
6.0 -hr 99"'rc 0.10 0.16 0.21 NO
39.6 -d 103Ru NR NR NR 0.011
36 -hr 105Rh NR NR NR 0.043
253 ~d1l0mAg NR NR NR 0.0015
60.2 -d 124Sb 0.003 0.003 NO 0.0083
8.06-d 131 r 0.38 0.35 0.077 0.12
20.9 -hr 133r 0.28 0.31 0.063 0.041
'2.07-yr 134Cs 0.10 1. 45 0.074 2.1
30 -yr 137Cs 0.25 2.14 0.073 3.5
12.8 -d140Ba 0.16 0.054 0.12 0.027
32.4 -d141
Ce NR NR 0.005 0.034
284 -d144Ce NR NR 0.018 0.025
235 -d239
Np 0.63 0.48 0.22 0.026
*See Appendix B.4
**Concentrations from Table 4.6
t NR _ not reported; NO - not detected
Note: A~proximate1Y 0.6 Ci of 133Xe, 1.8 Ci of 135 Xe and small quantities of8 mKr and 88Kr ~ 0.03 Ci) were discharged annually in the water, butaeration would be expected to expel these nuclides.
63
Notes:1. The number of samples analyzed is given
in parentheses.2. ± values are the standard deviation of
individual measurements.
treating 5-g aliquots of fresh sample in a combustiontrain, collecting water and CO2, and measuring theradioactivity with a liquid scintillation counter. Theminimum detectable concentrations at the 95 percentconfidence level were 250 pCi 'Hlkg fresh weight andan excess of 6.3 dpm "C/g C above the normalbackground concentration.
Because of the various drying periods in transit tothe laboratory, it was difficult to ascertain appropriateash weight/wet weight ratios for the algae samples. Thestate's Bureau of Radiation Protection (BRP) hasreported ash weight/fresh' weight ratios for four ofthese species, and the average ratios are significantlylower since its laboratory is so near the collection sitesthat drying in transit is minimal. (6) The followingvalues and standard deviations for this ratio werefound:
Ash weight/fresh weight
Codium fragIle (17)Gracilana
verrucosa (14)Ulva lactuca (14)Zostera marina (5)Spartina
alterniflora (10)Ponfera (2)
thislaboratory
0.029 ± 0.014
0.085 ± 0.0450.055 ± 0.0250.028 ± 0.009
0.032 ± 0.0070.136 ± 0.050
New Jersey, BRP0.014 ± 0.005
0.036 ± 0.0080.027 ± 0.0120.022 ± 0.003
no value givenno value given
the various sites in either Barnegat Bay or Great Bay.These data indicate, as did the water analyses (seeSection 5.2.2), that strontium, calcium and potassiumare uniformly distributed throughout the bay. Thesame is true of iron. There does appear to be a decreasein the concentration of strontium, calcium and iron inalgae samples collected during the fall of the year.Concentrations averaged 70 percent higher in samplescollected during the summer relative to those collectedin the fall. This is probably due to a reduced level of orlack of cell division in algae in the colder (11 0 C) watersof November relative to average summer temperatures(270 C). (17) The algae collected in the fall, particularlyC fragile and U. lactuca, were less abundant and in apoorer condition than in the summer, apparently beingin the early stages of cellular degeneration or dead.
The annual average concentrations of stableelements and the Sr/Ca weight ratio measured in eachspecies of algae and grass from all sites are listed inTable 5.8. There are no significant differences in theconcentrations of iron, strontium or calcium in thevarious species of algae and grasses, only in potassium.
The Sr/Ca weight ratio in the marine plants is thesame as that measured in the water (see Section 5.2.2),ie., OR* = 1. Except possibly for C tragile, the Sr/Caratios in the algae are less than that observed in thewater. The average OR in these species of algae is about0.6, indicating either an affinity for calcium ordiscrimination against strontium. This observation isconsistent with the mean concentration factors (CF)tabulated below which, at equilibrium, is defined as(mglkg fresh weight)sample -;- (mg/liter)water:
Concentration factors
tAn estimate assuming a water concentration of0.04 mg Fe/liter (see Section 5.2.2).
Notes:1. Concentrations in mg/g ash were converted to
mglkg fresh weight by using the ratios inSection 5.3.1.Concentrations in water were taken fromTable 5.1.
2. ± values are standard deviations ofindividual observations.
The agreement for Z marina is to be expected becausethis grass does not dehydrate as rapidly as the algae.The same is probably true of Spartina. To convert theash weight values given in the following Tables to freshweight values, it is recommended that the BRP ratiosbe applied to the three species of algae, that thislaboratory's ratios be applied to the two species ofgrass, and one-half the value (0.07) be applied to thePonfera samples.
5.3.2 Results and discussion of stable elementconcentrations. The concentrations of stable elementsmeasured in the algae and marine plant samples arelisted in Table 5.7 according to collection date and site.No significant difference in stable elementconcentrations was observed in samples collected from
·OR (Observed Ratio) = (Sr/Ca),ample -;- (Sr/Ca)w,'"
64
Species ~ Sr CaC fragIle 3,200 0.8 ± 0.3 0.9 ± 0.3G. verrucosa 6,300 1.0 ± 0.3 1.6 ± 0.8U lactuca 5,400 0.9 ± 0.4 1.7 ± 0.9Spartina 4,000 1.4 ± 0.2 1.8 ± 0.9Z marina 8,400 1.9 ± 0.4 1.9 ± 0.4
K
1.6 ± 0.534 ± 87 ± 2
13 ±46 ± 2
Table 5.7 Stable Ion Concentrations in Algae and Marine Plants, mg/g Ash
SampleNo. Collection Date Sarnp1e* Ca Sr
Bay at mouth of Oyster Cr~ek (B)**
Fe++
K
4
5
6
9
30
45
44
46
43
58
60
59
61
Sept. 23, 1971
Sept. 23, 1971
Sept. 23, 1971
Oct. 18, 1971
April 12, 1972
July 12, 1972
July 12, 1972
July 12, 1972
July 12, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
C
G
Z
S
U
C
G
U
S
C
G
U
S
9.5
4.0
8.4
11.0
11.0
19.0
22.2
22.3
27.1
16.8
9.3
5.6
15.9
0.37
0.09
0.20
0.37
0.19
0.22
0.23
0.25
0.22
0.23
0.12
0.08
0.25
2.2 35
4.2 212
8.9 46
2.3 63
10.0 84
15.6 27
12.7 271
13.2 52
6.8 87
7.1 20
5.6 256
7.3 40
1. 9 104
26
25
32
31
50
49
48
63
65
64
Oct. 21, 1971
Oct. 21, 1971
Apri 1 19, 1972
April 19, 1972
July 12, 1972
July 12, 1972
July 12, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Bay near mouth of Cedar Creek (G)
C 23.8 0.42
G 40.2 0.41
C 19.9 0.30
U 25.2 0.21
C 15.7 0.20
G 14.1 0.13
U 30.9 0.31
C NA + NA
G 8.0 0.10
U 9.8 0.14
4.9
8.9
12.1
10.8
10.9
10.0
17.9
15.4
2.2
10.5
25
123
25
60
19
170
45
26
212
55
28
29
42
40
39
55
57
56
April 18, 1972
April 18, 1972
July 11, 1972
July 11, 1972
July 11, 1972Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Bay at Waretown (H)
C 24.2
U 20.4
C 13.3
G 11.8
U 11.7
C 11. 3
G 13.1
U NA
0.38
0.23
0.21
0.15
0.15
0.17
0.14
0.12
6.4 22
6.3 70
16.3 31
13.5 224
4.5 52
5.9 17
3.1 142
NA 28
7
8
22
23
Sept. 23, 1971
Sept. 23, 1971
Oct. 21, 1971
Oct. 21, 1971
Bay off Island Beach (C)
C 12.0 0.37
Z 19.1 0.30
C 6.9 0.11
Z 12.0 0.41
3.4
12.6
7.0
12.0
21
61
15
31
65
Table 5.7 Stable Ion Concentrations in Algae and Marine Plants, mg/g Ash (Cont'd)
SampleK++No. Collection Date Sample* Ca Sr Fe
Bay between Oyster Creek and Forked River (F)
12 Oct. 19, 1971 C 4.0 0.14 8.1 25
13 Oct. 19, 1971 G 7.5 0.14 4.0 145
14 Oct. 19, 1971 P 2.0 0.07 8.8 15
Bay at mouth of Forked River (A)
2 . Sept. 23, 1971 C 4.3 0.06 10.6 40
South Branch of Forked River (E)
10 Oct. 21, 1971 G 35.8 0.37 10.0 153
11 Oct. 21, 1971 S 7.4 0.20 3.6 45
Bay at Sloop Point (N)
67 Nov. 2, 1972 G 9.7 0.11 4.3 153
66 Nov. ., 1972 U 12.0 0.13 7.7 71'-,
Bay near Toms River (M)
68 Nov. 2, 1972 C NA NA 8.2 31
In Cedar Creek (K)
24 Oct. 21, 1971 S 10.5 0.29 3.4 70
47 July 12, 1972 S 6.4 0.22 1.2 94
Bay off Surf City (I)
16 Oct. 20, 1971 C 4.5 0.07 4.4 11
18 Oct. 20, 1971 Z 21.5 0.32 15.0 20
15 Oct. 20, 1971 P 23.8 0.53 1.5 18Li tt Ie Egg Harbor (L)
53 Oct. 31, 1972 U 10.5 0.14 3.7 57
Great Bay (X)
22 April 19, 1972 U 11.9 0.15 3.7 47
33 July 10, 1972 U 9.4 0.14 9.5 65
35 July 10, 1972 G 5.0 0.12 8.1 188
36 July 10, 1972 F 1R.8 0.13 10.1 162
38 July 10, 1972 S 9.3 0.19 11.2 104
51 Oct. 31, 1972 U 6.6 0.07 2.7 43
54 Oct. 31, 1972 S 15.9 0.23 2.8 60
* U-U1va lactuca;Samples: C-Codium fragile; G-Gracilaria verrucosa;S-Spartina alterniflora; Z-Zostera marina; P-Porifera; F-Fuca.
**Locations: See Figures 5.1 and 5.2.
+analyzedNA - not
++ 848 pCi 40K/ gKBased on
Note: The standard deviation for the K, Ca, Sr and Fe values is approximately59<o.
66
Table 5.8 Average Stable Element Concentration in Algae and Marine Plants, mg/g Ash
Species K Fe Sr Ca Sr/Ca
C. fragile (16) 24 + 7 9 + 4 0.23 + 0.11 14 + 7 0.018.!. 0.009-G. verrucosa (12) 187 + 47 7 + 3 0.18 + 0.10 15 + 11 0.014 + 0.005
U. lactuca (14) 55 + 14 8 + 4 0.17 + 0.07 14 + 7 0.013 + 0.003
Spartina (8 ) 78 + 22 5 + 3 0.24 + 0.06 13 + 6 0.022 + 0.009
Z. marina (4) 40 + 17 12 + 2 0.31 + 0.08 15 + 6 0.022 + 0.009
Notes:
1. Number of samples are given in parentheses.
2. + values are standard deviations of individual measurements.
The concentrations of strontium and calcium in waterwere taken from Table 5.1 for the date and site whichcorresponded to the algae or grass sample. As theconcentration of iron in the water samples was belowthe minimum detectable level, a value of 0.04 mgFe/liter that was computed in Section 5.2.2 was used inthese calculations. The average potassiumconcentration measured in the four July water samples,200 + 15 mg/liter, was assumed uniform with respectto time and used to calculate CF's for potassium (seeSection 5.2.2).
Concentration factors for algae determined in thisstudy compare as follows with those previouslypublished for marine algae:
Concentration factors
the summer when the growth rate was greatest and theconcentrations highest.
These factors indicate that algae and plants aregenerally good indicators of iron in the marineenvironment. Their usefulness for indicating potassiumlevels depends upon the species, while for strontiumand calcium, the concentration factors are notsignificant for the species studied.
5.3.3 Results and discussion of radionuclideconcentrations. The concentrations of relatively longlived radionuclides measured in samples of marineflora are listed in Table 5.9 according to collection dateand sampling site. The two predominant radionuclidesattributable to the station are "Mn (above
Source
This Study, meanReference 11Reference 18Reference 19, 20Reference 15Reference 12
Sr
0.9 ± 0.30.9 - 200.2 - 820.1 - 901 - 32
Ca Fe K
1.4 ± 0.7 5,000 ± 1,600 14 ± 165 50,000 261.8 - 31 300 - 6,000 4 - 312 1,000 - 5,000
730 504 4
Since CPs in the literature are frequently reported foralgae without indicating species, only a grosscomparison can be made. Values reported by Bryan etal. and Polikarpov refer to Ulva lactuca and Ulvangida, respectively. (/2, 15)
The CPs determined in this study are similar to, orfall within the range, of those previously established.Because the factors in this study' are based on annualaverage concentrations, they may tend to be lowrelative to CPs based solely on data collected during
concentrations of 0.2-0.3 pCi/g) and .uCo. Cobalt-58and 134CS were detected in samples collected in July andNovember 1972 at all three principal sampling sites (B,G and H). In addition, SICr was detected in twoSpartina samples collected from the discharge canal inJuly and November 1972 at 5 ± 1 pCi/g and 3 + 1pCi/g, respectively. No tritium was detected in algae.The minimum detectable level (30') was 200 pCi/liter of
loose water or 250 pCi/kg fresh weight. Water ofcombustion was about 80 percent of fresh weight. The
67
&i Table 5.9 Radionuclide Concentrations in Algae and Marine Plants, pCilg Ash
Collection Date
Sept. 23, 1971
Sept. 23, 1971
Sept. 23, 1971
Oct. 18, 1971
April 18, 1972
July 12, 1972
July 12, 1972
July 12, 1972
July 12, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
SamI'le*
C
G
Z
S
U
C
G
U
S
C
G
U
S
54Mn
5.6
8
9
5
1.9
4.3
4.2
2.3
4.8
2.4
3.8
4.4
3.6
5!3Co
< 0.5**
<1.1
< 2.6
2.6
< 0.6
< 0.6
0.6
0.3
1.1
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.4
60Co
90Sr
95Zr
95 Nb
Ba~ at mouth of Oyster Creek (B)
7.7 0.40 1.8 3.6
18 0.80 NA NA
13 1.2 NA NA
110.05 < 0.5 1.0
2.5 <0.05 <1.2 3.5
12 0.05 1.6 2.4
11 0.11 2.6 2.1
5.2 0.10 1.5 1.2
8.7 0.21 2.9 4.2
9.6 0 . 34 < 1 . 0 < O. 6
14.7 0.10 < 0.8 < 0.6
17.9 0.06 <1.0 <0.8
10.9 0.27 0.5 0.8
Bay, near mouth of Cedar Creek (G)
106RU
4.7
5.9
NA
5.4
3.9
3.2
4.9
3.2
3.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
134Cs
< 0.4
< 0.9
< 2.0
< 0,,8
< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.2
0.15
0.52
< 0.4
0.55
< 0.3
1.2
137CS
< 0.4
< 1. 0
< 2.0
< 0.8
1.5
< 0.6
0.7
0.5
1.0
< 0.5
1.4
< 0.4
2.5
141Ce
NAtt
NA
NA
NA
1.7
1.3
1.0
0.6
1.0
< 0.3
< 0.2
< 0.3
< 0.2
144Ce
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.0
2.9
2.4
1.7
1.9
1.0
< 0.6
1.0
1.2
Oct. 21, 1971
Oct. 21, 1971
April 19, 1972
April 19, 1972
July 12, 1972
July 12, 1972
July 12, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
Nov. 1, 1972
C
G
cuC
G
U
C
G
U
7.2
14
2.7
2.6
1.6
3.6
2.8
5.3
4.4
5.2
< 0.7
< 2.0
< 0.5
< 0.6
0.2
0.3
< O. 5
0.5
0.4
0.4
9
16
3.1
4.0
3.4
7.0
7.3
18
1316
0.11
0.28
0.06
< 0.05
0.06
0.53
0.13
0.10
0.17
0.06
NA
< 2.0
< 0.9
2.6
1.0
2.3
1.1
< 0.5
< 0.4
< 0.4
NA
4.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.6
0.7
0.5
0.3
3.1
7.6
2.9
5.0
2.7
3.1
3.1
NA
NANA
< 0.9
< 2.0
< 0.5
< 0.6
< 0.2
< 0.2
< 0.3
< 0.2
0.43
0.17
< 0.8
< 2.0
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.5
NA
NA
0.8
1.1
0.4
0.8
0.7
< O. 2
< 0.3
< 0.2
NA
NA
3.4
4.2
1.3
2.9
2.0
1.2
0.7
0.8
Oct. 20, 1971
Oct. 20, 1971
April 18, 1972
C
G
C
8
11
1.1
<1.0
<1.3
< O. 3
16
25
4.0
Bay, at Waretown (H)
0.12 < 1.8
NA < 1. 0
<0.05 1.9
2.1
1.4
0.9
6.5
7.0
3.5
< 1.1
< 1. 0
< 0.2
<1.0
1.5
0.5
NA
NA
0.9
NA
NA
3.3
Table 5.9 Radionuclide Concentrations in Algae and Marine Plants, pCi/g Ash (Cont'd)
Collection Date Sample*
April 18, 1972 U
July 11, 1972 C
July 11, 1972 G
July 11, 1972 U
Nov. 1, 1972 C
Nov. 1, 1972 G
Nov. 1, 1972 U
54Mn
0.9
2.0
3.7
1.5
1.3
6.3
1.7
58Co
< 0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
< 0.4
0.6
< 0.3
60Co
2.5
5.9
7.6
5.6
4.8
22
8.2
90sr0.11
< O. 05
0.14
0.09
0.08
NA
0.10
95Zr
10.6
1.2
1.8
0.8
< 0.8
< 0.6
< 0.7
95Nb
7.5
2.0
1.9
1.0
< 0.5
,0.7
<0.5
106Ru
3.9
3.9
4.7
1.6
NA
NA
1.6
134Cs
< 0.5
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.2
< 0.2
0.30
< 0.2
137CS
2.1
0.2
0.3
< 0.2
< 0.3
0.7
< 0.3
141Ce
3.1
0.8
0.7
0.5
< 0.2
< O. 3
< 0.2
144Ce
6.1
2.6
1.7
1.3
< 0.5
0.6
0.6
Sept. 23, 1971
Sept. 23, 1971
Oct. 21, 1971
Oct. 21, 1971
C
Z
C
Z
5.6
26
2.9
20
< 0.6
<1.0
< 0.6
<1.0
Bay, off Island Beach (C)
1.9 0.10 < 0 . 7 1.0
7.6 0.70 3.1 5.8
1.0 0.08 NA NA
6.1 0.20 <1.5 2.8
3.5
12
3.4
6.4
< 0.5
< 1.1
< 0.7
< 1.0
< 0.5
<1.0
< 0.6
< 1. 2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Oct. 19, 1971
Oct. 19, 1971
Oct. 19, 1971
C
G
P
7.2
11
1.3
Bay, between Oyster Creek and Forked River (F)
< 0.9 12 0.06 NA NA 6.1
<0.9 17 0.12 <1.8 1.4 2.4
< O. 8 2 . 1 NA NA NA 3. 5
< 0.7
< 0.8
< 0.6
< 0.8
< 1. 0
< 0.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Sept. 23, 1971
Sept. 23, 1971
Oct. 21, 1971
Oct. 21, 1971
C
G
G
S
23
22
13
2.0
<1.0
< 3.0
< 0.7
< 1. 2
Bay, at mouth of Forked River (A)
39 0.3 NA NA
45 0.13 NA NA
South Branch of Forked River (E)
29 0.08 NA NA
0.5 0.10 <2.0 2.4
12
NA
8.0
3.6
<1.0
" 2.1
< 0.7
< 1. 4
< 1.0
< 2.0
< 0.8
<1.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Nov. 2, 1972
Nov. 2, 1972
G
U
4.7
0.3
0.4
< O. 3
16
1.1
Bay, at Sloop Point (N)
0.13 <0.5 0.9
0.08 0.2 0.6
In Toms River (J)
NA
NA
0.20
< 0.1
0.9
0.4
< 0.2
< 0.2
1.2
1.3
Oct. 21, 1971 S < 0.5 < 0.6 < 0.2 0.20 1.2 2.5 3.5 < 0.4 0.9 NA NA
fJ
Nov. 2, 1972
Nov. 2, 1972
C
Z
1.7
0.4
< 0.3
< 0.2
~ay, near Toms River
6.6 0.10 < 0.4
0.8 0.13 <0.3
(M)
0.5
0.3
NA
NA
< 0.2
< 0.1
0.3
0.2
< 0.3
< 0.2
< 0.7
0.4
-.l0
Table 5.9 Radionuc\ide Concentrations in Algae and Marine Plants, pCi/g Ash (Cont'd)
Collection Date Samp1e* 54Mn58
Cb60
Co90
Sr 95Zr 95 Nb 106 Ru 134Cs 137Cs 141
Ce 144Ce
In Cedar Creek (K)
Oct. 21, 1971 5 < 0.4 <0.8 < 0.3 0.11 < 2.0 1.9 1.5 <1.1 < 1.1 NA NA
July 12, 1972 S 0.2 < 0.1 0.2 0.12 5.0 6.4 1.6 < 0.1 0.5 1.9 3.4
Nov. I, 1972 S < 0.4 < 0.4 < 0.6 0.19 < 0.6 1.1 NA < 0.3 0.9 < 0.3 2.2
Bay, off Surf City (I)
Oct. 20, 1971 C 1.0 < 0.4 0.4 0.11 < O. 5 0.6 2.5 < 0.5 < 0.4 NA NA
Oct. 20, 1971 Z 8.3 < 2.0 5.0 0.37 NA NA 6.0 <1.0 < I. 0 NA NA
Oct. 20, 1971 P < I. 0 < I. 0 0.5 0.12 < I. 8 2.1 4.9 < 1.0 < I. 0 NA NA
Little Egg Harbor (L)
Oct. 31, 1972 V 0.2 < O. 2 0.2 0.09 < O. 2 0.10 NA < 0.1 0.1 < 0.2 0.4
Great Bay (X)
April 19, 1972 V < 0.3 <0.3 < 0.2 0.08 1.8 1.0 1.3 < 0.2 0.3 1.2 1.9
July 10, 1972 V < 0.3 < 0.5 < 0.2 0.12 1.1 0.7 1.4 < 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.9Oct. 31, 1972 U < O. 2 <0.2 < 0.2 0.06 < 0.7. 0.2 NA < 0.1 < 0.2 < 0.2 < 0.4
July 10, 1972 G < 0.5 < O. 5 < 0.2 0.12 < 1.4 1.9 1.6 < 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.5
July 10, 1972 S 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.2 0.25 1.7 2.2 1.7 < 0.1 0.3 0.3 1.4
Oct. 31, 1972 5 <O. 4 <0.5 <0.5 0.10 <0.7 < O. S NA < 0.1 0.3 < O. 4 <1.0
July 10, 1972 F 0.3 < O. 2 0.2 0.14 3.1 3.5 2.6 < 0.1 0.4 0.3 1.0
* Samples:C-Codium fragile; G-Graci1aria verrucosa; V-VIva Iactuca; S-Spartina alterniflora; Z-Zostera marina; P-Porifera; F-Fuca.
*~values are 30 of the counting error; the + 20 counting errors are 30% for 58Co, 90Sr , 95Zr , 95Nb, 134Cs, 137Cs and 144Ce ;
20% for 54Mn , 106 141 - 60Ru and Ce;.and 10% for Co.
t Locations: see Figures 5.1 and 5.2.
ttNot Analyzed.Notes:
1. Minimum detectable levels (30) for those nuclides not (rarely) detected, pCi/gm ash weight except 3H• pCi/kg fresh weight:3H 5ICr 55 Fe 59Fe 65 Zn
I03Ru
250 2.3 3 2 0.8 0.3
2. Mean 14C concentration = 17.5 + 1.3 dpm/gC.
inability to detect 'H in these samples is expected sincethe concentration factor for tritium is near 1 and thewater concentration is probably less than 100 pCi/l(about 5 pCi/l in sea water, 150 pCi/l in fresh waterand the 40 pCill contributed by the station, see Table4.6.(15) The "c concentrations in algae and grasscollected near the mouth of the discharge canal did notsignificantly exceed the concentrations in comparablesamples from Great Bay. The mean I'C concentrationwas 17.5 + 1.3 dpm/g C. This value is within the rangeof the no~al specific activity of I'C that has resultedfrom cosmic ray bombardment of nitrogen in the upperatmosphere and fallout . from thermonucleardetonations, 17 + 2 dpmlg C. (22) Additional naturaland fallout radionuclides observed in some sampleswere 7Be, .0K, 90Sr, 9SZr, 9SNb, ,0oRu, mCs, "ICe and
"'Ce.No significantly consistent difference in 54Mn or
oOCo concentrations in algae was observed among thethree principal sampling locations. This indicatesconsiderable movement of radionuclides north alongthe coast from Oyster Creek, even though the channelacross the bay to Barnegat Inlet extends eastward fromabout Waretown, south of Oyster Creek (see Section5.1.1). Samples collected at 11 different sites indicatedcontamination of algae throughout Barnegat Bay.Above-ambient concentrations of 54Mn and 60Co weremeasured in samples collected from the south end ofLittle Egg Harbor (L), the southern extremity ofBarnegat Bay, from the east side of the bay at IslandBeach (C) and Surf City (I); and from Toms River (M)and Sloop Point (N), in the northern part of the bay(see Figure 5.2). Cesium-134 and SBCO were alsodetected in a sample of G. verrucosa from the lattersite. Relatively high levelsofooCo, 54Mn, D'CS, SBCO, andS1Cr were observed in Spartina that had grown in themouth of the discharge canal. However, onlybackground concentrations of fallout radionuclideswere detected in Spartina collected from the mouths ofCedar Creek (K) and Toms River (J). Hence, althoughradioactivity from the station is dispersed throughoutthe bay, it apparently does not enter the creeks andrivers emptying into the bay in detectable amounts. Anexception to this is Forked River, 1.6 km north of thedischarge canal, which is used by the station as thecoolant water intake. Algae and Spartina samples fromthe south branch of Forked River (E) contained both54Mn and oOCo. This confirms earlier reports thatradionuclides recirculate in coolant water (see Section5.1.4).
No contamination was detected in samples fromGreat Bay, immediately south of Barnegat Bay, whichwas used as the background site for this study. Fuca, an
algae not observed growing in Barnegat Bay,contained, in addition to relatively higherconcentrations of the normally observed falloutradionuclides, small amounts of 54Mn and oOCo thatmay be due to fallout.
Because the radionuclide concentrations were notsignificantly different in samples from the threeprincipal sites, the concentrations there were averagedfor each species based on fresh weight, using theappropriate ash weight/fresh weight ratios given inSection 5.3.1. The average concentrations are listed inTable 5.10. Although species cannot be consistentlyranked by radionuclide concentration, the highestconcentrations were usually observed in G. verrucosa,followed by U lactuca containing about one-half asmuch activity, and then C. fragile. A similar rankingwas indicated by McCurdy. (7)
Except for s'Mn and oOCo, concentrations inSpartina approach those observed in G. verrucosa.Because of dilution in the bay, the Spartina that grew inthe discharge canal was exposed to higherconcentrations of radionuclides from the station thanthe algae in the bay, which would indicate a relativelylower uptake by the Spartina. Zostera marina, anotherrooted plant that grows submerged in the bay, reflecteda high affinity for both 5'Mn and oOCo. Samplescollected at Island Beach (C) and Surf City (I), 10 kmand 17 km, respectively, from Oyster Creek, containedeasily detectable quantities of s'Mn, 650 pCi/kg, and60Co, 190 pCilkg. These concentrations are 10 timesthose measured in C. fragile collected concurrentlyfrom the same sites. High absorption through the rootsystem might account for the observed uptake, as theconcentrations of S4Mn and oOCo in the root system of Z.marina has been found to be twice that in the stem. (6)
The .oK concentrations in algae were stronglyspecies dependent· and constant throughout thegrowing season. G. verrucosa contained 4-6 times the,oK content as U lactuca, which normally containedabout 4 times the amount in C. fragile. These large·differences were not observed of 1J7Cs, but the speciesrank was the same.
The large standard deviations assigned to some ofthe average concentrations tabulated in Table 5.10 aredue in part to observed seasonal variations. A trend ofincreasing concentration from a low in spring samplesto the highest levels in fall was observed for 7Be, S4Mn,SBCO, oOCo, IJ·CS and, in some species, 1J7Cs. In fact, 7Be,SBCO and 134CS were not detected in any spring samples,and the latter two were detected only at site B in thesummer samples. They were observed, however, at allthree sites in samples collected in the fall, including G.verrucosa at site N. Radionuclides found to be in
71
Table S.10 Average Concentration of Radionuclides in Species of Algae and Spartina Collectedfrom the Three Principal Sampling Sites in Barnegat Bay, pCilkg Fresh Weight
Nuclide
7Be
- 14C*,*
40K54Mn60 .
Co90Sr95Zr95
Nb103Rut
106Ru
137Cs141
Cett
144Ce
C. fragile G. Verrucosa U. 1actuca Spartina*
40 + 20 180 + 80 70 + 20 420 + 320
18 + 1 17 + 2 18 + 2 16 + 2
320 + 80 6300 + 1400 1200 + 300 2300 + 500
50'+ 30 240 + .120 70 + 30 140 + 30
120 + SO 540 + 210 120 + SO 320 + 40
1.1 + 0.4 5.4 + 2.5 2.4 + 1.0 6.1 + 2.9
14 + 8 50 + 30 30 + 20 40 + 30
20 + 14 40 + 20 30 + 20 60 + 60
10 + 3 30 + 7 20 + 5 20 + 15
50 + 17 200 + 60 100 + 30 140 + 40
7 + 4 30 + 20 20 + 10 40 + 30
11 + 4 30 + 7 30 + 20 20 + 10
30 + 14 60 + 40 60 + 40 50 + IS
* Sites B, G and H; average for Spartina from Site B only.
**Concentrations given as dpm l4C/ gC .
t Detected only in samples collected July 1972; for other periods, < 7 pCi/kg.
ttNot detected in samples collected Nov. 1972; < 7 pCi/kg.
Notes:
1. <values averaged as one half the value.
2. + values are standard deviations of individual observations.
highest concentration in spring and lowest in fallinclude 95Zr, 95Nb, 14ICe and 1"Ce, while I03Ru wasdetected only in the samples collected during thesummer. Variation in radionuclide concentration mayresult from anyone or a combination of the following:
I) . The growing period of the algae or grass during April only U lactuca and smallamounts of C fragJie were observed. In July,all species were abundant, and in October andNovember, U lactucahad nearly disappearedand the C fragile appeared to be in poorcondition. Hence, radionuclide uptake mayvary with stage ofactivity.
2) Because the station discharges in batchesrather than at a constant rate, sampling wouldproduce different results depending upon thetime of discharge and turnover rates ofradionuclides in algae.
3) Atmospheric fallout varies with the season ofthe year, usually being highest in spring.
72
The second factor listed above is probably responsiblefor the higher levels of certain radionuclides in fallsamples because these were discharged at higher levelsduring the second half of 1972, whereas, concentrationof stable element which are relatively constant withtime in the water decreased in fall samples (see Section5.3.2). For those radionuclides discharged by the plant,the uptake or loss of nuclides by the flora is governed tosome extent by seasonal growth and degeneration, butthe availability of radionuclides for uptake will dependupon plant discharges.
Listed in Table 5.11 are the average backgroundconcentrations based on the samples collected fromGreat Bay (see Table 5.9) and the ash weight/freshweight ratios given in Section 5.3.1. Comparing thesebackground concentrations with average radionuclideconcentrations listed above for the three principal sites,the only radionuclides, in addition to s4Mn, s·Co, ,oCoand 1J4Cs, routinely observed to exceed significantly thebackground were 'O'Ru and 13'CS in all species and 'Be
• Average of month sampled and previousmonth.
••± values are standard deviations of .individual ratios.
Uptake ofS<Mn and 60Co by algae can be comparedby observing the 6°Co/S<Mn activity ratios. This ratiodid not vary significantly between samples from sitesnear the discharge canal (B, G, H, F, A, E) for anyonesampling period. Differences in the activity ratio wereobserved in samples collected at different times, asshown in the second column of the followingtabulation. The 60Co/14Mn activity ratio was similar insamples collected during the first three samplingperiods; however, the ratio was significantly higher inthose collected during the fall of 1972. The activityratio in the Spartina samples from Oyster Creek weresimilar to those listed for algae.
The last column above lists the average 6°Co/"Mnactivity ratio in station effiuents during the monthsampled and the previous month (see Appendix B.4).The similarity between the 60Co/14Mn ratio in algae andin the station effiuent is obvious, and the much largeractivities discharged by the station during August,September and October 1972 are also reflected in thealgae measurements. These close correlations, if real,suggest that 14Mn and 60Co act similarly in the aqueousenvironment of the discharge canal and bay, and areadsorbed similarly by algae. These data also suggestthat algae adsorb 60Co and s4Mn from the water as thestation discharges these nuclides, and not fromdissolved s4Mn and 60Co that had been deposited earlerin the sediment. The 6°Co/s'Mn activity ratio measuredin sediment near the mouth of Oyster Creek during thisstudy was about 6 (see Section 5.7.4), similar to theratio' reported by McCurdy and much higher than thatobserved in the algae or grasses. (6)
At all sampling points along the west coast ofBarnegat Bay, at Sloop Point (N) and in Little EggHarbor (L), 60Co activity exceeded that of 14Mn insamples of algae, grasses (except in one sample ofSpartina from Forked River, E), sediment and water.However, along the east side of the bay, the s'Mnconcentrations exceeded those of 60Co in every case. AtIsland Beach State Park (C), the average 60Co/S4Mn
Table 5.11 RadionuclideConcentrations in Algae and Spartina Samples
from Great Bay (Background Area), pCilkg Fresh Weight
Nuclide U. lactuca G. verrucosa Spartina
7Be 60 126 6714C* 18 18 1754Mn < 8 < 18 < 1258Co < 9 < 18 < 1260Co <10 < 7 <1190Sr 2 4 595 Zr 27 50 3295
Nb 17 68 43103
Ru 15 27 42106Ru 36 58 54134Cs <5 <4 <4137 ..
Cs 6 7 10141Ce 16 14 11144Ce 30 54 38
Note: No C. fragile was observed growingin Great Bay.
*Concentrations given as dpm 14C/ gC .
in the Spartina. The concentration of thoseradionuclides contributed by the station are as follows:
Concentration, pCilkgSpecies "'Cs '06Ru 'Be
U lactuca 14 ± 11 60 ± 30G. verrucosa ·23 ± 18 140 ± 60C. fragile'* 5 ± 4 30 ± 17Spartina 30 ± 30 90 ± 40 350 ± 320
·Background activity assumed to be. in sameratio to other algae samples as observedin Barnegat Bay samples.
Strontium-90 was measured in excess of thebackground concentration only in the followingsamples:
Excess ·'Sr, pCilkgCollection date Site G. verrucosa .z. manna
Sept. 23, 1971 B 20 ± 10· 24 ± 10Sept. 23, 1971 C 20 ± 6Oct. 21, 1971 G 6± 4July 12, 1972 G 15 ± 6
DateOct.-Nov. 1971April 1972July 1972Nov. 1972
"Co/"Mn Activity Ratioalgae effiuent·
1.9 ± 0.4·· 1.72.1 ± 0.8 2.42.5 ± 0.5 2.03.8 ± 0.6 3.7
73
Note: ± values are standard deviations of theindividual factors.
ratio in two samples of C fragile and Z. marina was0.32 + 0.02, and at Surf City (I), the ratio in onesample of each was 0.50 + 0.14. Samples from IslandBeach State Park were reported by McCurdy to containsimilar activity ratios of 0.13 to 0.42 for the same twospecies. (6) The reason for these high 54Mnconcentrations relative to .oCo along the east shore ofthe bay is not known,but may be the result of anearlier, higher level discharge of 5'Mn.
No differences were observed in the 58CO!"OCo ratioin algae collected during the same period at sites B, Gand H. However, the average ratio in algae collected inJuly 1972,0.054 ± 0.010, was twice that observed inthe November 1972 samples, 0.029 + 0.003. Theactivity ratio in station effluent during 1972 was abouttwice that measured in algae, which suggests that mostof the cobalt had been in the environment for anaverage time of about 70 days.
In samples containing 13'CS, the D'CS/137Cs activityratio did not appear to vary significantly with species,location or season. Subtracting a background 137Csconcentration of 0.2 pCilg ash, the average 1J4Cs/1J7Csactivity ratio was 0.53 + 0.05, similar to the ratio of 0.6in effluent (see Table 5.6). In April of 1972, the134CS/137CS ratio in sediment near the mouth of thedischarge canal was reported to be 0.25 ± 0.08. (7)Earlier discharges may account for the low 13'CS!'37Csratio of 0.22, measured in the algae sample from SloopPoint, about 29 km north of Oyster Creek. .
Concentration factors (CF) for all radionuclidesmeasured in algae and water-grass samples cannot bedetermined because most were not measurable inwater. Also, it was not possible to estimate theconcentrations in the bay water from the radioactivitiesdischarged by the station because the amount ofdilution in the bay is not known (see Section 5.U).Concentration factors are thus given for only the tworadionuclides measured in water, 90Sr and 137Cs (seeTable 5.3).
The range and average CF's calculated for eachspecies of algae and Spartina over a one-year period are:
Concentration factors
137Cs
average
Published CF's
Reference 90Sr 137Cs
11 12.5 2018 0.2 - 82 17 - 24019 0.1 - 90 16 - 2020 96
This study 11 ± 8 16 ± 8
3)
These factors were calculated by dividing theconcentration measured in the algae sample (pCilkgfresh weight) by that measured in a water sample(pCi/liter) collected at the same site and time.
These CF's vary considerably as indicated by therange and large standard deviations. This is largely dueto the two or three measured water concentrations ateach location not being representative of theconcentration associated with the algae during most ofits growing period and variations in uptake withseasonal growth characteristics of the algae (see Section5.3.3). The factors calculated for radiostrontium aregenerally higher than those calculated for stablestrontium (see Section 5.3.2). The factors for stablestrontium reflect equilibrium conditions while those for90Sr may be in response to higher 90Sr concentrations.
The average CF's for 90Sr and mCs, including allsamples of algae and Spartina, are of the same order ofmagnitude as the previously published values listedbelow:
5.3.4 Significance ofradionuclides in marine algaeand grasses. Although these algae and grasses are notconsumed by m~n, they are an important type ofsample for surveillance of aquatic environmentsbecause:
1) They provide a source of radionuclides to theaquatic environment. Upon death and decay,radionuclides are released to the water orbecome available to invertebrates in thesediment that are fed upon by fish and otherlarge aquatic organisms.
2) Many species of algae are consumed byorganisms in the food chain effecting anincrease in the uptake of radionuclides byman.They concentrate biologically significantradionuclides and can act as indicatorsallowing the detection and monitoring ofradionuclides in an aqueous environme!ltwhen radionuclide concentrations areotherwise undetectable. Large samples can beeasily collected and ashed to small volumes,enabling very sensitive analyses.
5 ± 420 ± 1314 ± 823± 12
range
1.5-116 - 367 - 32
12 - 40
3 ± 320 ± 18
5 ± 415 ± 13
90Sr
averagerange
0.4 - 162 - 731 - 131 - 35
Species
C fragileG. verrucosaU. lactucaSpartina
74
5.4 Radionuclides in Fish
5.4.1 Introduction. Barnegat Bay is a popular sportand commercial fishing area. Fish caught from the bayare commonly sold to local fish markets andrestaurants, while sport fishermen frequent the baythroughout the year. (3) Over fifty species of fish havebeen identified in the bay, although many are not eatenby man. (9) During the period 1960-1969, seven speciesof fish were taken commercially. (3) These species withthe estimated total ten-year catch in kgs are givenbelow:
In 1969, however, only the first four species were takencommercially, totaling 34,700 kg valued at $215,000.The quantity of fish taken by sportsmen, includingmany more species than taken commercially, is notknown but is undoubtedly quite large.
The life histories and distribution of most of theestuarine fish of Barnegat Bay are not well known.Their presence in the bay depends upon a number offactors, including spawning season, feeding habits andconditions existing in the estuary.(23) In this report,the fish have been classified according to feeding habitsand human consumption, both being important inconsideration of the food chain.
Estuarine fish are abundant in both the intake anddischarge canals because of the circulation of bay waterand the higher temperature of the discharge canal inwinter. Fishermen are active along the banks of thesecanals throughout most ,of the year. The high watertemperatures of the discharge canal result in some fishremaining long after they would normally havedeparted for warmer southern waters. Fish thenbecome thermally trapped and cannot escape to thesouth through the cold water of Barnegat Bay. Thisperpetuates fishing in the discharge canal during thecolder months of the year. (24)
5.4.2 Collection and analysis. On the initial fieldtrips in September and October 1971, fish werecollected from five sites in Barnegat Bay and from bothcanals. On trips in April, July and November of 1972,fish were collected from only three sites in Barnegat
Bone was ashed at 600° C, and strontium wasseparated chemically. Radiostrontium was measuredby counting total strontium and 9°Y,(27) Stable
Bay and one in Great Bay.* These sites correspondedto those selected for sampling benthic algae, discussedin Section 5.3.1. Fish from Great Bay were consideredcontrol samples. All fish were collected by trawling.Sampling for fish in the discharge and intake canalswas eliminated in 1972, due to the debris which fouledthe trawl. A sample of menhaden (Brevoortiatyrannus) killed by thermal shock in the dischargecanal was obtained in January 1972.
The 18 species of collected fish are listed in Table5.12 with the number collected, feeding habits, habitat(environment - behavior),' and edibility. Althoughmenhaden are not generally eaten, they are processedinto a protein concentrate which may be used toalleviate protein deficiency in some populations andinto a meal for poultry and cattle. (25) Silversides areeaten only by some ethnic groups. The relative numberof each fish species collected is similar to that found in afish survey conducted during 1966-1968, except for therelatively large number of menhaden present in thedischarge canal during winter. (9) Their presence inlarge numbers was undoubtedly due to the heateddischarge, as menhaden were not captured in the bayduring any of the field trips.
Samples were frozen immediately after collectionand returned to the laboratory on dry ice. For analysis,the fish were thawed and weighed, and those ofsufficient size were dissected into muscle, bone, gut,and kidney plus liver. Separation of muscle from theskeleton was facilitated by cooking in a microwaveoven; however, some small bones, particularly in smallfish, may have been retained in the muscle. (26) Smallfish were analyzed whole. When sample size wassufficient, samples were combined for analysis byspecies of fish for each sampling site.
To measure volatile radionuclides, all soft tissueswere analyzed in fresh form directly by gamma-rayspectrometry with a 10- x lO-cm NaI(TI) detector and54-cm' or 85-cm' Ge(Li) detectors. For higher 60Co and1lI1 sensitivities, samples of liver-kidney were alsoanalyzed with a NaI(TI) gamma-ray coincidence/anticoincidence system. The iron fraction· was separatedand analyzed for 55Fe with an x-ray proportionaldetector.
- 34,100400200
MulletShadBlack fish -
95,30014,80014,800
- 136,000
Winter flounder White perchAlewivesEels
*We thank E. G. Karvehs, USEPA, for his assistance in collecting and identifying these samples and theEdison Water Quality Laboratory and the National Field Investigations Center-Cincinnati, USEPA, for~aking available boats and sample collecting apparatus.
75
-;Jen
'Table 5.12 Fish Collected in Barnegat and Great Bays
Fish Name
Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus)
Atlantic Silversides (Menidia menidia)
Blackfish or Tautog (Tautoga onitis)
Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)
Fourspine Stickleback (Apeltes guadracus)
Jack (Caranx~.)
Northern Kingfish (Menticirrhus saxatilis)
Northern Puffer (Sphaeroides maculatus)
Northern Searobin (Prionotus carolinus)
Oyster Toadfish (Opsanus tau)
Shorthorn Sculpin (Myoxocephalus scorpius)
Silver Perch (Bairdiella chrysura)
Striped Killifish (Fundulus majalis)
Summer Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus)
Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis)
White Perch (Roccus americanus)
Windowpane (Scophthalmus aguosus)'
Winter Flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus)
No. HumanCollected Food Habitat+ Consumption
lOa's Plankton Migrant No
1000' s Plankton Resident Yes
20 Shellfish, crustacean Migrant Yes
3 Fish Migrant Yes
1000's Plankton Resident No
9 Fish Migrant Yes
2 Inver tebr a te s ,', Migrant Yes
11 Invertebrates Migrant Yes
2 Opportunist""', Local marine No
40 Opportunist Resident Rarely
6 Opportunist Resident No
225 Fish, invertebrates Migrant Yes
lOa's Plankton Resident No
3 Fish, invertebrates Small - resident YesLarge - migrant
1 Fish, invertebrates Migrant Yes
68 Fish, invertebrates Resident Yes
2 Invertebrates Local marine Yes
322 Invertebrates Small - resident YesLarge - migrant
* Bottom feeder**Consumes any food available to him, including crustacean and shellfish.+ Migrant - fish that enter the bay during certain seasons of the year either for spawning or for feeding in nursery
grounds.Resident - fish continuously present in the bay and which carry out their complete life cycle in the bay.Local marine - indigenous fish that have their greatest abundance in shoreline waters, but are also common in
estuarine waters.
These ratios may be applied to the data in Table 5.13 toconvert concentrations to an ash weight basis. Thecollection site, date and the number of fish comprisingeach sample are also given.
Concentrations of strontium and calcium in fishbone were reasonably constant. The meanconcentrations were 0.24 + 0.03 g Sr/kg fresh weightand 49 + 7 g Ca/kg fresh weight. The calciumconcentration is similar to that observed previously infresh water fish, but the strontium concentration issignificantly higher. (26,28,29) The average ratio ofSr/Ca in bone is 4.9 + 0.6 mg Sr/g Ca, very similar tothat observed in muscle, 4.5 + 0.6 mg Sr/g Ca. Thehigh and variable concentrations of calcium andstrontium in muscle reflects to a great degreecontamination of muscle by bone, which yields a lowbone/muscle concentration ratio. The highestbone/muscle ratio observed is about 90 (sample # 10),which approaches the previously reported ratio of
strontium and calcium were determined by atomicabsorption spectroscopy.
Muscle and gut were dried at 100· C, ashed at 400·C, and then analyzed by gamma-ray spectrometry. Thepotassium content of the muscle was calculated fromthe 40K measurement (848 pCi ,oK/gm K), and stablecalcium, strontium and iron concentrations weredetermined by an atomic absorption spectrometer.Radiochemical analyses were performed to measure.oSr. Analyses for 'H and I·C were made by treating 4-galiquots of fresh sample in a combustion train,collecting water and CO2, and measuring theradioactivity with a liquid scintillation counter. Theminimum detectable concentrations at the 95 percentconfidence level were 250 pCi 'H/kg fresh weight andan excess of 6 dpm I'C/g C above the normalbackground concentration.
54.3 Results and discussion of stable elementconcentrations. The concentrations of calcium,strontium, potassium and iron in whole fish or muscleand of calcium and strontium in bone are given in termsof fresh weight in Table 5.13. The ash weight/freshweight ratios were measured and found to be constantbetween tissues of the same type. The mean weightratios with standard deviations for individual sampleswere:
Fish muscleWhole fishBone
0.016 ± 0.003 g ash/g fresh weight0.036 ± 0.008 g ash/g fresh weight0.17 ± 0.03 g ash/g fresh weight.
100(26) and is similar to that found by Templeton andBrown. (JO) Assuming a concentration ratio of 100 forstrontium and calcium in bone to bone-free muscle isprobably reasonable. Dividing the average Sr/Ca ratiomeasured in the fish by the average Sr/Ca ratiomeasured in water, 19.9 mg Sr/g Ca (see Section 5.2.2),yields an O.R.* of 0.25. This value agrees with thosepreviously reported and reflects a strong discriminationagainst strontium relative to calcium in fishbone. (26,29-31)
The mean concentrations of potassium and iron infish muscle were 3.0 + 0.5 and 0.027 + 0.015 g/kg,respectively. These concentrations are in agreementwith published concentrations for marine fish. (11)
Concentration factors (CF) for these elements infish were calculated using the fish muscleconcentrations listed in Table 5.13 and thecorresponding water concentrations given in Table 5.1.As the concentration of iron in the water samples wasbelow the minimum detectable level, the computedvalue of 0.04 mg Fe/liter (see Section 5.2.2) was used inthese calculations. The average potassiumconcentration measured in the four July 1972 watersamples, 200 + 15 mg/liter, was assumed to beuniform with respect to time and was used to calculatethe CF for potassium (see Section 5.2.2). Also, becauseof the contamination of muscle by bone, theconcentration of strontium and calcium in the muscle(bone-free) is assumed to be 1 percent of that measuredin bone, as discussed above. Concentration factorscalculated for fish muscle from these data and thosereported in the literature are:
Source Sr Ca K Fe
This study 0.45 1.8 15 700Ref. * 12 0.3--0.6 1.4--2.3Ref. 11 0.5 0.5 11 3000Ref. 18 0.43 1.9 16 1800Ref. 20 0.1 1.5 13 1600
*Reference
Concentration factors calculated from data of thisstudy compare well with the referenced values, exceptfor iron which is about 1/4 to 1/2 that usually cited.This low iron CF is probably due to an overestimatediron concentration in water. The CF listed for calciumin reference 11 appears low.
Normally the CF's for whole fish are unimportantbecause only the muscle is consumed by man.
·O.R. (Observed Ratio) = (mg Sr/g Ca)bone --;- (mg Sr/g Ca)water'
77
-:)00 Table 5.13 Concentration of Stable Elements in Fish, g/kg Fresh Weight
Sample Date Collection No. of Muscle BoneNQ. Fish type collected site* fish Ca Sr K Fe """'"(-a-- Sr
lA toad fish 9/23/71 B 4 1.71 0.0081 2.4 0.015 40 0.24
21 flounder 4/18/72 B 25 0.81 0.0038 2.5 0.034 36 0.19
28 mixture 7/12/72 B 27 3.03 0.010 3.6 0.022 45 0.21
39 jack, bluefish 11/1/72 B 11 1. 35 0.0053 2.6 0.010 60 0.24
40 blackfish, toadfish 11/1/72 B 4 1.10 0.0044 3.4 0.011 66 0.31
16 flounder 10/19/71 G 18 1. 24 0.0053 2.7 0.012 46 0.23
22 flounder 4/19/72 G 26 1. 00 0.0047 3.1 0.050 55 0.26
29 flounder 7/12/72 G 28 2.02 0.0084 2.6 0.035 52 0.24
30 toadfish 7/12/72 G 4 1.68 0.0055 3.4 0.010 49 0.23
38 flounder 11/1/72 G 6 1.08 0.0052 3.8 0.012 54 0.24
20 flounder 4/18/72 H 15 0.67 0.0030 3.3 0.030 36 0.21
31 flounder 7/11/72 H 39 1. 75 0.0067 3.4 0.050 44 0.22
11 flounder 10/18/71 D 26 1. 60 0.0089 2.9 0.044 46 0.21
12 white perch 10/18/71 D 14 1. 21 0.0054 3.2 0.027 52 0.30
17 (W)t menhaden 1/30/72 D many 5.1 0.020 2.1 0.084
23 (W)t silversides 4/19/72 D many 4.8 0.023 2.3 0.064
1 blackfish 10/21/71 E 1 0.82 0.0035 2.8 0.064 46 0.28
2 flounder 10/21/71 E 43 0.93 0.0045 2.1 0.012 38 0.19
15 flounder 10/19/71 F 28 1. 00 0.0049 2.9 0.010 54 . 0.23
6 blackfish 10/20/71 I 8 1. :2 0.0042 2.4 0.016 52 0.25
10 toadfish 10/20/71 I 9 0.57 0.0031 2.4 0.015 49 0.27
18 flounder 4/17/72 GB-X 24 0.68 0.0032 3.5 0.034 44 0.19
19 sculpin 4/17/72 GB-X 6 0.95 0.0056 2.9 0.034 54 0.2924 flounder 7/10/72 GB-X 2 1. 58 0.0073 3.0 0.062 58 0.23
35 whi te p~erch 10/31/72 GB-X 8 1.12 0.0060 3.5 0.012 59 0.26
36 flounder, windowpane 10/31/72 GB-X 5 1. 00 0.0045 3.1 0.014 48 0.23
*Letters refer to Figures 5.1 and 5.2.
t Who1e fish.
However, menhaden and silversides are sometimeseaten whole (see Section 5.4.2). The CF's for thesewhole fish are:
The CF for potassium is the same as that in muscle, andthe factors for calcium, strontium ap..d iron areconsiderably higher in the case of whole fish.
5.404 Results and discussion of radionuclideconcentrations. The results of the radionuclide analysesof whole fish and muscle, bone and gut are given inTables 5.14 and 5.15. The concentrations are listedrelative to fresh weight, but if desired, the ashweight/fresh weight ratios given in Section 504.3 maybe applied to these data to convert concentrations to anash weight basis. Gut was analyzed only in the freshstate.
The concentrations reported in fish generally agreewith results from comparable samples analyzed byMcCurdy. (6, 7) The two predominant radioisotopes inthese samples attributable to the station are s'Mn and<oCo. In addition to the radionuclides listed in Tables5.14 and 5.15, 1J4Cs was measured in 5 samples of wholefish or muscle and 2 samples of gut collected in the fallof 1972. These concentrations are listed in Table 5.16.All other samples of whole fish or muscle containedless than 20 pCi 1J'Cs/kg. One fish muscle sample(No.28) contained an excess of I'C, 69 + 5 dpm/g C,which was equivalent to 1670 + 120 pCi/kg freshweight. The,mean "c concentration of all other fishmuscle samples was 17.0 + 2.5 dpm/g C (670 + 100pCi/kg fresh weight), the same as that recentlyreported for the normal specific activity of I'C, 17 + 2dpm/g C.(22) No other radionuclides, including s'Co,were detected in either muscle or gut. Also, nosignificant concentration of radionuclides was detectedin any samples of kidney and liver, probably because ofthe small sample sizes.
The concentrations of 1J7Cs in whole fish or musclesamples from Barnegat Bay, the discharge canal andthe intake canal are similar to that in the Great Baysamples, except for five samples collected in November1972 and one in October 1971. Omitting these sixsamples, the average 1J7Cs concentrations and 137Cs/Kratios were calculated for the four fish types, and thevalues are given in Table 5.17. The 137Cs concentrationsin fish from different sites were combined, as nosignificant difference between sites was observed.Except the predator, of which one sample from GreatBay was collected, the average values for fish from theenvironment of Oyster Creek are the same as those
CFc•CFsr
194
111850
from Great Bay. The average 137Cs concentration in allfish was 28 + 10 pCilkg fresh weight. This is much lessthan that reported for fresh water fish, but similar tothat measured in shad collected in the ConnecticutRiver estuary. (26,28,29) This is expected since CF's forfresh water fish are 10 to 100 times those for marinespecies. (1J, J2) Dividing the 137Cs concentrationsmeasured in whole fish or muscle by those measured inthe water collected at the same time and site (see Table5.3), results in an average CF for 137Cs in fIsh of 50 +30. The values varied from 10 to 150, but the variationdid not appear to correlate with feeding habits.Reported CF's are generally somewhat lower,15-40,(ll,J5-20) but have been reported as high as244.(12)
The excess amounts of 137Cs (concentration in fishless the concentration in that fish type from Great Bay)in the six fish samples which had concentrationssignificantly exceeding background levels were:
ExcessSample Fish "'Cs, '''CS,
No_ type pei/kg pCi/kg IJ·Cs!'''Cs
From Site B
IA Toadfish 37 ND*39 Jackfish,
Bluefish 120 79 0.6640 Blackfish,
Toadfish 96 55 0.5741 Flounder 31 20 0.65
From Site G
37 SilverPerch 43 30 0.70
38 Flounder 44 28 0.64
*ND - not detected
The excess 1J7Cs levels result from plant discharges. Allfish were collected near the mouth of the dischargecanal and, except for sample lA, during a period(November 1972) of unusually high 1J4CS_'37Csdischarges (see Appendix B.4).
The IJ4CS/137CS ratios given in the above tabulation(background 137Cs concentrations subtracted)approximate the IJ'CS/ 137Cs ratio of 0.70 ± 0.05 instation effluents from July through October 1972 (seeAppendix BA). This confirms that recent stationdischarges are the major source of excess 137Cs and 1J4Csrather than dissolution or uptake from sediment, whichwould reflect a lower 1J4Cs/137Cs ratio.
The .oSr concentrations measured in fish bone arelisted in Table 5.14. Except for sample lA, .oSrconcentrations in fish bone samples from Barnegat Baywere not significantly different than those in fish from
79
~Table 5.14 Radionuclide Concentrations in Fish Muscle or Whole Fish and
Bone, pCilkg Fresh Weight
SampleNo. Fish type Date
No. offish 54Mn
Whole fish or muscle60Co 90Sr l06Ru 137
CS
Bone90Sr
46 + 13
76 + 15
50 + 15
200 + 50
33 + 8
54 + 4
60 + 12
75 + 5
26 + 3
134 + 9
170 + 20
NA
22 + 12
< 30
<8
< 27
. NA
NA
2.1 + 0.8
1.1 + 0.4
1.2 + 0.5
26 + 8
15 + 3
53 + 8
30 + 15
5
15
< 7
< 16
Barnegat Bay near mouth of Oyster Creek (B)
4 34 + 5 54 + 7 1.5 + 0.5- - -25 6~2 <5 1.3+0.6
10<5
66
92
31
4
9/23/71
4/18/72
7/12/72
11/1/72
11/1/72
11/1/72
Toadfish
Flounder
Silver perchPufferFlounderToadfish
JackfishBluefish
BlackfishToadfish
Flounder (Whole)
lA
21
28
39
40
41
16
22
29
30
37
38
Flounder
Flounder
Flounder
Toadfish
Silver perch (Whole)
Flounder
Barnegat Bay near mouth of Cedar Creek (G)
10/19/71 18 5 ~ 2 < 5 1.8 ~ 0.6
4/19/72 26 <4 <4 2.4 ~ 0.5
7/12/72 28 <8 <5 NA
7/12/72 4 < 7 < 8 0.9 ~ 0.4
11/1/72 50 7 + 2 15 ~ 2 2.8 + 0.8
II/l/72 6 <6 8 + 4 0.5 + 0.4
< 15
26 + 8
< 40
NA
NA
NA
17 + 2
30 + 2
32 + 4
37 + 6
93 + 6
73 + 6
36 + 15
49 + 17
34 + 15
64 + II
50 + 12
20
31
32
33
34
11
12
13
17
23
3
1
2
Flounder
Flounder
Toadfish (Whole)
Silver perch (Whole)Blackfish (Whole)
Puffer (Whole)
Flounder
White perch
Silver perch (Whole)
Menhaden (Whole)
Silversides (Whole)
Toadfish (Whole)
Blackfish
Flounder
4/18/72
7/II/72 "
7/II/72
7/11/72
7/II/72
10/18/71
10/18/71
10/18/71
1/30/72
4/19/72
10/21/71
10/21/71
10/21/71
Barnegat Bay near Waretown (H)
IS 10 + 3 5 + 1 0.5 + 0.3- -39 < 6 6 + 2 1 . 3 + 0.5- -
6 8 + 2 29 + 4 11 + 2- - -4 < 5 8 + 3 NA3
3 < 15 < 14 5 + 1
Oyster Creek (D)
26 < 6 14 + 4 1. 5 + 0.4- -
1412+4 <8 1.4+0.5- -26 20 + 3 21 + 4 4.5 + 1.0- - -
Many 29 ~ 6 45 ~ 5 6 ~ 2
Many 6 ~ 1 12 ~ 4 4 . 6 ~ O. 8
South branch of Forked River (E)
4 7 + 4 32 + 7 35 + 10- - -<10 9 0.9+0.6
43 < 5 7 + 2 2.3 + 1.0
26 + 8
29 + 10
49 + 14
28 + 16
< 70
70 + 20
< 30
2S + 12
88 + 13
35 + 10
< 40
< 40
12 + 4
23 + 3
24 + 3
41 + 4
17 + 5
21 + 8
18 +.4
28 + 2
30 + 3
17 + 6
25 .+ 3
33 + 5
45 + 10
14 + 3
41 + 8
50 + 14
60 + 15
110 + 25
60 ~ 20
36 + 14
Table 5.14 Radionuclide Concentrations in Fish Muscle or Whole Fish andBone, pCilkg Fresh Weight (Cont'd)
Sample-No. Fish type Date
No. offish 54Mn
Whole fish or muscle60Co 90Sr 106Ru 137Cs
Bone90Sr
4
5
Silver perch (Whole) 10/21/71
White perch (Whole) 10/21/71
75 < 4
6 <6
7 + 3
<6
7 + 1
12 + 2
23 + 10
26 + 13
24 + 4
8 + 4
Barnegat Bay between Oyster Creek and Forked River (F)
Barnegat Bay near Surf City (I)
<7 <5 1.0+0.6
14
15
6
7
8
9
10
Silver perch (Whole)
Flounder
Blackfish
Flounder (Whole)
Puffer (Whole)
Silver perch (Whole)
Toadfish
10/19/71
10/19/71
10/20/71
10/20/71
10/20/71
10/20/71
10/20/71
35
28
8
21
3
19
9
15 + 3
<4
16 + 5
20 + 6
<6
<5
<6
<6
<8
< 10
< 8
<6
10 + 2
0.6 + 0.3
2.3 + 1.0
12 + 3
7 + 1
1.0 + 0.4
20 + 12
< 20
< 20
40 + 20
< 40
40 + 20
< 20
34 + 3
24 + 4
31 + 6
43 + 6
20 + 6
15 + 3
27 + 3
65 + 15
44 + 16
105 + 30
Barnegat Bay near Island Beach (C)
2A Toadfish (Whole) 9/23/71 4 21 + 7 <9 5 + 2 < 50 24 + 8
Great Bay (Control)
18
19
24
25
26
Flounder
Sculpin
Flounder
Toadfish (Whole)
Blackfish (Whole)Searobin
4/17/72
4/17/72
7/10/72
7/10/72
7/10/72
24
6
2
2
32
< 4
<6
< 7
<5
<5
< 3
< 5
<8
<5
<5
NA
NA
NA
12 + 2
4 + 1
25 + 7
< 40
< 40
< 25
< 20
25 + 3
44 + 4
36 + 6
35 + 4
34 + 4
50 + 10
57 + 19
60 + 10
27SilversidesStickelback (Whole)Killifish
7/10/72 Many < 3 <3 9 + 2 30 + 15 24 + 2
35
36
White perch
FlounderWindowpane
10/31/72
10/31/72
8
3
<6
<6
< 5
<6
NA
0.9 + 0.4
24 + 16
NA
50 + 6
26 + 10
75 + 20
42 + 14
00......
Notes:
1. Locations: See Figures 5.1 and 5.2 for sites B to I in Barnegat Bay and X in Great Bay.
2. <values are 30 counting error; + values are 20 counting error.
3. Radionuclides below detectable ;uantities were 3H « 250); 7Be « 35); 32p « 200); 51Cr « 25); 55Fe « BO);
59Fe « 30); 58Co « 10); 65Zn « 25); 95Zr _95Nb « 10); 1311 « 20); 134Cs « 20); 141Ce « 50); 144Ce « 15);all values in pCi/kg fresh weight.
4. Sample No. 28 contained 69 ~ 5 dpm 14C/gC. The mean concentration of all other samples was 17.0 + 2.5 dpml~/~. -
Table 5.15 Radionuclide Concentration in Fish Gut, pCilkg Fresh Weight
Sample 54Mn 60Co 106Ru 137CsNo. Fish tyPe
lA Toadfish 56 + 12 81 + 19 90 + 50 40 + 11
1 B1ackfish 100 + 34 54 + 27 < 140 <45
2 Flounder 61 + 25 92 + 10 180 + 30 16 + 7
6 B1ackfish <30 < 25 <110 <90
10 Toadfish 58 + 21 < 13 43 + 30 65 + 7
11 Flounder 184 + 32 510 + 35 500 + 120 <40
12 White Perch 81 + 27 280 + 40 185 + 100 210 + 30
15 Flounder < 23 80 + 20 < 180 120 + 15
16 Flounder 39 + 11 40 + 20 < 150 90 + 15
18 Flounder < 25 < 25 < 160 < 30
19 Sculpin < 10 <10 <50 30 + 10
20 Flounder 50 + 7 35 + 16 < 160 100 + 10
21 Flounder 70 + 30 100 + 25 NA < 30
22 Flounder 38 + 6 40 + 7 < 45 50 + 6
28 Mixed < 20 70 + 20 < 150 60 + 15
29 Flounder < 35 < 30 <110 55 + 30
30 Toadfish < 35 60 + 25 < 110 110 + 30
31 Flounder <20 64 + 22 < 150 65 + 15
35 White Perch <40 <40 <150 <75
36 Flounder < 35 < 30 <150 <45Windowpane
38 Flounder <100 130 + 40 < 200 < 140
39 Jackfish< 70 100 + 40 < 300 300 + 75Bluefish
40 B1ackfish 90 + 40 500 + 60 500 + 200 160 + 40Toadfish
Notes:
l. <values are 3a and + values are 20 counting error; radionuc1ides belowdetectable quantities were 65Zn « 90 pCi/kg) and 134Cs « 50 pCi/kg) .
2. 134Cs was measured in two samples: #39 (110 ~ 40) ; #40 (65 ~ 25).
82
Table 5.16 Concentration of '''Cs in Fish Samples
Sample Muscle GutNo. Fish tyPe Site" pCi/kg t pCi/kgt
37 Silver Perch' G 30 + 3
38 Flounder G 28 + 6 < 60
39 Jackfish, Bluefish B 79 + 12 110 + 40
40 Blackfish, Toadfish B 55 + 7 65 + 25
41 Flounder' B 20 + 7
• Whole fish" Letters refer to Figure 5.1.
t Concentrations based on fresh weight.
Table 5.17 Average IJ7Cs Concentration in
Uncontaminated Fish
Station Environment Great BayFish Type pCi/kg' pCi/gK pCi/kg* pei!gK
Planktonic 22 + 4t 9 + 1 24*' 9
Bottom Feeders 27 + 8 9 + 3 29 + 5 8 + 1
Opportunists 33 + 7 13 + 3 38 + 6 12 + 2
Predator 26 + 13 8 + 3 SO" 13
* Fresh Weight*'Only one sample cOllected.t Uncertainties are the standard deviations
of the individual measurements.
Great Bay. The bones of sample lA, 4 toadfishcollected in September 1971, contained about 4 timesthe .oSr as the bones of fish from Great Bay. Theaverage '"Sr concentration of all other fish bonesamples was 57 + 20 pCi/kg fresh weight, 0.23 + 0.05pCilmg Sr and 1.1 ± 0.3 pCilg Ca. Similar to thestable strontium results discussed above, theconcentrations are much less than those usuallyobserved in fresh water fish. (26,28,29) Taking thewater concentrations of calcium and '"Sr from Tables5.1 and 5.3, respectively, the average OR is 0.7 + 0.4.This OR is much higher than that calculated for stablestrontium (see Section 5.4.3) and that normallyobserved for ,0Sr, O. 1--fJ.7. (30,31) Because of the highOR variability between samples, as reflected in thelarge standard deviation and the large uncertaintyassociated with .0Sr measurements in water (see Table5.3), it is recommended that the OR calculated forstable strontium in Section 5.4.3 be applied to .oSr. No"Sr was detected in any fish bone samples at theminimum detectable concentration of 60 pCilkg freshweight (30' counting error).
Both oOCo and "Mn were in fish gut at higherconcentrations than in muscle. In the 8 samples ofwhole fish or muscle which contained measurableamounts of both "Mn and oOCo, the average activity
ratio of oOCo/'Mn is 2.1 + 1.3. This is very similar tothe ratio in fish gut and in the emuent dischargedduring this period, 2.4 + 0.6 (see Appendix B.4). Theseratios, however, appear inconsistent with publishedCF's for these two nuclides; 600 for "Mn and 100 for60Co. (11) Based on the 6°Co/"Mn activity ratio of2.4 instation emuent, the activity ratio in fish muscleaccording to these CF's should be about 0.4, if bothradionuclides are in a chemical form equally availablefor uptake. Since the fractions of oOCo and "Mn insoluble form in canal water were found to be similar(see Section 4.4.4), it is assumed that differences inchemical availability would not account for this largedifference. Hence, either the CF's for these tworadionuclides are about the same for these fish, or <oCofrom another source is available. Since much of thefood for most of these fish is obtained either directly orindirectly from the bottom, such a source may be thebenthos which is associated with sediments containingabout 6 times more <oCo that "Mn (see Section 5.7.4). Ifthe latter is true, estimated concentrations in fish basedon water to fish CF's will be in error.
The oOCo concentration in fish collected at themouth of the discharge canal (Site B) during the fourfield trips increased with the total 00Co dischargedduring a 2-month period immediately preceedingcollection. The increase in fish muscle concentration,however, was not proportional to the amountsdischarged. Variable and unknown factors contributingto this are:
1) The existence of varying fractions of solubleand insoluble (particulate) radionuclides in thewaste solution discharged by the station. The00Co and "Mn in soluble form ranged fromabout 1 to 50 percent (see Section 4.4.4).Hence, the total amount discharged is not ameasure of the quantity of radionuclidesavailable to fish if only the soluble fraction isavailable for uptake. (32)
2) The time fish remain in contaminated water aswell as the time during which the dischargeoccurs and the interval between discharges.
3) The uptake of radionuclides by fish fromsources other than the water. (32) For predatorfish and those that eat shellfish and benthicorganisms, the major source is probably theirfood. For example, the muscle of the toadfish(sample IA) which contained a large numberof gastropods 10 its gut had highconcentrations of both ,0Co and "Mn eventhough the plant had discharged less than 0.07Ci of either for 9 months before samplecollection. Rice has shown that fish obtain
83
more than twice as much 65Zn from food than.from water when both contain the sameconcentration, (33) and the uptake of 54Mn and60Co may be ofa similar nature.
4) Due to the complex hydrology, it is notpossible to ascertain dilution factors forvarious sites in the bay.
The effects of these factors, and possibly others, arereflected in the results of the menhaden samplescollected on January 30, 1972. Movement of these fishprobably had been restricted to the discharge canal for3 months because of the low water temperature of thebay. Based on station effiuent data and the availabledilution in Oyster Creek, the average waterconcentrations of 54Mn and 60Co for the 3-monthperiod, November 1971 through January 1972, were1.32 and 2.55 pCi/liter, respectively (see AppendixB.4). Dividing these concentrations into thosemeasured in the fish yield CF's for 54Mn and 60Co ofonly 22 and 18, respectively. The principal reasons forthese very low estimated CF's are probably items I and2 above.
5.4.5 Hypothetical radionuclide concentrations infish. Radionuclide concentrations in fish exposed toradioactive emuents in the discharge canal from thestation are computed in Table 5.18 to indicate possiblecritical radionuclides.
These calculated hypothetical concentrations arebased on CF's for edible portions of marinefish,(Jl,15,34-36) the estimated annual average1971-1973 concentrations of radionuclides in thedischarge canal water (see Section 5.2.4) and theassumption that radionuclides in the edible portions ofall consumed fish had reached equilibrium withconcentrations in canal water. Of these factors andassumptions, the calculated water concentrations andmany of the CF's are quite approximate, and it is highlyimprobable that radioactive equilibrium in fish isattained. Also, the first three factors discussed inSection 5.4.4 will apply to these calculations, increasingthe uncertainty of these estimated concentrations. (33)
The hypothetical 134CS and 137Cs concentrations infish agree with average measured concentrations of1J4CS and excess (above background) 137Cs in fish at sitesBand D. This would indicate that a CF of 30 forcesium is reasonable. The calculated values for 54Mnand 60Co are much higher than any measuredconcentrations in fish from these two sites. Thehypothetical concentrations for "Fe, 59Fe and 65Zn aresignificantly higher than the minimum detectable levelsdetermined for fish muscle, and would have beendetected if present at these concentration levels. Theabsence of equilibrium conditions and dilution of the
84
canal water as it enters the bay at Site B contributesignificantly to these differences. Also, theseradionuclides are activation products released to thecoolant by corrosion. Therefore, all might be associatedwith particulate matter and unavailable for uptake byfish.
The values in the last column of Table 5.18 arebased on an assumed average daily consumption of 50 gof fish.(37) The calculations assume the maximumpermissible daily occupational drinking-water intakelisted by the International Commission on RadiationProtection (ICRP) to correspond to 5 rem/yr to thetotal body, IS rem/yr to the GI tract, and 30 rem/yr tobone. (38,39) These values, listed in Appendix F.2 foreach radionuclide, assume the daily intake persists foreither 50 years or until equilibrium is reached in thebody. The limits given for the radioiodines are based ona child's thyroid.
Phosphorus-32 appears to be the criticalradionuclide discharged by the station. The annualdose rates from the listed radionuclides would be 5.7mrem/yr to bone (mostly from 32P), 1.1 mrem/yr to achild's thyroid (mostly from Illl), 0.9 mrem/yr to theGI tract (mostly from 32P), and 0.3 mrem/yr internalwhole body (mostly from 32p). Except to the thyroid,J2p contributes the major dose to the other organs of thebody, and for this reason, the doses calculated hereexceed those estimated by the U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission (USAEC) whose calculations did notinclude J2P.(3)Fish collected on October 31, 1973, wereanalyzed for 32p but it was not measurable above theminimum detectable concentration of 200 pCi/kg,equivalent to a dose to the bone of < 0.7 mrem/yr.However, this result is not certain because the amountof J2p last discharged is not known. Sensitivemeasurement of both J2p and 1311 in fish isrecommended for future studies.
Radiation doses based on measured radionuclideconcentrations in muscle are much lower than thoseestimated from hypothetical concentrations. Theaverage measured muscle concentrations for fishcollected from Oyster Creek (D) and near its mouth (B)and of 9°Sr inferred from fish bone analyses are listed inthe second column of Table 5.19 relative to a 50 gsample. This average includes III fish combined into 7samples collected during four periods of the year.Subtracting the concentrations in muscle of fishcollected from Great Bay gives the amount in the canalfish due to the station. These values are listed in thethird column. Listed in the next column are the annualradiation exposures due to station operation based on adaily fish intake of 50 g and the dose rate-daily intakerelationships given in Appendix F.2. According to
Table 5.18 Hypothetical Radionuclide Concentrations in Fish from Oyster Creek
Radionuclide
Annual averageconcentrationin canal water,
1971-1973,* pCi/lConcentration
factor**
Hypotheticalconcentrationin canal fish,t
pCi/kgPercent of
1imittt
51Cr54
Mn55Fe59Fe58Co60Co64
Cu65
Zn
~6As89Sr90
Sr91
Sr95 Zr95
Nb99Mo99m
Tc103
Ru105Rh1l0m
Ag124Sb131
1133 1134Cs137
Cs140Ba141
Ce144Ce239
Np
34.6
0.0073
0.056
0.22
0.35
0.49
0.026
0:085
0.76
0.077
0.015
0.11
0.22
0.030
0.034
0.013
0.021
0.16
0.16
0.0078
0.11
0.0064
0.002
0.27
0.22
0.54
0.82
0.11
0.032
0.020
0.44
0.93
1800
30000
100
600
1600
1600
100
100
670
2000
330
0.5
0.5
0.5
30
100
10
10
3
10
1000
40
10
10
30
30
10
25
25
10
(11)
(11)
(11,20)
(34)
(11)
(20)
(20)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(34)
(20)
(11,20)
(11)
(34 )
(11)
(34)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(11)
(11 )
(Ill
(11)
(11)
(11)
32
13
1680
22
210
780
42
8.5
76
52
30
36
0.11
0.015
0.017
0.39
2.1
1.6
1.6
0.023
1.1
6.4
0.080
2.7
2.2
16
25
1.1
0.80
0.50
4.4
<0.001 TB
<O.OOlTB
1.1 B0.12 TB0.37 GI
<O.OOlGI
0.04 GI
0.02 S
0.01 GI
0.002 GI
0.03 GI
0.003 GI
0.002 TB
0.04 GI
<0.001 B
< 0.001 B
<O.OOlGI
<0.001 GI
< 0.001 GI
< 0.001 GI
< 0.001 GI
<O.OOlGI
< 0.001 GI
0.004 GI
< 0.001 GI
0.17 T
0.04 T
0.01 TB
0.008 TB
0.001 GI
<O.OOlGI
0.001 GI
0.001 GI
* From Section 5.2.4; for 1971 and 1972, 89Sr and 90Sr assumed to be in same ratioas in 1973.
**References given in parentheses.
t The product of the values in columns 2 and 3.
ttThe limit is based on an intake of 50 g fish per day that will result in anexposure equal to the Radiation Protection Guides recommended by the FRC(40):the RPG are 500 mrem/yr for thyroid (T) and bone (B), and 170 mrem/yr for allother critical organs; total body (TB) , gastrointestinal tract (GI), andspleen (S).
85
Table 5.19 Radiation Dose from Eating Fish
Average concentrationmeasured in fish, Radiation dose
Radio- pCi/50 g* from station, Criticalnuclide total from station mrem/yr organ
l4C 40 6 0.0014 Whole Body
54Mn 0.50 0.50 0.0033 GI(LLI)
60Co 1. 04 1. 04 0.015 GI(LLI)
90Sr 0.042 t 0.014 0.04 Bone
106Ru 1.17 0.06 0.004 GI(LLI)
l34Cs 1.2 1.2** 0.030 Whole Body
l37Cs 3.61 1. 80 0.020 Whole Body
*Average concentration measured in fish muscle collected from OysterCreek (D) and at its mouth (B); <values averaged as 1/2 the < value.
**Based on a l34Cs /137 Cs ratio of 0.64 (see Section 5.4.4).
t Based on a bone/muscle ratio of 100 (see Section 5.4.3).
measured concentrations, a person consuming SO g offish per day will receive a radiation dose due to stationoperation of about 0.05 mrem/yr to the whole body,0.02 mrem/yr to the GI tract, and 0.04 mrem/yr to thebone from 90Sr. These dose rates are small, less than 0.1percent of the recommended FRC limit to the wholebody or any critical organ. (40)
In the case of menhaden for fish proteinconcentrate (FPC) to supplement diets, (41) sample no.17 should reflect the radiation dose received byconsumers as a result of station discharges. Menhaden,collected on January 30, 1972, had been in thedischarge canal for probably at least 3 months.(42)About 3 kg of fresh fish yields 0.45 kg of FPC. (25)Since about 10 g of FPC per day is needed to alleviatethe effects of protein deficiency, an equivalent dailyintake of 66 g offresh fish is required. Assuming no lossof radionuclides during processing (an enzymaticdigestion and an alcohol fat extraction) and a sixmonth decay period during processing anddistribution, FPC consumers will receive about 0.25mrem/yr to the GI(LLI), <0.1 mrem/yr to the wholebody and < 0.3 mrem/yr to the bone due to stationdischarge (concentrations in whole fish from Great Baysubtracted from concentrations measured in menhaden- Table 5.14). This is less than 0.2 percent of the FRCradiation protection guide.
86
5.5Radionuclides in Shellfish
5.5.1 Introduction. Five species of shellfish havebeen of sport and commercial importance in the bay:hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria), soft shelled clams(Mya annaria), bay scallops (Aequipectera irradians),blue mussels (Myte1us edulis), and oysters (Crassostreavirginica). The shellfish catch for 1969, however,included no mussels or scallops, and much smalleramounts of soft shelled clams and oysters.(J) Duringthis study from 1971 to 1973, only hard clams weretaken commercially, and no evidence of any othershellfish species was observed although there werelarge masses of oyster shell debris. The catch of hardclams has remained fairly constant over the past 10years despite the increased number of areas closedbecause of domestic sewage poliution.(J) In 1970, anestimated 419,000 pounds of meat from the hard clamwas harvested and sold to markets and restaurants asfar distant as New York City. M mercenaria meat isprepared for consumption either as fresh clams on thehalf-shell or as chowder.
The mechanisms of trace element concentration byshellfish is not totally understood. Being "filterfeeders," clams probably concentrate trace elements toa large degree through ingestion of suspendedparticulate material from the water or they may ingest
trace metals concentrated in algae, plankton or otherfood material.(43,44) The complicated nature of thisprocess is demonstrated by "filter-feeding" animals ofdifferent species living in the same environment andhaving the capacity to concentrate differentradionuclides.(33) Because of their feeding habits and.metabolic requirements, clams tend to concentrate anumber of trace elements that are major radioactivecorrosion products (Co, Mn, Cr, Zn, etc.) discharged inliquid effiuents from nuclear power stations. (33,43-45)Because of this as well as the immobility of clamswithin beds located near the mouth of the dischargecanal and the large quantities of clam meat fromBarnegat Bay that are consumed by man, one mightexpect clams to concentrate certain radionuclides tohigher levels than the mobile finfish, constitute asignificant radiation exposure pathway to man, and bea good biological indicator of radionuclides in theaquatic environment.
5.5.2 Collection and analysis. Samples of Mmercenaria were collected from sites B, G and H inBarnegat Bay (see Figure 5.1). Samples were collected5 times during the period of October 1971 to October1973, although all sites were not sampled on eachoccasion. Background samples were also taken fromGreat Bay each time. The clams were collected in 1 to 3meters of water by a clam rake operated from a boat. Inaddition to M mercenaria, the large clam-eatingwhelk, Busycon canaliculatum, was obtained from SiteH in April 1972 and from Site G in November 1972.Although this species is not normally eaten by man, itsometimes feeds on the M mercenan'a and, therefore,may contain higher levels of radioactivity.(42) Onesample of the common mud snail, Nassarius absoletus,was taken from the gut of a large toadfish collected inSeptember 1971 near the mouth of the discharge canal.
Rock barnacles (arthropoda) and polychaeta tubeswere collected on two occasions. The former wasobtained once beneath the route U.S. 9 bridge in theintake canal and twice beneath the railroad bridge inthe discharge canl, while the latter was obtained twiceat the intake canal sampling point. A large sample ofannelid tubes from a live colony (species unknown)were obtained in the trawl at Site H near Waretown inApril 1972.
Except for the last two samples, numbers 17 and18, the shellfish were frozen in thei r shells and returnedto the laboratory on dry ice. In the case of the last twosamples, the clams were shucked in the boat as theywere collected, and the meat and fluid were placed inseparate containers and returned to the laboratory onice.
The clam meat was thawed. removed from theshell, and analyzed for gamma-ray emitters and for 'H,"c and radiostrontium as described in Section 5.4.2.The fluid of the M mercenaria was analyzedseparately. The shells were analyzed after removing allorganic material. The snails, N absoletus, wereanalyzed whole, as were the barnacles and the wormtubes after cleaning all foreign material from theirexterior.
Samples of clam meat and fluid were analyzed for2IOPb_2IOpo by digesting the sample in HN03 and 72percent HCl04 at 850 C. The lI°Pb concentrations werecalculated from the llOpO ingrowth which wasmeasured by repeating the 2IOpo deposition on anothersilver disc 3 to 4 months after the initial deposition. Theactivity of the deposited 2IOpo was measured in a lowbackground ZnS(Ag) scintillation counter. Themeasured 1I0po concentrations were corrected foringrowth and decay to the time of collection.
5.5.3 Results and discussion. The shellfishcollection data and analytical results are shown inTables 5.20 and 5.21. The samples are listed in Table5.20 according to the collection site. Sample sizes of Mmercenan'a varied from 34 to 55 clams each, whichwere combined and homogenized prior to analysis.Only one B. canaliculatum consisting of about 130 g ofmeat was collected on each occasion.
Except in one case, the only radionuclidesattributable to the station in the shellfish samples wereoOCo in the meat and fluid, which)Vas detected in allsamples except the controls from Great Bay and one ofthe large whelks, and 90Sr in the shells. The oneexception was N absoletus obtained from the gut of atoadfish. These small gastropods contained relativelyhigh levels of both oOCo and 54Mn. The consequence ofthis diet was reflected in an unusually high 00Co and54Mn content in fish muscle (see Section 5.4.4, sample1A in Table 5.14). This was the only shellfish sample inwhich 5'Mn was detected. The concentration of 00Co inthe clam meat did not vary significantly with time orlocation, and the mean concentration of all samples ofclam meat from Barnegat Bay was 190 + 40 pCi/kg
I -
fresh weight. This concentration is similar to thatreported by McCurdy, who also did not detect 54Mn inclams collected in 1972. Detectable amounts of 54Mn,however, were reported in clams during 1971 (seeSection 5.1.4). (6) This may indicate that higher levelsof 54Mn were discharged by the station in 1971 orearlier. Carbon-14 was detected in all samples near thenormal level of 17 + 2 dpm/g C.(22) The mean "cconcentration measured was 18 + 3 dpm/g C, whichwas equivalent to 270 + 50 pCi/kg fresh weight.
87
0000
Table 5.20 Radionuclide Concentrations in Shellfish, pCilkg Fresh Weight
Sample Number 60CoNo. Species Date in Sample Sample 90Sr K**Bay, at mouth of Oyster Creek (B)*
2 M. mercenaria 10/22/71 38 meat 200 + 30 < 15 0.43 + 0.05
fluid 180 + 20 NA O. 36 ~ 0.08
shell 20 + 10 180 + 50 0.20 + 0.10
lA N. absoletus t 9/23/71 8 whole 1300 + 180 NA 4 + 2
5 M. mercenaria 4/18/72 34 meat 170 + 20 < 12 1.20 + 0.10
fluid 170 + 25 NA 0.80 + 0.20.shell 17 + 11 160 + 50 0.40 + 0.10
11 M. mercenaria 7/12/72 37 meat 230 + 20 < 20 0.88 + 0.09
fluid 230 + 30 NA 1.20 + 0.20
shell 40 + 20 400 + 40 0.40 + 0.10
13 M. mercenaria 11/2/72 37 meat 180 + 20 NA 0.70 + 0.20
fluid 160 + 20 NA 0.90 + 0.20
shell 26 + 11 120 + 40 0.20 + 0.10
18 M. mercenaria 10/31/73 50 meat 150 + 10 NA 1.7 + 0.2
fluid 170 + 15 NA 0.47 + 0.09
shell 33 + 9 NA 0.25 + 0.07
Bay, off Waretown (H)
1 M. mercenaria 10/22/71 41 meat 260 + 50 < 20 1. 50 + 0.20
fluid 230 + 30 NA 0.46 + 0.05
shell 15 + 9 95 + 30 0.30 + 0.10
7 B. canalicu1atum 4/18/72 1 meat < 25 NA 1.50 + 0.20
shell NA 190 + 50 NA
10 M. mercenaria 7/11/72 55 meat 150 + 20 < 15 1. 04 + 0.10
fluid 120 + 20 NA 1.10 + 0.10
shell 35 + 20 210 + 40 0.26 + 0.07
Table 5.20 Radionuclide Concentrations in Shellfish, pCi/kg Fresh Weight (Cont'd)
Sample Number 60 90No. Species Date in Sample Sample Co Sr K**
14 M. mercenaria 11/2/72 45 meat 170 + 20 NA 1.10 + 0.20
fluid
shell
ISO + 30
30 + 10
NA
100 + SO
1.40 + 0.50
0.14 + 0.07
Bay, near mouth of Cedar Creek (G)
B. cana1iculatum 11/2/72
200 + 30 < 20
160 + 20 < 20
IS
16
M. mercenaria 11/2/72 45
1
meat
fluid
shell
meat
shell
Great Bay (X)
190 + 40
22 + 9
NA
NA
220 + 50
260 + 50
1.16 + 0.09
1.60 + 0.50
0.30 + 0.10
1.70 + 0.20
NA
M. mercenariat 4/17/72
*
4
9
12
17
M. mercenaria
M. mercenaria
M. mercenaria
7/10/72
10/31/72
10/30/73
36
55
37
40
meat
fluid
shell
meat
fluid
shell
meat
fluid
shell
meat
fluid
shell
< 12
< IS
NA
< 20
< 20
< 17
< 17
< 17
NA
< 10
< 10
<11
< 15
NA
90 + 4U
NA
NA
120 + 40
< 18
NA
110 + 40
NA
NA
NA
1.40 + 0.10
1.10 + 0.10
NA
1.30 + 0.10
1.10 + 0.20
0.20 + 0.10
1.50 + 0.30
1.10 + 0.20
NA
1.30+0.20
0.80 + 0.10
0.20 + 0.10
00CD
Locations: See Figures 5.1 and 5.2.
**Potassium given in units of g/kg, and based on there being 848 pCi 40K/ gK .
t Additional radionuc1ides were 3100 + 200 pCi 54Mn/kg in sample lA, 40 + 10 pCi 137Cs/kg in sample 4,and a mean concentration of 18 ~ 3 dpm 14C/ gC for all samples. -
NA - Not analyzed.
Radionuclides below detectable quantities were 3H «250), 32p «400), 51Cr «250) 54Mn «20),55Fe «100), 58Co «30), 65Zn «60), 95Zr _95Nb «80), 131 1 «15), 1~4Cs «30), 13~Cs «20); all valuesin pCi/kg fresh weight.
Table 5.21 The Concentration of
2I·Pb and "·Po in Shellfish Samples
Sample Collection Sample 210po 210Pb,,No. site* type pCi/kg pCi/kg
12 GB-X Meat 350 + 5 70 + 2
13 B Meat 390 + 10 70 + 5
Fluid 80 + 3 15 + 2
14 H Meat 500 + 10 30 + 3
Fluid 130 + 8 10 + 3
15 G Meat 390 + 5 70 + 2
Fluid 100 + 2 15 + 2
16 G Meat 230 + 10 20 + 2
*Letters refer to map in Figure 5.2.
Notes:
1. All samples ~. mercenaria, exceptNo. 16 which is B. canaliculatum,and were collected between10/31-11/2/72 .
2. Errors are 20 of the count rate.
The concentration ofooCo was reported earlier to behigher in clam fluid than in meat. (6) The results inTable 5.20, however, show no significant difference inoOCo concentration between the two media. The meanconcentration of all samples of the clam fluid is 180 +30 pCilkg. This level in clam fluid, similar to that inmeat, is unexpected since a large portion of the fluidconsists of sea water. It has been suggested that the oOCois associated with coarse particles that were rejected bythe clam and became suspended in the fluid. (6)Another explanation may be that while the animalsremain alive between collection and analysis, anequilibrium between meat and fluid is established. Totest these hypotheses, the shellfish that were obtainedin Barnegat Bay at the mouth of the discharge canal onOctober 31, 1973, were shucked in the boatimmediately after collection and the meat and fluidwere placed in separate containers, cooled on ice andreturned to the laboratory for analysis. The results ofthe sample (No. 18, Table 5.20) again reflect similarconcentrations of oOCo in meat and fluid. After theinitial fluid analysis, 400 cc were centrifuged at 2800rpm for 30 minutes to remove particulate matter. Theresidue obtained contained less than 2 percent of thetotal oOCo activity in the 400 cc sample. The protein
fraction of _ the fluid was then separated byultracentrifugation at 178,000 G's for 1 hour. * Theprotein recovered weighed 15 g wet and 2.75 g dry. The.0Co activity associated with the protein fraction basedon 400 cc was equivalent to 200 + 12 pCi/1, while theconcentration of the supernatant liquor was < 7 pCi/i.The .oCo concentration based on that measured in theprotein is in reasonable agreement with the originalclam fluid measurement, 170 + 15 pCi/i. Theseresults indicate that oOCo in clam fluid is associatedclosely with the protein and has been metabolized bythe clam. This is important since clam fluid is oftenconsumed with the meat.
The protein associated radioactivity may alsoexplain the higher fluid concentrations relative to that'of the meat reported earlier by McCurdy,(6) whorecently observed that fluid samples separate into twophases upon prolonged standing. (46) The denserprotein fraction, containing most of the radioactivity,settles nearer the container bottom (nearer thedetector) leading to a better counting geometry thanthat when the radioactivity is uniformly distributedthroughout the total sample volume. Because of this,fluid samples should be analyzed immediately aftersample preparation to assure homogeneity.
The oOCo concentrations in the two large whelksamples were considerably less than that measured inthe M mercenaria. This may be due to the filter feeding,characteristics of the latter and the presence of 00Co inthe plankton and algae they consume. No .oCo wasdetected in the sample collected in Barnegat Bay nearWaretown « 25 pCilkg) and only 60 pCi/kg wasmeasured in the sample from the site near Cedar Creek.This is only 30 percent of that in the M mercenariacollected at the same site and time. Either this largewhelk, which sometimes feed on M mercenaria, as wellas other invertebrates in the bottom sediments, had notdone so recently or absorbed very little cobalt throughthe gut. Large differences in the ability of differentspecies of mollusks to concentrate trace metals havebeen demonstrated. (33)
In most cases, the 90SI' concentration in molluskshells collected from the three Barnegat Bay sites weresignificantly higher than that in the controls fromGreat Bay. There were considerable variations inconcentration between samples, and the concentrationsin shells from the sites near Oyster Creek and CedarCreek appeared higher than in those near Waretown.Concentrations of 90SI' in the shells of M mercenaria
'We thank Dr. G. Murthy, USFDA, Cincinnati, Ohio, for assisting with the protein separation.
90
and B. canaliculatum were similar. The meanconcentration of ,oSr in all M mercenaria shells fromBarnegat Bay was 190 + 100 pei/kg, compared to 105±15 pei/kg in the shells from Great Bay. Subtractingthe concentration of ,oSr in the control shells of GreatBay from the concentration in the Barnegat Bay shellsgives an average 90Sr excess of 85 + 100 pei/kg. Theratio of strontium in shell to that in muscle is reportedto vary from about 10 to 16.(12,15,45,47) Applyingthese ratios, the .oSr concentration in clam meat takenfrom these areas of Barnegat Bay would vary fromabout 10 to 25 pCi/kg, near or below the minimumdetectable level of20 pCi/kg.
The average potassium concentration in muscle ofM mercenaria is 1.3 + 0.4 g/kg, somewhat higherthan that in the fluid, 1.0 + 0.3 g/kg. Dividing theconcentration in muscle by a CF of 6.6, (11) indicates awater concentration of 200 + 60 mg/l, which agreeswith the potassium concentration in water collectedfrom Barnegat Bay (see Section 5.2.2).
No 'H, J2p, "Co or 6SZn was detected in anyshellfish. Manganese-54 was not detected in anysamples of M mercenaria or B. canaliculatum, and theIJ7Cs concentration was below the minimum detectablelevel in all samples except #4 from Great Bay whichcontained 40 + 10 pei/kg. Radionuclides detected inthe control samples from Great Bay were 4°K in meat,,oSr in shell, and IJ7Cs in one meat sample. Faiiure todetect "'Cs in meat samples results from the smallamounts discharged, low sea water concentration, andthe relatively low CF for IJ7Cs in clam meat. Failure todetect 54Mn when it was easily detectable in fish muscle,however, is surprising in view of the very large CFquoted for manganese in clam meat (104 to 5 X
104). (11,15,20,34)Because lIOpo, an alpha-emitting naturally
occurring radionuclide, has been reported in shellfishmuscle,(48,49) 5 shellfish samples were analyzed for210Pb and 21OPO, with the results given in Table 5.21. The21OpO is in higher concentration in shellfish muscle thanany radionuclide from plant effiuents. The lIOpo in meatranged from 230 to 500 pCi/kg fresh weight, and wasconcentrated in muscle relative to fluid by a factor ofabout 4. The concentration of 21°Pb in clam musclevaried from 20 to 70 pCi/kg fresh weight, and it wassimilarly concentrated in the muscle.
Average concentrations were 370 + 90 pCilIOpo/kg and 50 ± 20 pCi lIOPb/kg in the ~uscle, and
100 + 20 pCi 210polkg and 13 + 3 pCi 210Pblkg influid~Hence, the lIOpo is unsupported in shellfishmuscle and fluid. The 21Opo/21 °Pb activity ratios variedfrom 5 to 17, with an average ratio of 9. This indicatesthat the 210pO is accumulated by shellfish from foodrather than water, as concentrations of 210Pb and "opoin coastal sea water indicate a 2lopo/21OPb activity ratiobelow unity.(49) Phytoplankton and zooplankton,which are consumed by filter-feeding clams, containrelatively high levels of ~IOpO and a 21Opo/21°Pb activityratio ranging from 4 to 13, similar to that observed inclams.(49,50) High lIOpo levels may thus also beexpected in finfish that consume mostly plankton.
The distribution of 21Opo in clam fluid wasexamined to determine if 21Opo was associated mainlywith protein, as has been reported.(51) The lIOpoconcentration of sample No. 18 was measured in fluidand in the liquid phase of the fluid after the protein hadbeen removed by ultracentrifugation (see above). The"opo could not be measured directly in the proteinfraction as it had previously been ashed at 4500 C. Theresults of these analyses were:
'lOpO, llOPb,
pCi/kg pCi/kg
Whole fluid 91 ± 3 14 ± 1Supernatant liquid 17 ± 1 3 ± 1The protein fraction, which. consisted of only about 4percent of the fluid mass (15 gprotein/400 g fluid), isdetermined by difference to contain 80 percent of the"opo and 21Opb, as was the case of 6oCo.
The concentration of radionuclides measured inwhole barnacles (arthropoda) and annelid tubes fromthe coolant water and intake canals, and in the clusterof annelid tubes collected from Barnegat Bay nearWatetown, are given in Table 5.22. These resultsindicate that these organisms concentrate S4Mn, "Co,60Co and ,oSr discharged from the station. The higherlevels in the earlier samples reflect higher stationdischarges in the latter part of 1971.
Barnacles (Pollicipes po1ymerus) collected in theeastern Pacific Ocean have been reported to containabout 5 pei/kg each of S4Mn and 60Co. (52) These levelsreflect large concentration factors, 10'-104, as theconcentration of S4Mn and 60Co in sea water fromfallout is very low. CF's based on concentrationsmeasured in whole barnacles collected in January 1972from the discharge canal and the average OctoberDecember 1971 hypothetical water concentrations inOyster Creek* (see Appendix B.4), are:
• A three-month discharge period was selected because mollusk excretion data indicate that the bulk of theradionuclides measured in these samples would be predominantly the result of station discharges during theprevious 100 days. (45,53)
91
Table 5.22 Radionuclide Concentration in. Barnacles and Annelid Tubes, pCilkg Fresh Weight
Date 54Mn
58Cocollected Location 60
Co90
Sr137
Cs
Arthropoda
1/18/72 discharge canal 1200 + 50 600 + 30 2700 + 90 2100 + 200 100 + 20
1/18/72 intake canal 200 + 20 < 50 300 + 30 680 + 200 < 50
4/11/72 discharge canal 300 + 20 < 40 1000 + 100 380 + 40 < 100
Annelid Tubes
1/18/72 intake canal 300 + 20 < 50 400 + 30 800 + 200 < 50
4/11/72 intake canal 300 + 20 < 70 300 + 25 300 + 40 < 100
4/18/72 Site H 320 + 20 < 40 200 + 20 NA 130 + 20
Notes
1. 89Sr < 200 pCi/kg
2. <values are 30 and + values are 20 of the count rate.
3. NA - Not Analyzed
Background concentrations of 9·Sr and 137Cs (Section5.2.3) were included in the average hypothetical canalwater values for these calculatiOIls. All estimated CF's,except for 137CS, approach or exceed 103
• Barnacles,because of these large CF's and their immobility,should be good indicators for radionuclides dischargedby the station.
Radionuclides are in barnacles from both canals,reflecting recirculation of station effiuents. The higherconcentrations of S4Mn and '·Co in the barnaclescollected from the discharge canal in January 1972,indicate that only 10 to 15 percent of the effiuent wasrecirculating through the intake canal during thisperiod.
5.5.4 Hypothetical radionuclide concentration inshellfish. Although shellfish do not grow in thedischarge canal, the concentrations of radionuclides inshellfish that would be so exposed to radioactiveeffiuent from the station were computed to indicatepossible critical radionuclides. These calculatedconcentrations are given in Table 5.23.
Calculated hypothetical concentrations are basedon concentration factors for marine mollusks,(20,34)the estimated annual average 1971-1973concentrations of radionuclides in discharge canalwater (Section 5.2.4), and the assumption thatradionuclides in shellfish meat had reached equilibriumwith radionuclide concentrations in the canal. Thesehypothetical concentrations will have the same
"Mn"Co··Co
8001600900
1600100
associated uncertamtIes as those calculated for fish(Section 5.4.5).
A comparison of the concentrations measured inclam muscle with the hypothetical concentrationsindicate the latter to be higher, particularly for S4Mn,"Fe and 6SZn. This is to be expected since it is unlikelythat equilibrium has been attained and some dilutionoccurs as the water moves into the mouth of the creekto Site B, the location of the closest clam bed. Thehypothetical '·Co concentration is 2.5 times thatmeasured in the samples, but the hypotheticalconcentration of S4Mn is 210 times the minimumdetectable level of 20 pCilkg. Possibly the manganese isin a form that is not available for uptake by the clam,but the S4Mn levels detected in fish suggest that the CFfor shellfish muscle is excessive for Barnegat Bay. Theturnover rate of manganese in clams is faster than thatfor cobalt,(45) but as McCurdy concluded, is notsufficiently rapid to explain the observed large'·Co/S4Mn activity ratio. (6)
Ifone considers that:1) twice as much '·Co as S4Mn is discharged and
the percent of '·Co existing in the dischargecanal in a soluble form is I to 3 times thesoluble percent of S4Mn (Section 4.4.4), theamount of '·Co available for uptake is 2 to 6times that of s'Mn, assuming only the solublechemical species are available for uptake,
2) S4Mn is eliminated from clam muscle at a rateroughly 2.5 times that of 'OCo, (45,.53) and
3) the average concentrations of ,oCo and S4Mn inclam muscle are 180 pCilkg and < 20 pCilkg,respectively,
92
Table 5.23 Hypothetical Radionuclide Concentrations in Shellfish Muscle
Radionuclide3H14
C32p
51Cr54
Mn55 Fe59Fe58Co60
Co64
Cu65 Zn76
As89
Sr90Sr91Sr95Zr95Nb99Mo99~c
103Ru105
Rh110mAg124Sb131 1133
1134
Cs137
Cs140Ba141
Ce144Ce239Np
Annual average Hypotheticalconcentration concentration
in water, * Concentration in shellfish, t Percent ofpCi/l factor** pCi/kg 1imittt
34.6 1 35 < 0.001 TB
0.0073 4,700 34 < 0.001 TB
0.056 6,000 340 0.23 B
0.22 440 97 < 0.001 G1
0.35 12,000 4,200 0.84 G1
0.49 9,600 4,700 0.12 S
0.026 9,600 250 0.08 G1
0.085 600 51 0.01 GI
0.76 600 460 0.18 GI
0.077 5,000 380 0.03 G1
0.015 11,000 160 0.01 TB
0.11 650 72 0.07 GI
0.22 1 0.22 < 0.001 B
0.030 1 0.03 0.001 B
0.034 1 0.03 < 0.001 GI
0.013 2 0.03 < 0.001 GI
0.021 7 0.15 < 0.001 GI
0.16 60 10 0.001 G1
0.16 100 16 < 0.001 GI
0.0078 3 0.023 < 0.001 GI
0.11 100 11 0.002 GI
0.0064 7,100 45 0.03 GI
0.002 1,000 2 0.002 GI
0.27 50 14 0.93 T
0.22 50 11 0.22 T
0.54 8 4.3 0.003 TB
0.82 8 6.6 0.002 TB
0.11 3 0.3 < 0.001 GI
0.032 360 12 0.003 GI
0.020 360 7 0.01 GI
0.44 10 4.4 0.001 GI
* From Section 5.2.4; 89Sr and 90Sr assumed to be the same ratio in 1971 and 1972as in 1973.
**CF based on reference 20, except 3H, 99~c, 105Rh and 239Np are based onreference 34.
t The product of the values in columns 2 and 3.
ttThe limit is based on an intake of 50 g fish per day that will result in anexposure equal to the Radiation Protection Guides recommended by the FRC(40):the RPG are 500 mrem/yr for thyroid (T) and bone (B), and 170 mrem/yr for allother critical organs; total body (TB), gastrointestinal tract (GI), andspleen (S).
93
the CF oe4Mn at best can be no greater than 1.7 timesthat of MCO, or about 1000, assuming a 60Co CF of 600.
The average radionuclide concentrations measuredin clam meat are listed in the second column of Table5.24 relative to a 50 g sample, the assumed averagedaily intake by persons eating shellfish. (54) Theaverage .oSr concentration listed for the meat is basedon the average clam shell concentration of 190 pCi/kgand a shell/meat ratio of 16 (see Section 5.5.3).Subtracting the concentrations in the backgroundclams from Great Bay, 105 pCi .oSrlkg shell --:- 16,270pCi 14C/kg and 21 pCi 21°po/kg, gives the amount inmeat of Barnegat Bay clams due to effiuents from thestation. These values are listed in the third column. Thefourth column lists the hypothetical concentrationsfrom Table 5.23. The next three columns list theestimated radiation dose rates: the total, that resultingfrom station effiuents, and that based on thehypothetical concentrations. These dose rates werecalculated using the daily intake-dose rate relationshipsgiven in Appendix F.2.
Except for .oSr, the hypothetical dose rates exceedthose based on measured concentrations and wouldindicate that radioiodines, 32p, 54Mn and .oSr are thecritical radionuclides. The dose rate from 54Mn has
been' shown to be greatly overestimated; largeminimum detectable levels prevent comparisons for theradioiodines and 32p values. Also, it is not possible toconfirm the .oSr dose to the bone as it could not bemeasured in the meat at the level inferred from the shellmeasurements. An effort should be made in futurestudies to measure these radionuclides. The largestdose rates are delivered by "opo, a naturally-occurringradionuclide. The dose rates from radionuclides instation discharges are relatively small compared tothose resulting from "opo.
A summation of the annual doses from stationdischarges, given in Table 5.24 for each critical organ,compare with those calculated by the USAEC asfollows:
Annual dose Annual dosebased on Hypothetical calculat~d
Critical measured annual dose, by USAEC,(3)organ cone., mrem mrem mrem*
Total Body <0.1 <0.1 0.03Thyroid <5 5.1 0.5GI tract 0.1 1.8 0.3Bone 1.0 1.1 0.03
*Based on a daily intake of 25 g of clam meat.
Table 5.24 Radiation Dose from Eating Clam Meat
Radiation dose rate, mrem!yrtotal from station hypothetical*
Radio- Average concentration, pCi!50 gnuclide total from station hrpothetical*14C 14 < 5 1.732 p < 20 < 20 1754
Mn < 1 < 1 21055 Fe < 5 < 5 23559Fe < 2 < 2 1360 Co 10 10 2390SI' 0.6** 0.3** < 0.1131
1 < 0.8 < 0.8 0.7133
1 NOH NOH 0.6210 po 21 0 0
*
< 0.1
< 1. 3
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
2.0
< 5 t
21
18
5
3
0.7
0.5
< 0.1
< 1. 3
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
1.0
< 5t
oooooo
< 0.1
1.1
1.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
<0.3
4 t
1.1 t
ooo0'
oo
Criticalorgan
Total Body
Bone
Gr(LL1)
Spleen
Gr(LL!)
G1eLL!)
Bone
Thyroid
Thyroid
Spleen
Kidney
Liver
Bone
Total Body
Gr(LL!)
Based on the ,hypothetical concentrations given in Table 5.23; only those radionuclides thatdeliver 0.1 ~rem!yr or more are included. '
** . -Based on the average 90Sr concentration in the shells and a shell/muscle ratio of 16.
t Dose is based on a child's thyroid (see Appendix F.2).
tt NO - not detected.
94
The dose rates show reasonable agreement, consideringthat the AEC calculations were based on a daily intakeof 25 g clam meat. Phosphorus-32, which the AEC didnot consider, is responsible for the larger hypotheticalbone dose, and failure to detect 54Mn in any samplesestablished the hypothetical GI dose to beoverestimated. These dose rates are all less than 2percent of the Radiation Protection Guidesrecommended by the FRC: 500 mrem/yr to the boneand thyroid and 170 mrem/yr to all of the other criticalorgans. (40) As discussed above, for all critical organsexcept the thyroid, these dose rates are small comparedto that due to 2IOpo. For this reason, it is recommendedthat, in addition to "p and IlII, future surveillancestudies include measurements of lIOpo in shellfish meatto determine the relative significance of the exposuresresulting from radionuclides discharged by the station.
5.6Radionuclides in Crustacea
5.6.1 Introduction. The blue crab, Collinectes,sapides, is taken from Barnegat Bay and the intake anddischarge canals by both commercial and sportfishermen. The total harvest of blue crabs from the areawas estimated to be 29,600 kg in 1969 and 32,700 kg in1970.(J,5) Crabs are taken in large numbers byindividuals fishing from the Highway 9 bridge over thedischarge canal and along its banks.
Crab samples are not included in the station'saquatic environmental monitoring program.(J)McCurdy analyzed a few crab samples and detectedvery little radioactivity in the edible portions. (6, 7) Eventhough little evidence of radionuclide uptake exists, (55)blue crabs were studied because of their abundance inBarnegat Bay and the discharge canal and thesignificant amounts eaten by the local population.
5.6.2 Collection and analysis. Blue crabs werecollected by trawl in the fall of 1971 and'again in Apriland July of 1972. A total of 13 samples, consisting of 5to 35 specimens each, were obtained from the dischargeand intake canals, Barnegat Bay and Great Bay.Samples from the latter were considered controls. Adescription of the crab samples is given in Table 5.25.The crabs were frozen, returned to the laboratory,thawed and dissected into meat, gut and stomach, gillsand skeleton. Radiochemical and stable chemicalanalyses were performed as described previously.
5.6.3 Results and discussion. No radionuclidesattributable to the Oyster Creek station were detectedin the muscle; gills, gut and stomach. Naturally-
occurring ,oK and small concentrations of 137Cs fromfallout were observed in crab meat at an averageconcentration of 2.8 + 0.4 g K */kg and 30 + 12 pCi137Cs/kg fresh weighlThe average "c concentrationwas 17 + 2 dpm/g C (470 + 100 pCilkg fresh weight),and is totally attributed to cosmic ray production andfallout. (22) The minimum detectable levels ofradionuclides in crab meat at the 3-standard deviationconfidence level were: .oCo < 60 pCi/kg, 54Mn < 50pCilkg, and .sZn < 80 pCi/kg. Because of the absenceof measurable quantities and the difficulty in separatingmeat from exoskeleton, crabs were not collected afterthe July 1972 field trip.
Some exoskeletons contained measurablequantities oCS'Mn and 90Sr exceeding those measured incontrol samples from Great Bay, as shown in Table5.25. Manganese-54 was observed in the skeleton ofcrabs collected from the discharge canal, the southbranch of Forked River (intake canal) and from Sites B,Hand G in Barnegat Bay. Concentrations ranged from80 pCi/kg to 440 pCi/kg fresh weight, and weresomewhat higher in the fall of 1971 than in the summerof 1972. High s4Mn levels in the crab exoskeletonrelative to interior body parts have previously beenobserved and attributed to both surface adsorption ofMn02 from surrounding water and the possiblesubstitution of Mn for Ca in the lattice of the chitinskeleton. (56)
Crabs were very scarce during April 1972, havingnot recovered from hibernation. The only sample inBarnegat Bay collected during this period were 5 crabsfrom near Cedar Creek, Site G, which contained nomeasurable quantities ofs'Mn, as might be expected.
The average concentration of 90Sr measured in' theexoskeleton of control crabs from Great Bay was 110+ 30 pCi/kg or 19 + 5 pCi 90Sr/mg Sr. The levels of90Sr in the samples obtained from Barnegat Bay in thevicinity of the mouth of Oyster Creek (Sites D, B, E, F,G, H) range from 35-95 pCi 90Sr/mg Sr, and exceedsthe background concentration in some cases by morethan 5 times. .
The average stable strontium and calcium skeletalconcentrations were 5.4 + 0.4 mg/kg and 0.42 + 0.03glkg, respectively, with an average Sr/Ca ratio of 12.8± 0.7 mg Sr/g Ca. Assuming an average Sr/Ca ratio inthe bay water of20 + 1 mg Sr/g Ca (see Section 5.2.2),results in an observed ratio for the exoskeleton of 0.64+ 0.05. Concentration factors for strontium andcalcium were calculated to be 1.0 and 1.6, respectively,using the average concentrations of strontium and
·Calculated by measuring the <OK concentration and assuming 848 pCi <OK/g K.
95
Table 5.25 Radionuclide and Stable Element Concentrations in Crab Exoskeletons
Sample Collection No. of Sr, Ca, 54Mn , 90Sr ,No. date Location* specimens g/kg g/kg pCi/kg pCi/kg
1 9/23/71 B 13 0.0050 0.45 290 + 30 170 + 20
2 9/23/71 C 5 0.0049 0.40 < 60 240 + 50
3 10/18/71 0 16 0.0060 0.48 440 + 50 570 + 60
4 10/21/71 E 22 0.0054 0.42 320 + 30 320 + 30
5 10/19/71 F 6 0.0045 0.34 < 60 180 + 50
6 10/20/71 I 35 NA NA < 40 NA
7 10/21/71 G 13 0.0058 0.43 240 + 40 470 + 50
8 4/17/72 GB-X 10 0.0059 0.44 < 20 90 + 10
9 4/19/72 G 5 0.0058 0.45 < 60 240 + 30
10 7/11/72 GB-X 12 0.0058 0.46 < 30 130 + 20
11 7/11/72 H 6 0.0056 0.42 110 + 20 200 + 20
12 7/12/72 B 8 0.0052 0.40 150 + 50 250 + 30
13 7/12/72 G 16 0.0052 0.42 80 + 30 200 + 20
*Locations are shown on map in Figures 5.1 and 5.2.
Notes:
1. Concentrations based on fresh weight.
2. + values are 20 of count rate; < values are 30 of CDuht rate.
3. Error of Ca and Sr values are 2% and 3%, respectively.
calcium in bay water given in Section 5.2.2 with thoseabove for the exoskeleton. Crab skeletons would thusnot be useful indicators of strontium or calcium in theenvironment. Relating the concentration of nuclides incrab exoskeleton to station discharges over any periodof time may be difficult because, in addition to thenormal turnover of radionuclides in the calcareousmaterial of the crab, periodic molting will result in asudden loss of all accumulated nuclides.
At the present operating level and conditions atOyster Creek, the consumption of crab meat by mandoes not constitute a measurable pathway.
5.7Radionuc/ides in Sediment
5.7.1 Sample collection and preparation. On fivefield trips from October 1971 to October 1973, a total
of 59 sediment samples were collected from thedischarge canal, intake canal, throughout BarnegatBay and in Great Bay at locations shown in Figures 5.3and 5.4. They were obtained with Petersen or Eckmandredges at depths of 2-10 em. During the first trip(October 1971) the largest number of samples (31) wasobtained throughout Barnegat Bay to survey the rangeof. accumulated reactor-produced radionuclides insediment. A submersible 10- x lO-cm NaI(TI) probeand associated portable multichannel pulse-heightanalyzer were used to locate areas where build-up of.oCo was detectable.*(26)
On April 18, 1972, several 2.5-cm-diameter coresamples were taken at Site 4 in the discharge canal (seeFigure 5.3). In the laboratory, they were separated into3 clearly visible zones (0-6 cm, 6-12 em, and 12-30cm) and each zone was combined to yield samplessufficiently large for gamma-ray analysis.
·We thank Mr. Sam Windham, Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, USEPA, for providing theinstrument and participating in the measurements.
96
BarnegaT Boy
®
MilesKm
oIo
CedarBeach
0.5, " «
0.5I
1.0
1.0I
12.0
Figure 5.3 Sediment sampling sites near the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
97
Figure 5.4 Distant sediment sampl ing sites at theOyster Creek Nuclear. Generating Station.
Sediment samples were air-dried in the laboratoryat room temperature (200 C) by spreading thinly onplastic sheets for 5-10 days. Air drying was preferred tooven drying to minimize cementation (aggregation)effects on subsequent determination of particle sizedistribution. The dried samples were screened througha number 10 mesh sieve (2.0 mm) and furtherhomogenized by shaking.
5.7.2 Descnptjon of sedIment samples. To definethe sediment samples geochemically, aliquots collectedin the discharge canal, intake canal, Barnegat Bay andGreat Bay during the October-November 1972 fieldtrip (OC B-3oo series) were analyzed for pH, cationexchange capacity, particle size distribution andorganic content. * In addition, samples 305 and 310were analyzed in both the original wet and laboratorydried states. Analytical methods used for these analyses
were standard techniques recommended jointly by theAmerican Society of Agronomy and the AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials(57) and have beendescribed in a previous report. (26)
The results of the mineralogical analyses of these 11samples are given in Table 5.26. Sediments collectedfrom the wide area of the discharge canal (locations 4,5, 6), intake canal (location 39), Cedar Creek (location44), Litt!e Egg Harbor (location 41) and Great Bay(location 40) were relatively rich in organic matter andhad a high cation-exchange capacity (CEC). Sandymaterial was also present in some of these areas asshown by a comparison of samples 300 and 301collected from one location in Great Bay (location 40).
. It was not possible to separate physically the fineorganic and mineral components of these samples.Multiple regression analysis of the CEC as functions oforganic carbon and total clay content indicated that theorganic carbon and clay fractions contributed nearlyequally to the total CEC, about 54 and 46 percent,respectively.
Sample 310 was collected at Site 43 in the freshwater area of Oyster Creek above its confluence withthe discharge canal (see Figure 5.3). The creek passesthrough a cedar swamp in this area, and the water wasbrown in color and acidic (pH = 4.1), presumably dueto tannic acid leached from decaying cedar logs in thestream. This is reflected in the pH 4.2 of the sediment.The ~ffects of this acidic water· of the sorption of
. radionuclides on sediment downstream in thedischarge canal portion of Oyster Creek are probablyminimal, as the contribution of fresh water from OysterCreek to that in the discharge canal is small (seeSection 5.1.1).
The clay mineral composition of sample 305 wasdetermined by x-ray crystallography of preferredoriented aggregate clay fractions on ceramic plants.This sample was from the wide segment of OysterCreek, location 6, and c'onsidered typical of sedimentsfrom this area of the creek. The results are given inTable 5.27. The failure to detect any chlorite mineral inthis sediment sample suggests that these sedimentswere of terrestrial rather than marine origin. This isexpected in an estuarine environment where much ofthe material in the sediments has originated fromrunoff through adjacent fresh water tributaries, and inthis case from circulating bay water containingsuspended terrestrial material that had deposited in thebay at some earlier time.
·We thank Professor L. Wilding, Department of Agronomy, Ohio State University, for performing theseanalyses.
98
<:0<:0
Table 5.26 Mineralogical Analysis of Sediment Samples
Cation exchange % % % Particle size distributionSample Textural capacity Carbonates Organic Organic Clay Silt Sand
No. Location pH class meq/IOO g (as CaC03) . carbon matter < 2 \l 2-50 \l 50-2000 \l
300 40 7.0 loam 18.6 0.6 1.15 1. 98 21. 6 47.5 30.9
301 40 7.9 coarse sand 0.4 0.4 0.10 0.17 0.7 0.6 98.7
302 41 7.2 v. fine silt 10.2 1.1 2.24 3.85 9.3 17.4 73.3
303' 4 6.6 fine silt 16.9 1.1 3.04 5.23 11.6 21. 0 67.4
304 5 6.5 loam 21. 6 1.0 3.52 fi.05 17.1 33.3 49.6
305 6 6.8 loam 29.1 1.4 4.71 8.10 24.3 48.8 26.9
306 39 6.4 silt 34.0 1.6 4.69 8.07 25.6 69.8 4.6
307 44 6.0 silt 43.2 0.9 6.84 11.76 27.1 68.4 4.5
308 22 7.0 loam 15.1 3.1 2.63 4.52 14.4 42.9 42.7
309 42 6.1 silt 14.6 1.1 2.41 4.14 10.6 54.3 35.1
310 43 4.2 fine sand 23.2 < 0.1 6.88 11.83 1.7 8.7 89.6
Notes:
1. Textural classification is empirical, based on observation by qualified soil scientist.
2. % organic carbon is corrected for inorganic carbonates (calcite and dolomite).
3. % organic matter is % organic carbon times 1.72.
4. For particle size distribution, air dried portions of sample were electrolyte-dispersed in water by sodiumhexametaphosphate (calgon).
Table 5.27 Clay Mineralogy of Sample 305 from Oyster Creek
Clay PercentagesBasis of Expandables Mica Kaolini te Quartz Amorphous**
calculation (montmorillonite) (Illite)+ other species
X-ray crystal-line clayfraction 31 45 16 8
Total clayfraction 24 36 13 6 21
* Sample from Location 6.**Weight loss on treatment with boiling 0.5 N NaOH. Clay percentages are
estimated to be within + 5%.
To detennine the effects of sample preparation onparticle size distribution, aliquots of samples 305 and310 were analyzed in the original wet state and in thelaboratory dried fonn. The wet and dried samples weredispersed with both water and sodiumhexametaphosphate (calgon), an electrolyte, prior tothe particle size determination. The results, listed inTable 5.28, do reflect some differences due to samplepreparation, but the differences are not large. The wetform water-dispersed samples probably better
represent natural conditions than dry or electrolytedispersed forms.
5.7.3 Radioactivity measurements. Radionuclidesthat emit gamma-rays were analyzed with 54-cc or 85cc Ge(Li) detectors and a 4096-channel spectrometer.Generally, 400 ml aliquots of dried sediment wereanalyzed 1000 min. The Ge(Li) detectors werecalibrated with aqueous solutions, as previousevaluation had indicated that self-absorption (density)errors were 10 percent or less for these types of
Table 5.28 Effects of Sample Preparation and Dispersion Technique on Particle Size Analysis
% Particle size distributionPreparation Clay Silt Sand
Sample No. form Dispersant « 2 ]..I) (2-50 ]..I) (50-2000 ]..I)
305 Dry Electrolyte 24.3 48.8 26.9
Dry Water 21. a 49.9 29.1
Wet Electrolyte 24.9 43.4 31. 7
Wet Water 16.2 50.7 33.1
310 Dry Electrolyte 1.7 8.7 89.6
Dry Water 0.6 16.0 83.4
Wet Electrolyte 1.9 13.2 84.9
Wet Water 2.6 12.6 84.8
Notes:
1. Electrolyte dispersant is sodium hexametaphosphate (calgon).
2. Dry-electrolyte combination is the standard ASTM procedure.
3. Sample no. 305 is from brackish water; 310 was collected upstreamon Oyster Creek in a fresh water area.
100
samples.(26) Since denser, sandier samples (density> -1.5 g/cc) invariably contained little radioactivity,statistical counting errors tend to obscure any selfabsorption error. Therefore, corrections for selfabsorption were not included in the calculations.
Naturally-occurring 4°K, 226Ra, and mTh arereported for all sediment samples. Potassium-40 and226Ra were measured directly by their 1462 keY and 186keY gamma-ray peaks, respectively. However, 23'Thwas measured indirectly using the 909 keY gamma-raypeak of its 228Ac daughter and assuming that secularequilibrium existed. Because thorium isotopes areinsoluble in a sea water environment, which is not thecase for radium isotopes, this assumption is probablynot valid and more mTh was present in the sedimentsamples than indicated by the results. (58)
Strontium-90, measured only in 5 samples from thefirst field trip because concentrations were so low, wasdetermined by acid leaching 5-g aliquots, precipitatingSrCOJ , and beta counting the measured 90Sr plus 90ydaughter activities. (27) Fine, calcareous shellfragments in all sediment samples were too Sl11all andnumerous to remove.
5.7.4 Results and discussion of analyses.Radionuclide concentrations measured in the 59sediment samples collected during the two-year studyfrom the discharge canal, intake canal, Barnegat Bayand Great Bay are given in Table 5.29. Cobalt-60 wasthe most widely distributed radionuclide attributable tothe station. Concentrations ranged from 0.26 to 18.6pCi/g in the discharge canal and decreased in the baywith distance to a concentration less than detectable atthe southern (Little Egg Harbor) and northern (SloopPoint) extremities. In addition, 54Mn, 134Cs and 1l7Cs inexcess of background were observed in many of thesamples from the discharge canal, intake canal, andnear the west shore of Barnegat Bay betweenWaretown and Cedar Creek (see Figure 5.3). No 58COwas observed in any samples « 0.1 pCi/g), and the125Sb observed in a few samples is attributable to fallout.The presence of 60Co and 54Mn in the intake canalsediments is evidence of recirculation of effiuentdischarged by the station, as observed in algae and fishsamples (see Sections 5.3.3 and 5.4.4). In general, theconcentrations of 54Mn, 60Co and 1J7Cs agree with thosereported by McCurdy (see Section 5.1.4), and confinnhis observation of station effiuent recirculation. (7)
Concentrations of 90Sr in five sediment samplesobtained during the October 1971 field trip were only0.1 to 0.2 pCi/g. Since levels did not appear elevated inthe discharge canal sediment and because samplescontained calcareous shell fragments which tend to
elevate the strontium levels, 90Sr measurements werediscontinued.
The average concentration of radionuclidesmeasured in 4 background samples from Great Bay(location 40) are given in Table 5.30. Sample no. 301was not included in the background averages because itconsisted entirely of coarse s~nd, atypical of sedimentscollected from the Oyster Creek sites (see Table 5.26).A very small quantity of 60Co, 0.02 + 0.01 pCi/g, wasobserved in one background sample (No. 300), which isalso attributed to atmospheric fallout from nuclearweapons tests. The relatively large standard deviationsreflect considerable variability of concentrationsbetween samples. This is not unexpected and has beendiscussed in an earlier report. (26)
The highest concentrations of radionuclidesattributable to station operation were found atlocations 4 to 10 in the wide area of the discharge canaland at locations 11 to 13 progressing downstream fromthe wide area to the mouth of the canal (see Figure 5.3).Little radioactivity was detected in the discharge canalabove the wide area in the narrow channel where highstream velocity had washed out the finer particles,leaving only coarse sand. Sands are characterized byhigh density (> 1.5 g/cc) and the absence of fineparticles, consisting of clay minerals and organicmatter which account for most of the ion-exchangeproperties of soils (see Section 5.7.2). For example, thesediment was sandy (density 1.7 g/cc) 100 m above thewide area in the discharge canal and contained only0.26 pCi 6°Co/g. Samples 3 and 4, however, collected ashort distance downstream in the wide area, were lesssandy (densities 1.4 and 1.2 glcc, respectively) andcontained 0.8 and 4.2 pCi 6°Co/g, respectively.Whether sorption occurred on suspended fine particlesduring transport down the canal to the wider areawhere they settle due to slower stream velocity oradsorption occured from the slower moving wateralong the silty bottom of the wide area cannot beascertained from these data. Results reported inSection 4.4.4 would indicate the fonner most likely, asradionuclides discharged by the station were observedeither to be highly associated with particulate matter atdischarge or to become so soon after discharge.
Concentrations of 134CS and I37Cs were significantlyhigher in the sediment collected in the vicinity of thestation during October-November 1972. Based on theOctober 1973 samples, these concentrations remainedrelatively high throughout the following year. This wasa consequence of the relatively large quantitiesdischarged by the station between July and September1972 when the liquid radwaste system was notoperating properly (see Section 4.3.1 and Appendix
101
Table 5.29 Radionuclide Analyses of Oyster Creek Sediment Samples, pCi/g Dry WeightI-'
~Sample'No. Site
DryDensity 40K 54Mn 60Co 125
Sb 134Cs
137Cs
226Ra232
Th
< O. 04
0.85 + 0.06
7.6 + 0.1
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
100
101
104
2
3
4
5
6
10
11
12 '
13
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3031
32
33
34
35
36
40
4
5
0.91
1.71
1. 35
1. 15
1. 20
0.97
0.88
1. 01
1,00
1. 39
1. 24
1. 16
1. 71
1. 54
1. 36
1. 24
1. 39
1. 59
1.12
1. 49
0.99
1. 30
1. 22
1.171.38
1.19
1. 58
1. 01
0.97
1. 22
1.15
1. 04
0.88
7.1 + 0.3 0.75 + 0.14- -O. 8 + O. 1 < O. 09
1.9 + 0.2 <0.17
8.4 + 0.4 0.38 + 0.15, - -
9.7 + 0.4 1.7 + 0.2
13.7 + 0.5 0.68 + 0.19- -16.0 + 1.1 3.6 + 0.3
16.i + 0.5 <0.26'
14.6 + 0.5 0,95 + 0.19- -5.0 + 0.3 <0.18
12.6 + 0.4 <0.11
13.1 + 0.4 <0.21
2.1 + 0.2 <0.12
1.0 + 0.3 0.05 + 0.02- -5.7+0.3 <0.11
5.9 + 0.3 <0.09
5.2 + 0.3 < 0.03
0.6 + O. 1 < 0.04
14.5 + 0.5 <0.12
7.3 + O. 3 < 0.09- '
14.8 + 0.5 0.34 + 0:13
4 . 1 + O. 2 < O. 08
14.0 + 0.4 <0.12
13.7 + 0.4 <0.1612.0 of. 0.4 <0.10
14.0 + 0.4 <0.10
3 . 2 + O. 2 < O. 08
14.4 + 0.4 <0.18
8. 5 ",:, O. 4 < O. 18
1.9 + 0.1 <0.06
17 . 2 + O. 6 < O. 04
13.6 + 0.6 0.i5 + 0.03- -9.5 + 0.5 0.91 + 0.06
October 18-21, 1971
4.9 + 0.1 0.24 + 0.07
0.26 + 0.02 <0.05
0.82 + 0.04 <0.07
4.2 + 0.1 <0.12
9.0 + 0.1 0.22 + 0.08- -5.0 + 0.1 <0.14
18.6 + 0.4 < 0.26
1.2 + 0.1 <0.12
5.0 + 0.1 <0.18
5 . 3 + O. 1 < 0.08
0.10 + 0.03 < 0.06
0.19 + 0.03 0,13 + 0.04
< 0.04 < 0.04
O. 23 + 0.03 " 0 . 06
0.61 + 0.03 < 0,04
0.10 + 0.02 <0.07
0.13 + 0.02 <0.05
0.04 + 0.01 <0.03
0.37 + 0.04 < 0.09
. 0.09· + 0.02 <0.07
1.6 + 0.1 <0.11
0.09 + 0.02 < 0.06
0.54 + 0.04 < 0.09
0.04 + 0.02 0.12 + 0.05- -0.23 + 0.3 <0.07
o.14 + O. 03 < O. 09
0.23 + 0.02 < 0.05
1.00 + 0.05 0.14 + 0.04- -1. 7 + 0.1 < O. 10
0.03 + 0.01 < 0.06
April 17-18, 1972
0.14 + 0,04
0.09 + 0.05
0.17 + 0.07
< 0.05
< O. 02.
< O. 03
< O. 05
< 0.06
< O. 06
< 0.14
< 0.05
< 0.06
< 0.05
< 0.03
< 0.03
< 0.03
< 0.02
< 0.04
< 0.03
< 0.02
< 0,01
< 0.12
< 0.04
< 0.04
< 0.04
< O. 03
< 0.03< O. 03
<0 .03
< 0.02
< 0.04
< O. 04
< 0.02
<0.02
< O. 03
< 0.04
0.87 + 0.03
0.02 + 0.01
0.05 + 0.01
0.28 + 0.02
0.53 ~ 0.03
0.61 + 0.03
1.3 + 0.1
0.15 + 0.02
O. 36 ~ 0.03.
0.10 + 0.01
0.14 + 0:02
0.46 + 0.02
< 0 .01
0.05 + 0.01
0.11 + 0.02
0.16 + 0.02
0.13 + 0.02
< 0.01
0.33 + 0.02
0.03 + 0.01
0.34 + 0.03
6.10 + 0.01
0.21 + 0.02
0.33 + 0.020.07 + 0.02
0.22 ~ 0.02
0.05 + 0.01
0.31 + 0.03
0.30 + 0.03
0.13 + 0.02
0.45 + 0.03
0.32 + 0.03
0.53 + 0.04
2.4 + 0.3
0.8 + 0.2
1.2 + 0.2
1.6 + 0.3
1.6 + 0.3
2.1 + 0.3
1.9 + 0.6
2.3 + 0.3
1.8 + 0.3
1.4 + 0.2
1.0 + 0.3
1.7 + 0.3
0.6 + 0.2
0.5 + 0.1
1.4 + 0.3
1.3 + 0.3
0.3 + 0.1
0.3 + 0.2
1.7 + 0.3
1.4 + 0.3
1.9 + 0.4
1.3 + 0.3
1.6 + 0.3
1.8 + 0.21.7 + 0.3
2.1 + 0.4
0.9 + 0.2
2.0 + 0.4
2.4 ~ 0 ..4
1.2 + 0.3
1.2 + 0.1
0.8 + 0.1
1.0 + 0.2
0.42 + 0.08
0.21 + 0.04
0.34 + 0.04
0.55 + 0.10
0.60 + 0.10
0.70+0.10
0.90 + 0.40
0.70 + 0.10
0.70 + 0.10
0.43 + 0.06
0.46 + 0.05
0.53 + 0.06
0.09 + 0,01
0.22 + 0.05
0.46 + 0.06
0.37 + 0.05
0.41 + 0.05
0.10 + 0,03'
0.62 + 0.07
0.62 + 0.06
0.68 + 0.09
0.28 + 0.05
0.63 + 0.07
0.61 + 0.07
0.76 + 0.07
0.77 + 0.07
0.24 + 0.03
0.62 + 0.07
0.68 + 0.06
0.24 + 0.03
0.72 + 0.08
0.70+0.10
0.50 + 0.10
Table 5.29 Radionuclide Analyses of Oyster Creek Sediment Samples. pCi/g Dry Weight (Cont'd)
SampleNo. Site
DryDensity
40K 54
Mn60
Co125
Sb134
CS137
Cs 226Ra
232Th
15.9+ 0.5 <0.13
105
106
27
24
1.00
1.09
15.9 + 0.8 0.51 + 0.06 2.1 + 0.1
0.54 + 0.04
0.17 + 0.07
0.16 + 0.04
< O. OS
< 0.04
0.47 + 0.05
0.32 + 0.03
0.6 + 0.2
1.8 + 0.3
0.60 + 0.10
0.67 + 0.06
1. 0 + O. 1 < O. 05
13.6 + 0.5 < 0.03
0.6 + 0.1 <0.04
1. 4 + 0.2 < 0.03
1 . 2 + O. 1 < O. 04
0.3 + 0.1 < 0.08 < 0.04 < 0.02October 31-November 2, 1972
0.60 + 0.05
0.90 + 0.50
0.26 + 0.0'5
0.31 + 0.04
0.13 + 0.02
0.60 + 0.10
0.08 + 0.02
0.10 + 0.03
0.06 + 0.02
1.1 + 0.1
+ 0.2
+ 1.1
+ 0.2
+ 0.2
+ 0.1
+ 0.3
+ 0.2
+ 0.1
+ 0.1
+ 0.2
1.2
2.2
0.7
1.0
0.3
1.9
0.5
0.6
0.4
2.9
0.34 + 0.02
0.50 + 0.10
0.15 + 0.02
< 0.02
< 0.01
0.33 + 0.03
0.02 + 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.02
< 0.04
< 0.18
< O. 02
< 0.02
< O. 01
< O. OS
< O. 01
< 0.01
< 0.02
< 0.02
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.02
0.15 + 0.05
< 0.03
< 0.03
< 0.03
0.88 + 0.04
1.3 + 0.1
0.05 + 0.01
1.7 +0.2
0.04+0.01
< 0.03
< 0.01
July 10-11, 1972
< 0.02 <0.07
13.8 + 0.5 <0.4
0.02 + 0.01
0.24 + 0.06
1.8 + 0.3
0.21 + 0.03
9.1 + 1.7
3.7 + 0.3
1.6+0.1
13.2+0.5
1. 15
0.83
1. 29
1.50
1. 23
0.87
1. 69
1. 54
1.68
1. 74
40
5
12
21
24
27
45
46
47
48
200
201*
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
15.2 + 0.6 0.19 + 0.02 0.81 + 0.05
10.5 + 0.4 <0.06 0.16 + 0.02
13.4 + 0.5 <0.02 <0.03
1.6 + 0.1 <0.01 <0.01
0.14 + 0.02 <0.01
<0.02 <0.01
0.09 + 0.04 < 0.02
< 0.09 0.15 + 0.03
0.14 + 0.04 <0.03
< 0.05 <0.02
<0.02 < 0.01
0.51 ~ 0.03 2.'3 ~ 0.4
0.44 + 0.02 1.7 + 0.3- -0.22 + 0.02 2.0 + 0.3
0.04 ~ 0.01 1.3 + 0.1
0.70 + 0.04
0.04 + 0.02
0.68 + 0.07
0.50 + 0.10
0.60 + 0.20
0.50 + 0.20
0.80 + 0.10
0.60 + 0.10
0.60 + 0.06
0.55 + 0.07
0.34 + 0.02
0.5 + 0.1
0.2 + 0.1
1.6 + 0.2
1.5 + 0.4
2.4 + 0.4
2.8 + 0.5
2.1 + 0.3
0.34 + 0.01
< 0.01
0.08 + 0.01
1.3 + 0.1
1.6 + 0.1
2.0 ~ 0.1
0.41 + 0.02
0.62 + 0.04
0.62 + 0.04
0.89 + 0.07
0.04 + 0.02
< 0.10
< 0.13
< O. 21
< 0.06
0.02 + 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.03
7.8 + 0.1
9.8 + 0.1
10.9 + 0.2
0.17 + 0.03
16.8 + 0.3 <0.01
0.9 + 0.1 < 0.01
13.9 + 0.5 <0.02
5.4 ~.0.3 1.8 ~ 0.1
9.8 + 0.4 1.7 + 0.1
11.5 + 0.6 2.0 + 0.1
15.9 + 0.5 <0.09
1.27
1. 79
1. 25
1.13
1. 00
0.82
1. 01
0.90
1.15
1.13
1.18
40
40
41
4
5
6
34
44
22
42
43
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
1.5 + 0.1 6.8 + 0.1
October 30-31, 1973
0.04 ~ 0.02
1.4 + 0.3
0.51 + 0.05
0.60 + 0.10
0.60 + 0.10
+ 0.3
+ 0.3
1.4
1.7
0.26 + 0.02
1.1 + 0.1
0.93 + 0.04
< O. 03
0.34 + 0.03
0.23 + 0.02
0.13 + 0.05
0.09 + 0.05
+ 0.1
< O. 02
7.4+ 0.1
14.0 + 0.05 <0.02
9.9 + 0.4 1.4
10.5 + 0.4
1.11
1.)1
1.15
40
5
6
400
404
405
......ow
Notes:
1. + values indicate analytical error exPressed at 20 and <values are minimum detectable concentrations at 30 counting error.
2. 90Sr was determined in samples I, 2, 3, 19 and 30 to be 0.16 ~ 0.08, 0.12 ~ 0.09, 0.16: 0.06, 0.11 ~ 0.06, and <0.12 pCi/g, respectively.
3. Site 40 is in Great Bay (Background) .
Table 5.31 Radionuclide Concentrations
in Composite Core Samples, pCi/g Air-Dried
Note: Composite of 9 core samplescollected in the discharge canalon April 18, 1972 at samplingsite 4 (see Figure 5.4).
Listed in Table 5.32 are the net integrated countrates of the probe in the spectral range of 1.0 to 1.4MeV, the .oCo gamma-ray region. These weredetermined by subtracting the count rate of samplesobtained in the Great Bay background area (mostlyfrom radium and thorium daughters) from those ofsimilar type samples collected from Barnegat Bay,Oyster Creek and Forked River. These net count ratesare compared in Table 5.32 to the .oCo content (pCi/gdry weight) in concurrently collected sedimentsamples. The counting efficiency of the probe variedbetween 60 to 500 cpm per pCi/g, with an average of
depth. Radionuclides present in station liquid effiuents,s4Mn and .oCo, are in the sediments to a depth nogreater than 12 em. These radionuclides are primarily.concentrated in the top 6 em layer, which suggestseither recent deposition or a slow turnover rate ofbottom materials. The core sections chosen for analysisare quite large, and future studies should considerincreasing the sensitivity of measurement to enableanalyzing thinner sections for more definitiveinformation on the radionuclide profile in thesediments. Periodic core sampling over a larger area inthe wide portion of the discharge canal would provideadditional useful information.
Previous studies have proven the underwater probeto be a convenient device for surveying sediments insitu because the location and distribution ofradioactivity can be determined immediately.(26,29)Analysis of sediment collected at the locationsexamined by the probe then provide informationconcerning radionuclide identity and quantity. Thecounting efficiency of the probe for .oCo has been foundto vary from 290 to 800 cpm per pCi/g with location,which would be expected from the nonuniform verticaland horizontal distribution of radionuclides insediments. (26,29)
0.3 0.3
0.1 <0.1
54Mn
137Cs
< 0.03 < O. 03 < O. 03sand
Depth Composition 60Co
0-6 cm silt 3.8
6-12 em silt 1.4
12-30 cm
40K 15 + 2 l34Cs < 0.0254
Mn < 0.02 137Cs 0.35 + 0.0860Co < O. 02 226Ra 1.1 + 0.4l25Sb 0.09 + 0.06 232Th 0.6 + 0.1
Table 5.30 Average Background Concentrations of
Radionuclides in Great Bay Sediment Samples
Concentration, Concentration,Radionuclide pCi(g Radionuclide pCi(g
Note: + values are the standard deviation ofindividual observations; < values are threetimes the square root of twice background.
B.4). The results of these sediment samples, collected ata one-year interval, reflect a one-year decay of 134Cs anda loss of both radionuclides due to transport down thedischarge canal to Barnegat Bay. This is an example ofthe integrating nature of sediment and its value as anindicator of atypical plant discharges.
If the samples from the discharge canal aremineralogically comparable to those collected fromGreat Bay, the average concentration of l37Cs measuredin background samples subtracted from theconcentrations measured in the discharge canal givesthe quantity due to plant discharges. The averageIl'CS/137Cs activity ratio for those samples collectedduring October-November 1972, subtracting l37CSbackground, is 0.66 ± 0.08 (+ 10"). This activity ratiois similar to that in station effiuents for the four-monthperiod preceeding collection during high radiocesiumdischarges of 0.70 + 0.05 (see Appendix B.4). Thesmaller 114CS/l37CS ratio observed in the two samplescollected during October 1973, 0.42 + 0.02, may be theresult of radioactive decay by 134~, as the stationdischarged very little radiocesium ( < 0.1 Ci) during the12-month sampling interval.
Considering all sediment samples in which boths'Mn and .oCo were measured, the .oCo/'Mn activityratio was calculated to be 5.8 + 1.7. There appeared tobe no significant difference in the ratio relative tosampling location or time. The .oCo/s4Mn activity ratioin station effiuent during the study was also relativelyconstant, but the average activity ratio discharged, 1.8+ 0.2, was significantly lower than that measured insediment. This difference can be attributed to: (1)greater adsorption of .oCo relative to s'Mn on sediment;(2) greater desorption of s4Mn from the sedimentrelative to .oCo; or (3) the more rapid radioactive decayof s4Mn. Because all measurements made in OysterCreek indicated nearly equal and total association ofs'Mn and .oCo with particles (see Sections 4.4.4 and4.4.5), the difference is attributed to the latter.
The measurements of the composite core sampleare listed in Table 5.31 relative to three increments of
104
Table 5.32 Net Count Rate of "Co with Underwater Probe and Measured"Co Concentrations in Related Sediment Samples
C/minSample Probe, Sediment Samples perNo. net count/min pCi/g pCi/g
Silty Samples
5 500 + 100 9.0 60
6 1100 + 200 5.0 220
10 2100 + 200 18.6 110
11 200 + 50 1.2 170
12 2500 + 200 5.0 500
13 800 + 200 5.3 150
17 <50 0.1
18 <50 0.2
21 100 + 30 0.6 170
22 <50 0.1
23 <50 0.1
25 100 + 30 0.4 250
27 400 + 50 1.6 250
31 <SO 0.2
32 <SO 0.1
34 200 + 50 1.0 200
35 300 + 50 1.7 180
Sandy Samples
19 <SO <0.1
20 <50 0.2
24 <SO <0.1
26 <SO 0.1
33 <50 0.2
36 <SO <0.1
Notes:
1. Samples collected October 18-22, 1972:
2. Net count rate of probe for gamma rays with energies between1.0 - 1.4 Mev; counting times were 10 min.
3. ~ values are 2-sigma counting error; < values are 3-sigmacounting error.
4. Concentration of 60Co in dried sediment samples fromTable 5.29.
105
210 ± 100 cpm per pCi/g. This is a lower efficiencythan measured previously at other nuclear powerstations. (26,29) Hence, the probe is not an appropriatetool for making quantitative analyses of sediments insitu, although it is useful as a surveillance technique forlocating areas of radioactive buildup with a limitingsensitivity of about 0.5 pCi <oCo/g.
Cobalt-60 was the principal radionuclide insediments that indicated contamination from thestation. It was detected in the bay as far north as TomsRiver, as far south as the Manahawkin Bridge, and innearly all samples collected between these locations.Similar to the algae results, radioactivity in sedimentsamples collected near the west shore of the bay wasgenerally higher than in samples from near the eastshore. Cobalt-60 was also detected in a samplecollected from Forked River above the South Branch,presumably deposited during high tides. Noradioactivity attributable to the station was detected insediment samples collected from the northern (nearPoint Pleasant) or southern (Little Egg Harbor)extremities of Barnegat Bay.
5.8References
1. Carpenter, J. H., "Concentration Distributionfor Material Discharged Into Barnegat Bay," JohnHopkins University, Report to the Jersey CentralPower and Light Company, Morristown, N. J. (1965).
2. Jersey Central Power and Light Company,"Facility Description and Safety Analysis Report,Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant," Vol. I and 2,AEC Docket No. 50--219-1 and 50--219-2,Morristown, N. J. (1967).
3. Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission, "Final Environmental Statement Relatedto the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station,"Docket No. 50--219 (December 1974).
4. Pritchard, D. W., R. O. Reid, A. Okubo andH. H. Carter, "Physical Processes of Water Movementand Mixing," in Radioactivity in the MarineEnvironment, NRC-NAS Publication, 90 (1971).
5. Jersey Central Power and Light Company,"Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station SemiAnnual Repts.," 1-9 (1970--1973).
6. McCurdy, D. E., "1971 EnvironmentalRadiation Levels in the State of New Jersey," NewJersey State Department of Environmental ProtectionRept. (1972).
7. McCurdy, D. E. and J. J. Russo,"Environmental Radiation Surveillance of the OysterCreek Nuclear Generating Station," New Jersey StateDepartment of Environmental Protection Rept. (1973).
106
8. Loveland, R. E., et al., "The Qualitative andQ]Jantitative Analysis of the Benthic Flora and Faunaof Barnegat Bay Before and After the Onset of ThermalAddition," Rutgers State University, Progress Repts.1-7 (1966-1970).
9. Wurtz, C. B., "Barnegat Bay Fish,"Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers StateUniversity, Report to the Jersey Central Power andLight Company, Morristown, N. J. (1969).
10. Westman, J. R., "Barnegat Reactor FinfishStudies," Department of Environmental Sciences,Rutgers State University, Report to the Jersey CentralPower and Light Company, Morristown, N. J. (1967).
11. Thompson. S. E., C. A. Burton, D. J. Quinnand Y. C. Ng, "Concentration Factors of ChemicalElements in Edible Aquatic Organisms," USAECRept., UCRL-50564 Rev. I (1972).
12. Bryan, G. W., A. Preston and W.o L.Templeton, "Accumulation of Radionuclides byAquatic Organisms of Economic Importance in theUnited Kingdom," in Disposal ofRadioactive Wastesinto Seas, Oceans and Surface Waters, IAEA, Vienna,623 (1966).
13. Lowman, F. G., D. K. Phelps, R McClin, V.R. De Vega, I. O. De Padovani and R. J. Garcia,"Interactions of the Environmental and BiologicalFactors on the Distribution of Trace Elements in theMarine Environment," ibid. 249.
14. Goldberg, E. D., W. S. Broecker, M. G. Grossand K. K. Turekian, "Marine Chemistry," inRadioactivity in the Marine Environment, NRC-NASPublication, 137 (1971).
15. Polikarpov, G. G., Radioecology of AquaticOrganisms, North-Holland Publishing Co., ReinholdBook Division, N. Y. (1966).
16. Riel, G. K., "Radioactive Cesium inEstuaries," Radiol. Health Data Rept. 11, 659 (1970).
17. Rice, T R, "The Accumulation andExchange of Strontium by Marine Planktonic Algae,"Lim. Ocean. 1, 123 (1956).
18. Jinks, S. M. and M. Eisenbud, "ConcentrationFactors in the Aquatic Environment," Rad. HealthData Rept. 1J, 243 (1972).
19. Bowen, V. T, J. S. Olsen, C. L. Osterberg andJ. Ravera, "Ecological Interactions of MarineRadioactivity," in Radioactivity in the ManneEnvironment, NRC-NAS Publication, 200 (1971).
20. Lowman, F. G., T R Rice and F. A.Richards, "Accumulation and Redistribution ofRadionuclides by Marine Organisms," ibid 161.
21. Kolthoff, I. M. 'and E. B. Sandell, Textbook ofQuantitative Inorgimic Analysis, Macmillan Co., N.Y., 395 (1946).
22. Office of Radiation Programs, U.S.Environmental. Protection Agency, "Carbon-14 inTotal Diet and Milk, 1972-1973," Rad. Health DataRept. 14,679 (1973).
23. Percy, W. G. and S. W. Richards,"Distribution and Ecology of Fishes of the MysticRiver Estuary, Connecticut," Ecology 43, 248 (1962).
24. McCurdy, D. and J.. Ross, "TemporalVariations of the Oyster Creek Water TemperatureDownstream Frmn the Oyster Creek Nuclear·Generating Station During 1973 and 1974," NewJersey State Department of Environmental ProtectionRep!. (1975).
25. Beasley, t. M., T. A. Jokela and R. J. Eagle,"Radionuclides and Selected Trace Elements in MarineProtein Concentrates," Health Phys. 21, 815 (1971).
26. Kahn, R, et a1., "Radiological SurveillanceStudies at the Haddam Neck PWR Nuclear PowerStation," EPA Rept. EPA-520/3-74-007 (1974).
27. Porter, C. R., B. Kahn, M. W. Carter, G. L.Rehnberg and F. W. Pepper, "Determination ofRadiostrontium in Food and Other EnvironmentalSamples," Environ. Sci. Techno!. 1,745 (1967).
28. Kahn, B., et a1., "Radiological SurveillanceStudies at a Boiling Water Nuclear Power Reactor,"U.S. Public Health Service Rept. BRH/DER 70-1(1970).
29. Kahn, B., et a1., "Radiological SurveillanceStudies at a Pressurized Water Nuclear PowerReactor," EPA Rept. RD 71-1 (1971).
30. Templeton, W. L. and V. M. Brown,"Accumulation of Calcium and Strontium by BrownTrout from Waters in the U.nited Kingdom," Nature198,198 (1963).
31. Ophel, I. L. and 1. M. Judd, "SkeletalDistribution of Strontium and Calcium andStrontium/Calcium Ratios in Several Species of Fish,"in Strontium Metabolism, J. Lenihan, J. Loutit and J.Martin, eds., Academic Press, New York 103 (1967).
32. Hoss, D. E. and 1. P. Baptist, "Accumulationof Soluble and Particulate Radionuclides by EstuarineFish," in Proc. 3rd Nat1. Symp. on Radioecology, ed.,D. J. Nelson, Oak Ridge, Vol. 2, 776 (1971).
33. Rice, T. R., "The Role of Plants and Animalsin the Cycling of Radionuclides in the MarineEnvironment," Health Phys. 11,953 (1965).
34. Directorate of Regulatory Standards, "FinalEnvironmental Statement Concerning Proposed RuleMaking Action Analytical Models andCalculations," Vol. 2, AEC Rept. WASH-1258 F50(1973).
35. Freke, A. M., "A Model for the ApproximateCalculation of Safe Rates of Discharge of Radioactive
Wastes into Marine Environments," Health Phys. 13,743 (1967).
36. Harrison, F. L., "Biological Implications ofNuclear Debris in Aquatic Ecosystems," Nuc!. Tech.11, 444 (1971).
37. Cowser, K. E.and W. S. Snyder, "SafetyAnalysis of Radionuclide Release to the clinch River,"AEC Rept. ORNL-3721, Supp. 3 (1966).
38. International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, "Report of Committee II on PermissibleDose for Internal Radiation," Health Phys. 3, (1960).
39. International Commission on RadiologicalProtection, . Recommendations of the ICRP (AsAmended 1959 and Revised 1962), Publication 6,Pergamon Press, Oxford (1964).
40. "Background Material for the Development ofRadiation Protection Standards," Fed. Rad. CouncilRept. #2, U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, D. C. 20402 (1961).
41. Ketchum, B. H., Global Effects ofEnvironmental Pollution, ed., S. F. Singer, New York,190 (1970).
42. Karvelis, E., U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Cincinnati, personal communication (1972).
43. Kopfler, F. C. and J. Mayer, "Concentrationsof Five Trace Metals in the Waters and Oysters(Crassostrea virginica) of Mobile Bay, Alabama,"Proc. Natl. Shellfisheries Assoc. 63,27 (1972).
44. Schelske, C. L., D. A. Wolfe and D. E. Hoss,"Ecological implications of Fallout RadioactivityAccumulated by Estuarine Fishes and Mollusks," inProc. 3rd Nat1. Symp. Radioecology, ed., D. J. Nelson,
. Oak Ridge, 791 (1971).45. Harvey, R. S., "Uptake and Loss of
Radionuclides by the Fresh Water Clam LampsilisRadiata (Gmel.)," Health Phys. 17, 149 (1969).
46. McCurdy, D. E., New Jersey StateDepartment of Environmental Protection, personalcommunication (1976).
47. Templeton, W. L. and A. Preston, "Transportand Distribution of Radioactive Effiuents in Coastaland Estuarine Waters of the United Kingdom," inDisposal ofRadioactive Wastes into Seas, Oceans andSurface Waters, IAEA, Vienna, 267 (1969).
48. Beasley, T. M., C. L. Osterberg and Y. M.Jones, "Natural and Artificial Radionuclides inSeafoods and Marine Protein Concentrates," Nature221,1207 (1969).
49. Beasley, T. M., R. J. Eagle and T. A. Jokela,"
2lOpo, 2lOPb and Stable Lead in Marine Organisms,"Fallout Program Quarterly Report, USAEC, HASL273,1 - 2 (1973).
107
50. Shannon, L. V. and R. D. Cherry, ,, 2IOpO inMarine Plankton," Nature 216, 352 (1967).
51. Hill, C. R., "Polonium-2l0 in Man," Nature208, 423 (1965).
52. Young, D. R. and T. R. Folsom, "Mussels andBarnacles as Indicators of the Variation of 54Mn, .oCoand .5Zn in the Marine Environment," in RadioactiveContamination of the Marine Environment, IAEA,Vienna, 633 (1973).
53. Cranmore, G. and Harrison, F. L., "Loss of137Cs and .oCo from the Oyster Crassostrea Gigas,"Health Phys. 28, 319 (1975).
54. Weaver, C. L., "A Proposed RadioactivityConcentration Guide for Shellfish," Radiol. HealthData Rep. 8, 491 (1967).
108
55. Chipma!l. W. A., "Accumulation ofRadioactive Materials by Fishery Organisms," 11 thAnnual Meeting of the Gulf and Caribbean FisheriesInstitute, Miami Beach, Florida, Nov. 17-21, 1958.
56. Tennant, D. A. and W. O. Forster, "SeasonalVariation and Distribution of .5Zn, 54Mn and 51Cr inTissues of the Crab Cancer Magister Dana," HealthPhys. 18, 649 (1970).
57. Black, C. A., et a1., "Methods of SoilAnalysis," Amer. Soc. of Agronomy, Monograph No.9, Vol. 1 and 2, Madison, Wisconsin (1965).
58. Blanchard, R. L., M. H. Cheng and H. A.Potratz, "Uranium and Thorium Series Disequilibriain Recent and Fossil Marine Molluscan Shells," 1.Geophys. Res. 72,4745 (1967).
6. ENVIRONMENTAL AIRBORNE ACTIVITY
6.1 Introduction
6. 1.1 Purpose. Radiation exposures andradionuclide concentrations were measured in orbeneath the plume from the stack to confirm the annualpopulation radiation doses calculated by the stationoperator from radionuclide release data,meteorological dispersion models, and photon doseequations. Gaseous effiuent from nuclear powerstations with boiling-water reactors is the main sourceof radiation dose to the population.
Concentration measurements in the environmentwere compared with release rates determined at thesame time in the stack or the main condenser steam jetair ejectors to obtain dispersion values under theatmospheric conditions prevailing during the briefmeasurement periods. Radiation exposure results wererelated to these release rates, and are intended forcomputing annual radiation doses by adjusting forannual average conditions of atmospheric stability,wind speed, and wind direction. To obtain net values,the radiation background was determined by repeatingthe measurement at each location after the winddirection had changed so that the plume was no longernear the location.
Brief (114 to 2 hours) ground level measurementswere conducted at various locations beyond the stationperimeter during different atmospheric conditions (seeSection 6.2). Plume radiation was determined directlywith sensitive ionization chambers. Radioactive gaseswere collected in tanks by pumps, particles by highvolume air samplers and filters, and radioiodines by airsamplers and various types of filters and charcoal. Anionization chamber mounted aboard a helicopterprovided measurements of the radiation fields andextent of the plume (Section 6.3). Measurements werealso performed near the station to determine radiationbeing emitted directly from various on-site structures(Section 6.4). For longer periods (up to six weeks)sensitive thermoluminescent dosimeters were placed atmany locations to measure long-term exposure (Section6.5).
6.1.2 Environment ofOyster Creek. The station islocated on a 573-hectare (1,416 acres) site in the eastern
109
portion of the Pine Barrens of New Jersey. The site liesin Lacey and Ocean Townships in Ocean County. Theplant is located 430 m west of U.S. Highway 9, whichintersects the site. The Garden State Parkway boundsthe site on the west. Undeveloped land lies beyond thenorth and south boundaries, consisting of the southbranch of the Forked River and Oyster Creek,respectively. Residential developments surround theeastern portion of the site. The 1140-MWe ForkedRiver pressurized-water reactor is being constructed ona site west of the plant. The local area, particularly tothe west, is densely wooded with mostly pitch pines andsome mixed hardwoods. The ground is sandy andrelatively flat, sloping gradually from 3 m above meansea level near the eastern shoreline to about 18 m at 3km to the west. The north and east quadrants containmany waterways, lakes, and fresh and salt watermarshes. Barnegat Bay lies about 3 km to the east andthe Atlantic Ocean, 10 km. (1)
Land within 10 km of the station is poor foragriculture. Cranberries are cultivated in bogs about 10km to the north. Virtually no milk is produced in thevicinity. Some milk-producing cattle were recentlyreported to be located 9 km south and a herd of fourcows, 10.6 km northnorthwest. Goats are milked 14 kmto the southwest.(2) Because of the poor crop andpasture conditions around the station, vegetables andmilk were not collected.
Deer were present around the station. Since noradioactivity due to station effiuents had been detectedin specimens collected near other powerreactors,(J,4,5) deer near Oyster Creek were notconsidered an important pathway to man and nosamples were collected.
Based on the 1970 census, the station is located in aregion of relatively low but increasing populationdensity. The nearest communities are Forked River,about 2.5 km northeast, and Waretown, 2.5 kmsoutheast. The largest nearby population (23,554)resides in Toms River and adjacent communities about15 km north. The number of residents, particularly inregions adjacent to Barnegat Bay and waterrecreational areas, is expected to grow at a rate of 4percent annually.(2) In addition to the permanent
population, a sizeable influx of part-time residentsoccurs in the waterfront areas during summer months.
The 1970 resident population was: (1)
Distance from Accumulated Distance from Accumulated----c-s-,-,it-,,--e~,-=k=m,----_ population _s-,it.c...e,---'_k=m-"---_ ,p~o'-"p'_"u""la'_'_tl='o""n_
1.6 226 16 45,5863,2 2,514 32 229;243'4.8 5,433 48 513,5108.0 9,835 80' 3,483,895
The resident and estimated seasonal population invarious directions within 3.2 km of the site was:
Populatiol1 within POJ:lulation. between1.6 km 1.6 and 3.2 ,km
Direction Resident Seasonal ' Resident Seasonal
N 0 0 198 381NNE 75 153 333 644NE 79 154 257 ,.499ENE 0 0 441 852E 0 0 75 '145ESE 42 151 158 571SE 28 . 101 305 1105SSE 2 0 225 815S 0 0 224 128SSW 0 0 31 . 17SW 0 0 41 . 23WSW 0 0 0 0W 0 0 0 0WNW 0 0 0 0NW '0 0 0 0NNW '0 0 0 0
Total 226 559 2288 5180
6.1.3 Meteorology. The local climate is of acontinental type modified by maritime effects.(J)Westerly winds prevail, blowing usually from SSW toNW. Northeasterly winds, however, occur frequentlyduring precipitation. The proximity of large bodies ofwater induce' onshore winds during warm, sunnyperiods. Annual rainfall averages 107 cm, with 8 to 13cm occurring each month.
A 122-m-tall meteorological tower stands 360 mwest of the effiuent stack. Wind speed and direction aremeasured at 10, 23 and 122 m elevations and recordedcontinuously. Thermometers are located at 3.7, 23, 61and 122 m and read. every 15 min. The station operatordetermines atmospheric stability from the difference intemperature between 3.7 and 122 m. Themeteorological' data are summarized quarterly andannually by a contractor. The AEC has indicated,however, that the data collected at the tower up to 1974are of doubtful accuracy and that an improvedprogram is being implemented. (2) During this study,
110
incorrect temperature and wind data were detected andcorrected by results of balloon releases, compasssightings and other observations.
6.1.4 Off-site surface air surveillance by theState. (6) At the time of this study, the New Jersey StateDepartment of Environmental Protection, Bureau ofRadiation Protection (BRP), maintained a network ofsampling stations for monitoring concentrations ofradioactive particles and iodine in air in the vicinity ofthe Oyster Creek station. The network consisted of 5stations within 12 km of the site and a backgroundstation 24 km west of the site. Each sampler, operatedat a flow r~te of 0.7 m3/min, contained a particulatefilter (Mine Safety Appliances Co. type BM-2133) anda charcoal canister (MSA part No. 46727, similar totype 2306). Samples were changed every 7 days, andanalyzed by a Geiger-Muller beta-particle detector anda gamma-ray .spectrometer with a Ge(Li) detector.Radioiodine on charcoal was analyzed with a Ge(Li) orNaI(Tl). detector coupled to a, gamma-rayspectrometer. Radiostrontium was chemicallyseparated .from' composited particulate filters andanalyzed with a proportional counter.
AI.though most radioactivity on the air filters wasattributed .to fallout from nuclear weapons testing,quantiti~s of "Mn, 6OCO' and 1JlI were definitelytraceable to Oyster Creek. Cobalt-60 was the mostfrequently detected radion'uclide. Measured 89Sr and90Sr probably originated from fallout.' BRP reportedthat most radioactive particles in air near Oyster Creekwere 10.... to 1O~7 of the maximum permissibleconcentration values (IOCFR20, Table 2, Column 1)for the various radionuclides.
lodine-131 was frequently measured in the weeklong samples, particularly those obtained 2 to 4 kmfrom the Oyster Creek station. Up to the end of 1973,the highest measured concentration" was 1.3 x 10-10
uCilm3, which occurred during the period after reactor
startup on January 10, 1973. Elevated IJlI airborneconcentrations on the order of I x 10-11 to 6 X 10-1
'
uCilmj
were measured during the two-month periodbefore shutdown for refueling in April 1973. BRPindicated that most 13'1 measured in air was in the formof methyl iodide.
6.2 Short-Term Ground-levelRadiation Exposure Rates andRadionuclide Concentrations.
6.2.1 Exposure measurements. Radiation exposurewas measured during the first two field trips with asensitive muscle-equivalent ionization chamber and
Shonka electrometer, from which exposure data areobtained by measuring the time required to null a onevolt charge placed on the chamber. (7, 8) Themeasurement is made by observing the movement of afiber in the electrometer through a microscope. Afterthe second fie1dtrip, the system was modified with aKeithley electrometer and a strip-chart recorder torecord either continuous or integral exposure readings.The system was calibrated with a radium standard toconvert readings to microroentgens per hour (llR/hr).
Also utilized were cylindrical NaI(Tl) gamma-raydetectors (5- x 5-cm) connected to portable count-ratemeters. The instruments had been calibrated bycomparing their count rates for gamma rays in thenatural radiation background at Cincinnati withmeasurements by the muscle-equivalent ionizationchamber. Radiation levels during calibration rangedfrom 5 llR/hr over water in a lake to 19 uR/hr overgranite. The count rate (C, counts/min) of the surveyinstruments varied linearly with the radiation exposurerate (R, uR/hr) of the ionization chamber; a typicalcalibration curve had the equation R = 7.0 X lO-4C +3.3. Radiation exposure rates at measurement locationsnear Oyster Creek not affected by the plume werecomputed by applying these calibration curves to theobserved count rates.
Despite the dependence of the counting efficiencyof NaI(Tl) detectors on the energy distribution of thegamma-ray flux, the calibration curves have beenfound applicable in a variety of natural radiationbackgrounds. In numerous measurements, thestandard error of the survey meters was + 0.35 uR/hr,and the exposure values computed from the readingswere within 4 percent of the values measured with theionization chamber in 95 percent of themeasurements. (9)
For measurements under the plume, where thegamma-ray energy distribution differed greatly fromnatural background, the portable instruments werecalibrated by comparing their count rates withmeasurements by the muscle-equivalent ionizationchamber. Again, the count rate was found to varylinearly with radiation exposure rate, although therelationship was different than for natural background.
During the fifth field trip, a pressurized ionizationchamber (PIC) (10) was tested in comparison with themuscle-equivalent ionization chamber. The PICconsists of a high-pressure, argon-filled steel chamber,an electrometer, a recorder and a power supply. The
instrument was calibrated with a radium standard toconvert readings to llR/hr.
6.2.2 Concentration measurements. Gaseoussamples were obtained with an .air compressor (27-VDC Cornelius model 32-R-3OO) connected to a 34-literlow-pressure gas bottle rated to contain 0.9 m3 atmaximum pressure. Each cylinder was filled withabout 0.4 m3air. The pump was powered by an ll5-VAC motor generator with output converted to 27 V DCby a full-wave rectifier.
For 133Xe analysis, sampled air was released at thelaboratory from the tank at a rate of 6 liters/min for16.7 min. It was passed through beds of Linde 13Xmolecular sieve and Ascarite for removal of watervapor and CO2, then through a I-cm-dia x 80-cmcopper cooling coil, and finally through a 3.2-cm-dia x66-cm copper V-tube containing 180 g of Columbia6GC (l0-20 mesh) charcoal. Both tubes wereimmersed in a -760 C dry-ice-acetone refrigerant bath.The charcoal under these conditions collected all 133Xefrom one m3or less of air.
After passage of 100 liters, the V-tube was openedand the charcoal transferred to lO-cm-dia, 450-ccplastic containers. The charcoal was allowed to warmup for one hour to room temperature to eliminatepressure build-up. The container was then sealed with arubber gasket and a bolted lid. Thirty-five percent ofthe 133Xe on the charcoal is lost due to warming. Thecharcoal was analyzed for 1000 min with a 10- x lO-cmNaI(Tl) gamma-ray detector connected to a 200channel spectrometer. The analyzer was calibratedwith a 133Xe radioactivity standard from the NationalBureau of Standards.
The remainder of the air sample was analyzed for85Kr, adding 1.86-hr 83mKr to determine the kryptonyield. Krypton was separated and purified by cryogenicfractionation. (11) The fraction was transferred to 25-ccbottles containing IS cc of I-mm-dia plastic scintillatorspheres for analysis by a liquid scintillation counter,
Radioactive particles were sampled by pumping airat the rate of 1.5 m3/min through a glass fiber filter(Mine Safety Appliances type 1106, 20 x 26 cm) withconventional high-volume air samplers. The filterswere counted within approximately 30 min withNaI(Tl) gamma-ray spectrometers* to' detect shortlived 88Rb and l38Cs, the progeny of. the short-livedradioactive noble gas fission products, 88Kr and 138Cs,respectively.
Gaseous radioiodines were sampled by pumping airthrough a 96-g bed of activated charcoal (MSA
·We thank Messrs. David McCurdy, N.J. Department of Environmental Protection, and Harold Beck,HASL, AEC, for counting these samples.
111
cartridge type 2306) mounted with holding rings and agasket on a high-volume air sampler. Also, to samplegaseous radioiodine, glass fiber filters impregnatedwith sodium thiosulfate were placed behind the filterfor particle sampling. Organic species of iodine weresampled with 96-g cartridges of KI-impregnatedcharcoal (MSA charcoal type 85851). The media wereanalyzed with NaI(Tl) or Ge(Li) detectors and gammaray spectrometers for periods of 100 or 1000 min.
6.2.3 Description of tests. Five sets of tests wereconducted in the environs of Oyster Creek fromJanuary 1972 to April 1973. Most measurements weremade at ground level within 5 km of the stack.Radiation exposure and airborne concentrations werefrequently determined simultaneously. For airsampling, slightly unstable to neutral atmosphericconditions were selected since the plume was likely tobe at ground level at relatively short distances.
Test locations, atmospheric conditions and types ofmeasurements and samples obtained are summarizedin Table 6.1. Sampling locations of tests 1 through 4 areindicated on Figure 6.1 and, of the fifth test, on Figure6.11. Wind directions and speeds at the top of the stackare from the station meteorological tower. Independentobservations of wind direction were also made by ameteorologist by releasing balloons. Atmosphericstability conditions frequently had to be determined bythe meteorologist on the basis of professional judgment,because some meteorological tower dataparticularly temperature differences as a function ofelevation - were found to be in error.*
After 0900 hrs on January 18, 1972, theatmosphere was initially slightly unstable, changing toneutral, marked by a decrease in wind speed and a shiftin wind direction. The intent of the test Ib during theevening of that day .was to measure the plume undervery stable (inversion) conditions with the plume aloft.This condition had not been reached, however, at thetime of measurement. Test lc was undertaken in themorning of January 19 under cloud cover withsomewhat changeable winds and occasional light rain.The stack radioactivity release rate was 3.6.xlO' uCi/son both days.
The weather during test 2a on April 11, 1972, wasovercast with low, thick clouds. The wind speeddecreased gradually during sampling and heavy rainbegan at 0935 hrs: During test 2b, the sky was partlycloudy with fluctuating wind direction. The stack
radioactivity release rate at this time was 7.8 x 10'uCi/s.
On August 22 and 23, 1972, the plume wasmeasured on several occasions to test the mUScleequivalent ionization chamber and Keithleyelectrometer and to determine exposure levels on thehighway in front of the station when the plume wasmoving both overhead and away. During this time thesurface wind due to the pressure gradient was generallyfrom the south, but the presence of the ocean nearbyproduced east winds from the ocean during the day,and west winds toward the ocean at night. The dayswere sunny and hot. In the morning of August 23, thedirection trace at 122 m was steady until 0810 andshifted from then on, indicating less stable air. Theearly morning was foggy. The release rate of noble gasfission products was reported by the station to be 1.4 xlO'uCi/s.
During the December 1972 trip, gas and particulatesamples were collected in the plume; radiation wasmeasured on and off the reactor site with a NaI(Tl)detector and a spectrometer, NaI(Tl) survey meters,and a muscle-equivalent ionization chamber. The onsite measurements provided data on radiation beingemitted from station buildings. The Ludlum surveymeters with NaI(Tl) detectors were a new type, testedin the field for the first time. The stack radioactivityrelease rate during the period was 4.0 x 10' uCi/s. Theskies were cloudy on December 12 with thetemperature rising slowly throughout the day.December 13 was cloudy and windy. The temperaturecontinued to rise until noon, then began falling after thewinds shifted due to a passing cold front. Skies weremostly cloudy with weak sunshine during midday ofDecember 14. The winds were regularly shiftingbetween NNE and ENE. After 1240 hrs, the generalwind direction was northerly with continuous shifting.
The purposes of the April 1973 trip were 1) tocompare response from a high-pressure ionizationchamber with a muscle-equivalent ionization chamberwhile in the plume at ground level, and 2) to attempt tomeasure the radiation field of the plume by mounting amuscle-equivalent ionization chamber in a helicopterand making traverses at various distances from thestack. The latter was conducted on the afternoon ofApril 3 (test 5c) and the morning of April 4 (test 5d).The stack radioactivity release rate during the periodwas 1.39 x lOs uCi/s. The morning of April 3 was sunny
• We thank Messrs. P. Humphrey, G. DeMarrais. and R. Fankhauser. Division of Meteorology, EPA,NERC·RTP, for participating in the field trips and undertaking the meteorological analyses.
112
,....,....w
Table 6.1 Conditions for Radiation Dose Measurements of Stack Effluent in the Environment
Sampling point Distance Atmospheric ~Iean windTest azimuth, from stability direction,"" Mean speed,"* Types of
No. Date Period, hrs deg. stack, km c1ass* deg. m(s measurement t
la Jan. 18, 1972 0930-1030 72 2.4 D 255 5.6 R,P
1b Jan. 18, 1972 2000-2100 35 2.1 E 235 10.6 R,P
Ie Jan. 19, 1972 0845-1015 60 1.7 D 260 8.8 R,G,P
2a Apr. 11, 1972 0900-0930H 0 2.4 D 180 6.0 R,P,I
2b Apr. 11, 1972 1500-1615 135 1.6 D 180 8.4 R,G,I
3a Aug. 22, 1972 1730-1900 22-127 0.4-0.8 D 180 5.0 R
3b Aug. 23, 1972 0700-0800 22-127 0.4-0.8 E-F 260 5.2 R
3c Aug. 23, 1972 0820-0910 85 0.35 D-E 260 2.4 R
4a Dec. 12, 1972 1400-1630 22-127 0.4-0.8 D-E 80 4.6 R
4b Dec. 13, 1972 0950-1215 270 0.2-0.4 D 250 10.0 R,S
4c Dec. 13, 1972 1540-1735 127 0.6 D 300 11.0 R,S
4d Dec. 14, 1972 1130-1340 239 3.9 D 50 5.3 R,G,P,I
5a Apr. 3, 1973 0930-1000 100 1.5 C 280 7.4 R,G,I
5b Apr. 3, 1973 1000-1200 100 1.5 D 275 7.3 R,I
5c Apr. 3, 1973 1515-1545 100 1. 5,10 D,D-C 210-290 6.2 R
5d Apr. 4, 1973 0815-1030 285 0.e-34 D 85-105 4.5-9.8 R
" Pasqui11-Gifford atmospheric stability classification: A - extremely unstable D - neutralB - moderately unstable E - slightly stableC - slightly unstable F - moderately stable
**Measured at the 122-m elevation on the meteorological tower.
t Code: G - gas sampling; I - radioiodine sampling; P - particle sampling; R - radiation exposure; S - gamma-ray spectrometry.
ttNo meteorological observations after 0930.
114
FI
m
oIo
1000.
Figure 6.1 Sampling locations for environmental radiation measurements.
with westerly winds. Clouds began developing after0930 hours. An hour later, the sky was overcast, withintermittent breaks. Light rain occurred after 1130.Cloudiness slowly diminished during the afternoon sothat by 1530 hours cloud coverage was less than 50percent. On the morning of April 4, a storm systemapproaching from the southwest causedeastsoutheasterly winds that changed slowly toeasterly. The sky remained overcast after 0800 hoursand neutral conditions persisted. Light rain started at1030 hours.
6.2.4 Estimated atmospheric dispersion.Atmospheric dispersion along the plume centerline atground-level downwind sampling locations wasestimated by the Pasquill-GifTord model.(l2) Thedispersion equation and coefficient values for thevarious sampling tests are given in Appendix E.4. Thevertical and horizontal plume dispersion values applyto the atmospheric stability class judged to beprevailing. The model was derived for open and levelterrain and for lO-min sampling intervals.Measurements were adjusted to account for plumemeander when sampling periods exceeded 10 min. (12)Plume rise estimates based on the techniques ofBriggs(1J) were computed by the USEPA MeteorologyLaboratory for various ambient air temperatures,stability classes and wind speeds. (14) Xenon-133 testdata, dispersion values indicated by measured IJ3Xe .concentrations or predicted by the model, and exposurerates from plume radioactivity are given in Table 6.2.Exposure rates, discussed in Section 6.2.6, representthe mean of 10-min measurements with the muscleequivalent ionization chamber during the 13JXesampling periods.
6.2.5 Air sampling results. Xenon-133 wasobserved in most samples of air analyzed forradioactive gases as shown in Table 6.2. No othergaseous radionuclides with half-lives ofless than 5 dayswere measured because either the interval betweensampling and laboratory analysis was too long or stackemission rates lead to unmeasurable ambientconcentrations. Krypton-85 was detected only in onesample (test 2b); it could not be measured at othertimes because of relatively low emission rates orinsufficient sample quantities for analysis.
Atmospheric dispersion (XIQ) values wereobtained by dividing measured IJ3Xe concentrations inground-level air by the IJ3Xe stack release rate (seeSection 3.3.6). The values agreed within a factor of twowith values for the plume centerline calculated by thePasquill-GifTord technique only in test 5a. Althoughthis sampling interval was the shortest, it occurredwhen the release rate was relatively high, which may
have aided in defining the optimum sampling location.Other measured XIQ values exceeded predicted levelsbased on neutral (category D) atmospheric stability byfactors ranging from 3 to 32. Using an alternativeatmospheric condition (slightly unstable, category C),predicted XIQ values become 8.1 x 10-' s/m3 for testslc and 9.6 x 10-' s/m3 for test 2b. Measured values thenagree closely for test lc and within a factor of 3 for test2b.
No 133Xe was detected in test 4d although thepredicted XIQ value exceeds by a factor of 4 that givenby the minimum detectable concentration level. Therelatively low average radiation exposure rate of 2.8uR/hr indicates that the air sampler may have beenlocated frequently on the fringe of the plume, where the133Xe concentration is lowest.
The measured ground-level BSKr concentrationduring test 2b was 2.8 + 0.1 x 10-4 uCilm3 when thestack release rate was 9.4 uCils, as measured theprevious day. The resulting measured XIQ value is 340and 30 times greater than levels predicted for categoryD and C stabilities, respectively. A possible explanationfor these large discrepancies may be a significantincrease in the stack release rate during sampling.
The progeny of 8BKr and 1J8Xe plume constituents,17.8-min B8Rb and 32.2-min l3BCS, respectively, wereobserved on a glass fiber particulate filter exposedduring all of test lc. On this occasion, the New JerseyState mobile laboratory with a NaI(TI) gamma-rayspectrometry system provided analysis immediatelyafter sampling. A sample volume of 133 m' of air wasobtained from 0857 to 1014 hrs and the filter wasanalyzed for 30 min. Krypton-88 and 1J8Xe were beingdischarged at 4630 and 1840 uCils, respectively,according to measurements by the AEC Health andSafety Laboratory. (15) Estimated ambient levels of theprogeny were based on ingrowth beginning afterpassage through the ofT-gas holdup line filters and a 3min interval to reach the sampling location (BBRb and13BCs levels were corrected for decay that occurredduring samling and analysis). The effective release rates(Q) were computed to be 510 uCiis of B8Rb and 115uCiis of mCs. Measured ambient concentrations were2,000 + 400 pCi/m3 of 88Rb and 150 + 20 pCilm3 ofl38CS. Using the predicted dispersion value of 1.1 x 10-'s/m' (see Table 6.2), ambient concentrations wereexpected to be 57 pCi/m3 of BBRb and 13 pCilm' ofU8Cs, which are 35 and 12 times less than the measuredvalues. As with 133Xe, use of the alternative dispersionvalue of 8.1 x 10-' s/m' for slightly unstable conditionsleads to predicted concentrations that are factors of 5and 2 less than measured levels. In addition, as shownby the radiation exposure rates in Figure 6.4, the plume
115
I-'I-'OJ
Table 6.2 Xenon-I33 in Environmental Air Samples
Test No.Icel) Ic(2) 2b 4d(1) ~4l12 5a
0850-0926 0929-1014 1512-1610 1153-1230 1231-1317
Stack release rate, uCi!s 7,900 7,900 11,200
Measured concentration,* -3 -3 -2uCi!m 3 2.8 + 0.2 x 10 8.7 + 0.1 x 10 3.1 + 0.1 x 10
Atmospheric dis~ersion
(x/Q), s!m
Sampling period, hrs3
Sample volume, m
Measured
Predicted
Radiation exposure rate,uR!hr
0.33
-73.5 x 10
-71.1 x 10
14 + 4
0.36
-61.1 x 10
-71. 1 x 10
24 + 4
0.40
-62.B x 10-8B.B x 10
11 + 8
0.22
3,400
<4x10·4
-7<1.2 x 10
-74.5 x 10
3.4 + O.B
0.40
3,400
<4x10-4
. -7<1.2xI0
-74.5 x 10
2.3 + 1.1
0945-1000
0.084
22,240
-22.1 + 0.2 x 10
-79.3 x 10
-79.3 x 10
31 + 20
*Normalized to 10-min sampling intervals.
Notes:
1. ~ values for concentration data indicate analytical error expressed at 2-sigma and for exposure rates represent standarddeviation of 10-min average results.
2. <values are minimum detectable concentrations at 3-sigma counting error.
30
Time. hr.
..z 0
::'9'~4::-0---9~'-50----10"0-0----10""'10----1-0T""'2-0-
occurred more frequently near the sampling locationduring the latter part of the test. In this event,measured concentration values would be lower andapproximate the alternative predicted levels. Samplingfor shorter intervals would be necessary forconfirmation.
Particulate or gaseous iodine radionuclides werenever observed in the atmosphere during brief samplingperiods, primarily because the stack release rates leadto ambient concentrations below analytical sensitivitylevels. For 1311, the minimum detection levels forvarious sampling devices and expected concentrationsduring each optimum test of a sampling device were asfollows:
20
..-00:: 10~~o0.x
UJ
Background - 5.0 ~R Ihr
~I \
I \I \
I \,.J..., \
_...... I \
~- "" '"T".'" \ 1 \/ \ / \
o--L< .\/ \~ \
~\
'\ ,,~--.---.
Sample ExpectedSampling Test volume, MDC,* cone., **
device no.,
uCilm' uCilm'm-----Glass fiber filter Ie 133 < 3.8 x 10-8 2.4 X 10-8
Activated charcoal Sb 119 <2.4 x 10-' 2.0 X 10-8NazSz03-coated
filter Sb 210 <2.6 x 10-8 2.0 X 10-8
KI-impregnatedcharcoal 2b 38 <2.4 x 10" 2.2 X 10-8
* Minimum detectable concentration at the 3 (J"
confidence level.**Assumes all effiuent 1JlI existed as the species
being sampled.
6.2.6 Exposure rate results. Short-term exposurerate measurements were used to (1) determine thelocation of the plume for more detailed radionuclideconcentration measurements, (2) confirm annualpopulation dose estimates from calculation modelsusing radionuclide release rates, meteorologicaldispersion models and photon dose equations, (3)calibrate portable survey meters for use in monitoringplume exposure rates and (4) to test new exposure ratemeasurement equipment.
On January 18 and 19, 1972, the plume from thestack was measured at the locations described in Table6.1 and shown on Figure 6.1. The measured radiationexposure at location la at a total noble gas release rateof 3.6 x 10' uCiis is shown in Figure 6.2. Radiationexposures during test Ib are shown in Figure 6.3. Testlc was undertaken in the morning under cloud coverwith somewhat changeable winds and occasional lightrain. The radiation exposures during the period, shownin Figure 6.4, show a gradual increase from 9 to 25uR/hr, with frequent fluctuations due to variations inwind direction. The bars on Figures 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4indicate muscle equivalent ionization chambermeasurement periods.
Figure 6.2 Net exposure rate in test 1a, January 18. 1972.
The plume was measured at two locations On April11, 1972. The net radiation exposure for test 2a wasapproximately 9 uR/hr between 0908 and 0936 hours,and then dropped almost to zero when rain began (seeFigure 6.5). For test 2b, periodic fluctuations in winddirection are indicated by the variations in radiationexposure shown in Figure 6.6, in the range 1 to 38uR/hr.
The plume was measured on August 22 and 23,1972, under the conditions shown for tests 3a and 3b inTable 6.1. The measured radiation exposure profiles,shown in Figure 6.7, are not instantaneous, because ofthe time required to traverse the distance of 0.8 km onthe road, but no significant wind shift occurred duringthe measurements. On August 22 during test 3a, theplume was approximately parallel to the road; thehigher value 0.35 km north of the stack is believed to bedue to the spreading of the plume. Note that these aregross values. Net radiation exposure rates from theplume would be 4 to 6 uR/hr lower - the typicalnatural background rate in this area, which may alsoinclude some direct radiation from the station.
The constancy of the radiation exposure rate underthe stable condition that prevailed in test 3b issuggested by the values shown in Figure 6.8 for theperiod immediately afterward (0820 to 0850), when themeasurement for test 3c was made just east ofthe stackon Route 9. During test 3c, the plume crossed the roadat right angles, resulting in a maximum radiationexposure rate of 10.5 uRlhr at the centerline understable conditions, 12.5 uR/hr as the inversiongradually broke up, and peaking to 24 uR/hr as shownin Figure 6.8 during the transitory neutral condition.
Results of exposure rate measurements during test4c with the muscle-equivalent chamber are shown inFigure 6.9. Measurements made over the same period
117
20
Backoround - 5.3 IJR/hr
21:0020:5020:4020:2020:1020:00
~
IIZ 0
~------,-------,-----.------~------r-------,-------,-19'50
II~
c0::10II..~...oQ.)(
III
Time, hrs
Figure 6.3 Net exposure rate in test 1b, January 18. 1972.
with the NaI(Tl) survey meters indicate that the surveymeter calibration curve due to exposure toradionuclides in the plume can be represented by R =2.8 X 10-4 C, where R is the exposure rate above naturalbackground in uR/hr and C is the survey meter countrate in counts/min.
Measurements in test 4d were made at distances of3.9 and 9.0 km from the stack. Exposure ratesmeasured at the 3.9 km location with the muscleequivalent ionization chamber (see Figure 6.10)indicate that the exposure rate measured by the surveymeter due to radionuclides in the plume can berepresented by R = 3.5 X 10-4 C. This relationship was
found to hold above tl)e natural background exposurerate of 4.1 uRlhr at that location. The averageexposure rate above background during the samplingperiod was found to be 2.5 + 1.7 uRIhr. Themeasurements made at a location 9 km from the stack,approximately 30 min later, yielded a net exposure rateof2.3 ± 0.8 uR/hr.
During test 5b, plume radiation measurementswere made simultaneously at distances of 1.5 and 10km east of the stack, at the locations shown in Figure6.11 (see Section 6.3.2). At the l.5-km distance,continuous readings were obtained with the muscleequivalent ionization chamber, and the values were
Background-5.1 L1R/hr
30
..~20D::::::L
II~
oD::CI...;;: 10oQ.>C
LU
'T'I I
I \I \
I \I \
~/..... t-J,... \I ~
I '...... I -_"T1 I I I,. \ I \ I
/ \ I \ I~ \ \ I
/' \"t-;J-.. \ I.......-l-.....,L.. ,...l.<.( ~
t-r-I t-roI_" ;'I' / ~
I I II I I
I \ .......,L.iI \ I
I \ I
~, ~ ",I~- ~
9:409:209:00 9:10Time, hrs
8:50O-+---------r-----~----__r_----___r----___,-----.,._---
8:40
Figure 6.4 Net exposure rate in test 1c. January 19. 1972.
118
12
10
8
6~
s:.......0:::::a. Background - 4.9 IJR/hr..CI..0cr 4II'~
::::Ilit00.)(
W-II' 2z
9:509:409'·20Time, hrs
O-+------.,-----~-----_r_-----~----___,9:00
Figure 6.5 Net exposure rate in test 2a. April 11, 1972.
119
Figure 6.6 Net exposure rate in test 2b, April 11, 1972.
confirmed with a pressurized ionization chamber. Twosurvey meters with 5- x 5-cm NaI(Tl) detectors werecalibrated for plume measurements relative to themuscle-equivalent chamber during part of this time.The exposure rate measurements at 10 km wereconducted for 11 min in the Island Beach State Parkeast of Barnegat Bay with the same meters.
Ground-level measurements during test 5b, andduring the airborne measurements of tests 5c and 5d(see Section 6.3), were compared to exposure ratescomputed by Gamertsfelder's treatment of a finitecloud, using his Eq. 7.43. (l6)Standard deviation valueswere selected for either C or D stability conditions. Theplume standard deviations in Figures 3.10 and 3.12 ofReference 16 were considered to be for appmximatelylO-min periods. The computed exposure was dividedby the factor 1.4 for the longer period of measurementon the ground. (12) The plume rise was computed to be28 m during test 5b. (14)
The average energy, E, of gamma rays from the gaswas computed to be 0.73 + 0.03 MeV at 0, 4, 10 and 60min after discharge. The composition of theseradioactive gases at discharge, measured March 28,1973, was:(l7)
Background - 5.1 uR/hr
10
o+--- ----, --r- --... ...,.-_
15'00 15'20 /5'40Time, hrs
40
.,~ 20"Do
"W;z
-~"- 30cr::I.
'!!""cr
Gross exposure rate profi Ie east of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station during stableplume conditions.
Plume 3b; August 23, 197210
9
B
--~7"-
0::~
.;;;0:: 6~:>..0D.
" 5wC;2
4
3
.. ""~ .....>.--QU
Figure 6.7
120
g_0::
E:0.:::«
Location on Route 9
'0oo0::e ..
~~u«
km 0 0.1I
'0.. ..... .... ,&ii'
25
20
5
9:109:00O-+-------r------~----~-----_r_-----~-
8:20
Figure 6.8 Gross exposure rate measurements in plume during change from stable to unstable meteorologicalconditions, test 3c, August 23, 1972.
In addition to gamma rays from these radionuclides,those from 17.8-min 88Rb and 32.2-min 138Cs, formed bythe decay of their radioactive precursors, were includedin computing E. The composition of this mixtureapproximated the average observed mixture (see
Radionuc1ide
4.48-hr76.3 -min2.8 -hr5.29-d
15.6 -min9.15-hr
14.2 -min
"mKr"Kr"Kr"'Xe"'mKr"'Xe"'Xe
Stackeffiuent
composition
0.0710.1290.1850.1610.0400.3480.060
Section 3.3.1) except that the 88Kr value above is 25percent higher and 13SmXe is lower by a factor of two.The average radiation exposure rate above the naturalradiation background was 32 uR/hr during a 144-minperiod 1.5 km east of the stack, and 2 uR/hr during anII-min period 10 km east of the stack (see Table 6.3).The extensive fluctuation of the exposure rate isindicated by the I-min averages at the 1.5-km locationshown in Figure 6.12. -Instantaneous values, thoserecorded at the instrument response time of 10 s,ranged from 2 to 162 uR/hr, and lO-min averages from7 to 63 uRlhr. No difference is apparent in Figure 6.12between the values before 1000 hours, when the skywas becoming cloudy (unstable, class C) and after 1000hours, when the sky was overcast (neutral, class D).
121
Background - 4.3 IJR/hr
/7:0016:4016:20
Time, hrs
16:00
16
14
12
..10..
'"0:::::l..
8.,..~
! 6~lit0Q.)(
&LI4...,
z2
015:40
Figure 6.9 Net exposure rate in test 4c. December 13. 1972.
13:2013:0012:40
Background - 4.1 IJR/hr
12:00, 11:40O-+-----,-------r-------,--------,--------,---......---Lr
11:20
:E 8.....a:::::l
.r 6
~~5l 4oQ.ocW'_ 2..z
Time, hrs
Figure 6.10 Net exposure rate in test 4d. December 14. 1972.
122
J{
1I Imeler
500 1000
.f
j/lJ'J'
'" 70
J(' orked River AlIanlle
1Ocean
0 4 8I I I I I Ikm
2 6 10
Figure 6.11 Locations of ground and aerial' plume measurements. April 3 and 4.1973.
Table 6.3 Radiation Exposure Rates from Plume at Ground-Level on April 3, 1973, uRlhr
Measured valueLocation Time Average Maximum Computed va1ue*
1. 5 km E 0945-1000 31 162 ' 94 (C)
1000-1152 32 160 72 (D)
10 km E 1157-1208 2 6 20 (D)
*Pasqui11-Gifford stability class in parentheses; computed value at 1.5 km Efor 1000-1152 hours has been divided by 1.4 to correct for long (2-hr)measurement period.
123
12:00/1:4011:2011:0010:00 10'20 10:40Time, 4/3/73
Figure 6.12 Radiation exposure rates 1.5 km east of stack (1-min averages).
9'40
130
120
110
100
90
80
~
70.c"-a:.3
60!0a:~
50:::lII>0Q.
40>clIJ
c.5!... 300:00a:... 20G>Z
10
0
9'20
At the 1.5-km location, the computed radiationexposure rates using Gamertsfelder's treatment of afinite cloud were two to three times higher than themeasured averages. (16) The lower measured exposurerates are difficult to explain. The lO-times highercomputed value at the lO-km distance may be due to ashift in the wind after the initial measurements or evena different stability condition at the shoreline.
6.3 Helicopter-Borne Measurement ofRadiation Exposure
6.3.1 General Radiation measurements in theplume of gaseous effluents from a BWR with airplanesusing NaI(TI) gamma-ray spectrometers, (18,19) haveshown that this technique is rapid and applicable to
terrain unsuitable for ground-based studies. Plumeshave been observed 30-50 km(19,20) from the stackfar beyond distances where ground-level measurementsare feasible. The plume is much more accessible thanon the ground; however, the radiation exposuresmeasured in air for a fraction of a minute must becompared with values from models designed for longperiods at ground level.
In this test a helicopter, provided by the U.S. CoastGuard.· was used instead of an airplane, and a muscleequivalent ionization chamber instead of NaI(TI)detectors. The helicopter permits measurements nearerthe ground, slower traverses of the plume and moreprompt successive traverses. The muscle-equivalentchamber with a Keithley electrometer and recorderdirectly yields radiation exposure rates (see Section
·We thank Cmdr. Alan G. Dahms, U.S. Coast Guard, for making available a helicopter and crew.
124
6.2.1). The test was intended (a) to observe thefluctuations of exposure rates on the ground, (b) tocompare measurements in the air and on the ground,and (c) to obtain exposure-rate gradients of the plumeat several elevations and distances.
6.3.2 Procedure. Radiation exposure rates weremeasured at the eight locations listed in Table 6.4 andshown in the area and detailed maps of Figure 6.11.The muscle-equivalent chamber was placed in aSikorsky HH3F helicopter almost directly beneath therotor and engine. One staff member operated theinstrument and recorded the time and all informationrelayed from the cockpit concerning location andaltitude. Another staff member, in the cockpit, directedthe flight pattern according to the study plan andradiation readings observed with a survey meter. Thehelicopter flew at an average speed of 33 mls (65knots). It approached within 0.8-km of the stack at anelevation of 270 m, circled to locate the plume, thentraversed the plume at successively lower elevations at30-m intervals. The helicopter then flew away from thestack, within the plume, to the next selected traversedistance. These distances, and angles at which exposurerates were at maximum, were established from acomputer in the helicopter, supplemented with visuallocation oflandmarks. When, after passing through theplume, the exposure readings had returned tobackground values, the helicopter turned and flew 30m higher to make the next traverse in the oppositedirection. In a few instances, a traverse was repeated.
The muscle-equivalent chamber readings werecorrected for the lO-s response time of the system. Most
of the delay was due to the ion collection time in thechamber. Numerical integration with experimentallyobserved rise-time curves of the system showed, forexample, that a radiation exposure rate profile in theshape of a normal distribution curve with a standarddeviation of 3 s would result in an observed profile withthe same area, but lagging by 2 s. The observed peakvalue would be 0.82 of the actual, and the observedstandard deviation would be 3.6 s. This example wastypical of profiles found 0.8-1.9 km from the stack. Atgreater distances, the time in the plume was longer, andthe correction was correspondingly less.
The indicated direction of the maximum readingduring each traverse was corrected for the abovementioned time lag in instrument response. Reversedflight directions on alternate traverses minimized anyconsistent directional error. These corrected valuesshowed plume directions consistently at 100° and 285°.
Meteorological data for computing the diffusion ofradionuclides from the stack, and the resultingradiation exposure rates, were obtained from thestation's meteorological tower at several elevations to122 m and from the observations of a participatingmeteorologist. The meteorological data aresummarized in Table 6.1 and discussed in Section 6.2.3.
Radiation exposure rates from the plume werecomputed by Gamertsfelder's treatment of a finitecloud(J6) (see Section 6.2.6). For the very brief periodsof measurement by helicopter, standard deviations forpuffs computed according to Table 4.23 in Reference16 were also used. The wind speeds applied in thecalculations were from meteorological-tower data for
Table 6.4 Aerial Measurement Locations
Direction DistanceDate and time from stack from stack, km
April 3, 1973: East (1000 )
1526-1532 1.5
1543-1547 10
April 4, 1973: West (285 0 )
0813-0831 0.8
0836-0854 1.9
0858-0916 3.2
0933-0948 8
0957-1017 20
1023-1031 34
Altitude abovesea level, m
120-210
120-210
120-300
120-270
120-270
120-270
120-270
210-360
125
the measurement periods, as given in Table 6.1. Thevertical distance from the plume centerline to themeasurement location was taken to be zero at thehighest radiation-exposure rates in the helicopter, and140 m from plume to ground. The plume rise wascomputed to be 28 m above the 112-m stack.
6.3.3 Description ofplume. Profiles in the verticalplane of the radiation exposure rates measured on April4 at distances between 0.8 and 34 km from the stack areshown in Figure 6.13 and summarized in Table 6.5 forpeak value and standard deviation at the elevation ofmaximum exposure. Many of the plumes near thestack, for which traverses required less than 10 s,resemble nonnal distribution curves; others showirregularities indicating that the plume moved. Plumemotion is also seen in. the irregularities of maximumvalues during traverses at successive elevations. Thealtitudes of maximum exposures at 1.9-20 kmd"istances are consistent with the combined stack heightplus plume rise of 140 m, but at 0.8 km the plumecenterline appeared to be approximately at the 112-mstack height. The maximum exposure rates and plumedimensions were the same at distances of 0.8 km and1.9 km, then decreased with distance by approximately
log uRlbr = 2.3 -log km
to 34km.The measured maximum exposure rates were
considerably lower at all distances than the valuescomputed for a finite cloud (see Table 6.5) withstandard deviation values for either plume or putT atthe appropriate class D stability. The two sets ofcomputed values and the measured values appear toconverge at a distance greater than 34 km, presumablybecause the plume becomes large and the transit timeslong. The standard deviations of the computedradiation exposure - inferred in Figure 7.12 ofReference 16 to be somewhat larger than the standard
deviations of the concentration at the four nearbylocations and equal at the two distant ones - areapproximately the same as the value for the measuredprofiles (see Table 6.5 and Figure 6.13) between 1.9 and20 km. The computed value is less at 0.8 km and moreat 34km.
6.3.4 Companson of airbome and ground~level
measurements. Radiation exposure rates measuredfrom the helicopter in the plume at the two locations tothe east of the stack (see Table 6.6) and those on theground (see Table 6.3) are not directly comparablebecause the helicopter was available in the afternoonbut not during the morning. However, conditions weresimilar for wind direction, wind speed and atmosphericstability during the two measurement periods.
The indicated maximum exposure rate wasobserved near an altitude of 1SO m; centerline values ataltitudes of 120, 270, and 300 m were approximatelyhalf as great. Qualitatively, the maximum exposurerates measured from the helicopter were expected to behigher than the ground-level maxima, but this was notthe case. The values measured in air may have beenlower due to:
(a) a larger plume in the afternoon, under thesomewhat unstable atmospheric conditions;
(b) radiation sh~elding by the helicopter,particularly by the engine and fuel tanks;
(c) maximum in the vertical plume profile locatedbetween successive traverses; and
(d) disturbance of plume by the helicopter rotor.The computed values in Table 6.6 show the
considerable influence of the assumed stabilitycondition: the plume values for class Careapproximately 1.5 times the measured values, whilethose for D are three to eight times as high. Calculationof exposure rates for "putT" dimensions (Reference 15,p. 175, Table 4.23) is believed to be more applicablethan "plume" exposures because the passage of the
Table 6.5 Radiation Exposure Rates at Centerline of Plume West of Plant
Distance Computed Measured valuesfrom exposure Max. exposure Height above ground Horizontal standard
stack, km rate, ]..lR/hr rate, lJR/hr at max. exposure, m dev. of profile, m
Plume Puff
0.8 "650 (D) 1500(0) 110 < 100 90
1.9 270 (D) 590(0) 110 110-170 90
3.2 140(D) 300 (D) 47 110-200 150
8 39 (D) 100(0) 25 90-150 300
20 13 (D) 35 (D) 9.5 90 430
34 5 (D) 11 (D) 4.5 1000
126
Olalance from Stadt 0.8 km
Ground Elevallon 6-9m Altitude (m) 105-
Dlslance from Stack I. 9 km
Ground Elevalion 6-9m Altitude (m)
Dlslonce from Slack 3.2 km
Ground Elevalion 9-12m
75- -75
s=
60- ~ -60.3
"45- ; -45a:
"30- ~ -30
~Nw
15- -15
0- -0500
Allilude (m)
Io500
90-
75-
s=....GO- a: -GO
3
"45- e -45a:
"30- ~ -30
0
~w
15 - -15
0- -0
240
270
-210
"Z.--120
7 150
180
120
-9090-
Distance from Mallmum (m.) Dis lance from Ma.lmum (m,) Disionce from MOJlimum (m.J
210·0240
, 270/'
Altitude em)
Dlaronce from Stack 34 km
Ground Eleva lion 35- 40 m"....a:3
4.5 - - 4.5
"oa:
13.5 - -135
~9_0 - [- 9_0
NW
Altllude em)
Distance from Stack 20 km
Ground Elevallon 45-50ms=....180 - '3
"135-~-13.5
270-
22.5-
"~90- ~ -90
~____ w
45- - 4.5
em)Dlslance from Slack 8km
I I I 0--0500 0 500
Dlslance from Maximum (m.)
1 -- -,- - I
2000 0 2000
Distance 'rom Maximum (m)
0- -02000
I Io 2000
Dis lance from Maximum (mol
Figure 6.13 Radiation exposure rates measured in helicopter. Apri.1 4, 1973.
......~
Table 6.6 Radiation Exposure Rates at Centerline of Plume East of Plant
Distance Computed ~leasured val uesfrom exposure Max. exposure Height above ground Horizontal standard
stack, km rate, llR/hr rate, uR/hr at max. exposure, m dev. of profile, m
Plume Puff
1.5 180 (C) 210(B) 130 ISO 180
430 (D) 880 (D)
10 10 (C) 12 (8) 6 120-180 280
50(0) 120 (D)
helicopter through the cloud took seconds rather thanthe 10- to IS-min period for which the plumedimensions are usually computed (Reference 11, p. 6)but the puff values differed even more from themeasured ones.
6.3.5 Conclusions. This initial test indicates some ofthe advantages in using a helicopter to measureradiation exposure rates due to BWR stack release:
(a) Capability of flying as low as 100 m aboveground over unpopulated areas yields plumerise, indicated by a maximum in radiationexposure as a function of height.
(b) Maneuverability for obtaining manymeasurements in a brief period can define theplume in terms of exposure rate gradients. In140 minutes, the described plume wastraversed at six altitudes at each of the sixlocations between 0.8 and 34 km distant fromthe stack.
(c) Measurements of radiation exposure gradients- plume profiles - in all three dimensionscould provide a more detailed description ofatmospheric stability than the factors nowused for this purpose. Applied to research,these measurements can provide fundamentaldefinitions of stability conditions; applied toevaluating radiological models, suchmeasurements can better define conditions ifthe topography is complex and can yield moreprecise calculations ifit is simple.
(d) The helicopter shares with the airplane thecapability of following the radioactive plumeto relatively great distances, where the plumecould not be so definitely measured, or evenidentified, from the ground.
In future tests, measurements at ground level andfrom the helicopter should be performedsimultaneously to permit direct comparisons.Measurements obtained at twice the vertical centerline,i.e., the reflections in air of ground-based values, should
128
be of particular inter:est for comparing airborne andground-based exposure rates.
Artifacts that may affect the airbornemeasurements should be identified. It will be desirableto shorten the ionization chamber response time byincreasing the applied voltage, and to calculate andmeasure the radiation attenuation at the detector due tothe helicopter.
The observations indicate that the radioactiveplume could be detected beyond 34 km at the indicatedrelease rate and meteorological conditions. With morenumerous measurements, the rise of the plume and itsvertical and horizontal spreading should be readilydefinable as a function of local topography andatmospheric stability. Availability of a moreappropriate model for computing exposure rates wouldbe desirable. To match the measurements, the modelshould be revised to define the plume for periods of 0.2to 2 min in terms of radiation exposure rate.
6.4Direct Gamma-ray Radiation fromthe Station.
Gamma-nn radiation being emitted directly frombuildings at the Oyster Creek station was measuredduring several field trips. Measurements were madewith NaI(TI) portable survey instruments, described in6.2.1, supplemented by measurements with the muscleequivalent ionization chamber with a Keithleyelectrometer. During one trip, measurements weremade to compare results of the mUScle-equivalentchamber with Shonka electrometer and a pressurizedionization chamber operated by staff of the AECHealth and Safety Laboratory (HASL).
Gamma exposure rate measurements were madewith the survey meter on October 6, 1971, along a linebeginning outside the northeast corner of the plantsecurity fence and progressing northeasterly toward theRoute 9 highway bridge over the intake canal.Exposure rates shown in Table 6.7 were found to
R = 0.9 D-2 exp(-4D)
Distance from center of radwaste building.**
Natural background exposure rate in this area isapproximately 4.3 ~R/hr._
t Measured on December 12, 1972.
decrease with distance from the radwaste building. Anattempt was made to evaluate exposure rates off-site byextrapolating from the higher values measured on-site.The distance of each measurement location from thecenter of the radwaste building appeared to be thecritical parameter in correlating the exposure anddistance measurements. It is possible that directradiation from the stack may also contribute to themeasured exposure. However, due to the closeproximity of the stack to the radwaste building therelationship between distance and exposure rate wouldnot change. The values of exposure rate, above thenatural background radioactivity of 4.3 uR/hr,measured on-site were found to fit the equation:
where R is the net radiation exposure rate (backgroundsubtracted) in uR/hr and D is the distance inkilometers from the center of the radwaste building.The constant of 0.9 was obtained from the net exposurerates found on-site by a least squares evaluation of thedata. The exponential constant of 4 accounts for theattenuation of the gamma-ray radiation in air. Fromthis relationship the exposure rate at the nearestresidence, 1.1 km north of the plant, is estimated to be0.08 mR/yr. A similar relationship between exposurerate from direct gamma-ray radiation and distancefrom the waste storage tanks was found at the HaddamNeck station. (5) In that study the constant was foundto be 1.4 instead of 0.9. This difference is probably dueto different gamma-ray energies in the wastes anddifferent shielding at the two stations. The contributionof 16N to the exposure rates is not considered to besignificant at the Oyster Creek measurement locations.Measurements by HASL indicate that elevated
exposure rates due to 16N are to be found west of theturbine centerline;(21) 16N gamma-rays were shieldedby the reactor building at the locations studied in thepreceding measurements.
On October 6 and October 19, 1971, exposure ratemeasurements were made along the west and northboundaries of the site, using the NaI(TI) survey meter.Exposure rates were found to range from 4.4 to 6.0uR/hr at the time of the survey. Variations appear to bedue to natural variability in soil radioactivity - therates measured beside the Garden State Parkway,which forms the west site boundary, were highest and are not attributed to station operations.
Several comparisons between the muscleequivalent ionization chamber and the HASLpressurized ionization chamber were made on January18, 1972, as shown in Table 6.8. The third and fourthmeasurements show good agreement for naturalradiation backgrounds at slightly different levels. Thefirst two are on-site measurements that, according toHASL staff,(22) include direct radiation with arelatively low-energy component from stored waste inthe first case, and the very strong gamma rays (6.1 and7.1 MeV) of 7.l-s 16N in the turbines in the second case.The greatest difference is 15 percent.
Exposure rates were measured with the muscleequivalent ionization chamber along the east plant siteboundary on Route 9 when the plume was blowing tothe west on December 12, 1972. The results of thesemeasurements are shown on Figure 6.14, where it canbe seen that exposure rates above the naturalbackground level of 4.3 uRlhr were measured oppositethe plant. The highest net exposure rate (about 1.8uR/hr above background) was found at the locationnearest the stack and the radwaste building. Estimationof the dose due to sources in or near the radwastebuilding at the nearest location on Route 9 given by theequation above leads to an estimated dose of 1.7 uR/hrabove background, comparable to the net measuredexposure rate of about 1.8 uR/hr. The average net.exposure rate above background attributable to directradiation from the plant along Route 9 is estimatedfrom this survey to be 0.8 uR/hr between the bridgesover the intake and discharge canals. An individualdriving at 64 km/hr (40 mph) over this distance wouldbe exposed to 0.012 uR per passage. Assuming 5000cars per day with an average 1.5 persons per car leadsto an annual population dose of0.034 man-rem.
Measurements were made on-site to the west of theplant, in areas expected to be primarily exposed tohigh-energy gamma rays from 16N in the turbine, onDecember 13, 1972. The total exposure rate at alocation near the meteorological tower, about 340 m
18.4
10.0
7.7
7.6
7.5
6.0
6.1 t
Total exposure rateon October 6, 1971, ~R/hr**
External Radiation Exposure Rates On-SiteTable 6.7
Distance,*km
*
0.18 NNE
0.23 NNE
0.29 NNE
0.35 NNE
0.43 NNE
0.70 NNE
0.45 E
129
"'000ll:
.>< .. t.. .. > .,;..b :': ii: >
u iii~ <l "'0
~ <: ~.. .r:;
t ...... 0{t If km 0 0.1 B
0 Q:I , IJl
Location on Route 9
Table 6.8 Comparison Between Ionization Chamber Measurements, IIR/hr
Location MEIC* PIC**
l. N.E. corner of security area, on-site 81.1 87.2
2. S.W. of plant, on site (HASL-B) 21. 5 25.0
3. 2.7 Jan SSE of plant 5.3 5.5
4.. 7.1 Jan N of plant 6.1 6.2
* Muscle-equivalent ionization chamber.** Pressurized ionization chamber; measurements performed by HASL.
6
... 5~
~4P====:==::=----------------_':'-_--~=:::::::::X::::=-~lIQ!m!lLD.!L_.....lLfSJ~
~ 3fSJ...:Ig 2Q...
UJ
-gl
~
Figure 6.14 Gross exposure rate profile east of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. December 12.1972.
west of the turbine building, was measured to be 8.7uRIhr. The total exposure rate 180 m from the turbinebuilding, near the switchyard, was found to be 21.1uR/hr. These values agree well with those determinedby HASL stafTbetween August 1971 and January 1972using pressurized ionization chambers and a NaI(Tl)gamma-ray spectrometer system.(21) A gamma-rayspectrum obtained with a NaI(Tl) detector during thismeasurement is shown in Figure 6.15.
6.5Long-term Radiation ExposureMeasurements
6.5.1 Measurements. Long-term exposuremeasurements were obtained in the vicinity of thestation with thermo1uminescent dosimeters (TLD).Measurements were made during the periods ofSeptember 29 to November 30, 1971, March 14 to June15, 1972, and April 17 to July 2, 1973. Two to sixdosimeters were placed at each of the locations shownon Figures 6.16 and 6.18. Monitoring sites were
130
selected to surround the station as much as possible.Some of these sites (101, 108 and 109) coincided withTLD stations established by HASL. Backgroundvalues at each site were obtained when .the station wasnot operating and operational values while the stationwas operating.
The TLD system; manufactured by EG&G, utilizesthe model TL-3B reader" and model TL-15 bulb-typedosimeters. The dosimeter is a hot-pressed CaF2:Mncylinder bonded to a heater element contained in anevacuated glass tube. The bulb is enclosed in analuminum-lead-tin shield to eliminate detector overresponse to gamma rays below approximately 100 keV.It detects gamma rays with energies above 60 keY.Calibration factors and internal background for eachdosimeter were determined in the laboratory. (23)
The dosimeters used during the first two sets ofmeasurements had not been fully evaluated in thelaboratory. As discussed later, these measurementsindicated that more laboratory testing of thedosimeters was necessary before environmental
105r----y--r---r------r---,------'T"---,----~---__--__- ....
lie4 0
10 'It
0CD ~
ot0..Cl.
i= .. zCD Cl.
~0 0CII
<.)<II 0.. rtI0
CII iD<II ID I... CIIc::::l0u
'0;2
103
Ii)Z
op::
210 0~--~---..L---~---.1...---.......L.---..L-----l.---~----I.-l.J
80 100 120 140 160 180(-40 k~v/chonnel)
Figure 6.15 Gamma-ray spectr1-!l!1of 16N direct radiation from turbine building, measured0.2 km west of building.Detector: 10-x10-cm NaI(Ti)Count: Dec. 13, 1972, 40 min (background not subtracted).
measurements could be performed with confidence andthat dosimeters with lower internal self-dosingcharacteristics were desired. Improvements indosimeter design led to the use of the dosimetersdiscussed below for the third measurement period.
Calibration factors for converting arbitrarydosimeter units to exposure in mR were determined byexposing each dosimeter eight times to 5mR to 10 mR
gamma-ray radiation from a 2 mCi radium-226standard and reading the dosimeters 24 hours later.The mean calibration factors of the 94 dosimetersvaried from 0.20 to 0.27 mR/reader unit. The averagestandard deviation (1 (J") was 1. 8 percent. Thisrepresents the reproducibility of reading thesedosimeters at typical environmental radiation levelsunder laboratory conditions.
131
Studies of dosimeter fading indicated that mostoccurs within 5 hours of exposure. Between 5 hoursand 24 hours the fade is about one percent with nomeasurable fade after 24 hours. Therefore, no fadingcorrection is necessary for environmental monitoringwhere the dose is accumulated over 2 to 4 weeks.
The internal background (self-dosing) of thedosimeters, from radioactivity in their componentmaterials, was determined by placing annealeddosimeters for 160 hours in a shield with 15-cm-thicksteel walls. The natural background exposure rate inthe shield was measured with a muscle-equivalentionization chamber to be 2.0 uR/hr. The internalbackground of each dosimeter was determined in 5 to10 measurements by subtracting the naturalbackground from the dosimeter reading. The averageinternal background for the 94 dosimeters of the typeused in the last set of measurements was 1.98 + 0.09uR/hr (average of the standard deviations of theindividual dosimeters).
A minimum detectable level can be defined as threetimes the standard deviation associated with thebackground measurement. As an example, assume thatthe dosimeter was placed in the field for a I-monthmonitoring period. At the end of the 720 hours, thedosimeter would have accumulated 1.43 ± 0.06 mRfrom internal background alone. Therefore, theminimum detectable exposure for a I-monthmonitoring period is calculated to be three times 0.06mR or 0.18 mR for a single dosimeter. For multipledosimeters, the minimum detectable exposure would beless. Thus, a typical natural background radiationexposure level of 6 mR/month can be readily measuredwith TLD's. However, there is greater uncertainty indetermining an increase above the natural backgronndbecause the latter fluctuates by several uR/hr. ThemInImUm detectable increase above naturalbackground radiation exposure contributed by anuclear power station which can be measured by TLDis typically 1 uR/hr if some of these fluctuations can bequantified. (24)
For field measurements, the TLD reader waslocated in an EPA laboratory at Edison, N. J., duringthe first two periods and in Forked River, N. J., duringthe third period, so that the dosimeters could be readwithin 6 hours after collection and returnedimmediately to their monitoring locations. Thisprocedure minimized any unknown exposuresoccurring during transportation over long distances toand from the laboratory. The maximum error in theresults due to the dosimeters not being on locationduring transportation and readout is estimated to beequivalent to 0.1 uR/hr. Values obtained from the two
132
to six dosimeters at a given location were averaged. Infive instances results were lost because dosimeters weremissing from the measurement location.
During dosimeter placement and retrieval, theexternal radiation exposure rate at the location wasmeasured with the 5- x 5-cm NaI(TI) survey meters.The mean 2u values for these measurements was + 0.3J.1RIhr. In a previous studY,(3) readings withadequately calibrated survey meters correspondedclosely to the TLD results except for time-dependentdifferences, since the survey meter gives aninstantaneous value whereas the TLD integrates theexposure over several weeks.
To facilitate analysis, TLD measurements havebeen divided into two groups - eight periods duringSeptember 29, 1971 to June 15, 1972 and two periodsduring April 17 to July 2, 1973. For the first group ofmeasurements, the plant was operating during a part ofthe third period and during the fourth and fifth periods.The TLD reader and dosimeters were provided by theEPA Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility.Dosimeters were placed in 20-cm x 45-cm clear plasticbags and attached 2 m above ground to trees or poles atthe selected sites. After three measurement periods, thedosimeters were returned to the laboratory for testing,and later replaced at the measurement locations for anadditional five periods. On November 18 and 19, 1971,measurements were made simultaneously with themuscle-equivalent ionization chamber at four of theTLD locations.
A new batch of dosimeters that had relatively lowself-dosing characteristics was placed around thestation from April 17 to June 4, 1973, while the plantwas not operating and from June 4 to July 2, 1973,while the plant was operating in a normal manner.These dosimeters were placed in 7. 5-cm x lO-cm clearplastic bags which made them less conspicuous andreduced theft.
6.5.2 Results. Measurements during the first groupof eight periods were made at the locations shown onFigure 6.16. Measurements at location 102 werediscontinued due to frequent theft. Measurements atlocation 112 were discontinued when residentialdevelopment began.
Results of the first group of measurements areshown in Table 6.9. The environmental exposure ratewas found to vary between 5.0 and 9.6 uR/hr. Thenatural background is relatively low in the area,undoubtedly because of the sandy soil, and increasesgradually with increasing distance from the seashore.The TLD values appear to be reasonably consistentwith the survey meter readings and the few ionizationchamber readings.
t@
o 1000 3000II--_....I'_~..l-_--J..!_
o 500 1000
Figure 6.16 Locations of TLD measurements. Sept. 29.1971 to June 15. 1972.
133
Table 6.9 Long-Term Exposure Rate Measurements, pR/hr (September 29, 1971 to June 15, 1972)
9/29-10/18/71 1 10/18,19-11/11/71 1 11/12- 30/ 71 2 11/18,19/71 2 3/14-4/4/72 3Survey Survey Survey Survey
Location TLD meter TLD meter TLD meter Shonka TLD meter
101 5.6 + 0.1 5.0 5.3 + 0.2 5.0 5.5 + 0.3 5.1 6.6 5.1
102 7.1 + 0.1 7.1 7.1 + 0.2 7.1 lost 7.0
103 5.1 + 0.2 5.5 6.1 5.4 6.1 + 0.5 6.2* 5.4 + 0.2 5.3
104 6.5 + 1.1 5.2 6.1 + 0.1 4.9 5.8 + 0.2 5.2 5.4 + 0.1 4.9-105 6.7 + 0.2 6.6 7.3 + 0.3 6.6 7.7 + 0.2 7.0 7.5 9.6 + 0.2 8.6
106 5.2 + 0.4 5.7 5.3 + 0.5 5.5 6.5 + 0.2 5.6 5.3 7.4 + 0.3 8.1*
107 5.6 + 0.4 5.9 5.4 + 0.3 5.3 6.3 + 0.1 5.7 5.9 + 0.0 6.8*-108 5.3 + 0.8 5.8 6.0 + 0.1 5.5 6.7 + 0.0 5.8 5.3 6.1 + 0.0 5.5-109 7.2 + 0.3 6.9 7.8 + 0.2 7.1 6.1 6.4 + 0.1 6.7
110 6.3 6.0 7.5 + 0.1 5.7 6.8 + 0.1 5.9 6.1 + 0.0 5.8-III 6.5 + 0.2 5.8 7.4 + 0.4 5.8 7.0 + 0.1 6.0 6.3 + 0.1 5.8
112 5.1 + 0.5 5.4 5.9 + 0.0 5.2 6.4 + 0.0 5.3
113 5.4 + 0.2 5.3-114 6.2 + 0.6 6.5
115 8.0 + 0.4 9.0
4/5-20/723 4/21-5/8/72 1 5/9-31/721 6/1-15/72 1
Survey Survey Survey SurveyTLD meter TLD meter TLD meter TLD meter
101 6.5 + 0.0 6.0 6.7 + 0.3 5.0 5.8 + 0.2 5.3 5.0 + 0.1 4.6
103 6.2 + 0.2 6.0 6.3 + 0.1 5.1 5.4 + 0.2 5.6
104 6.2 + 0.0 5.0 6.2 + 0.2 4.6 5.7 + 0.2 4.6 5.4 + 0.1 4.8-105 9.6 + 0.1 10.8 lost 6.8 6.3 + 0.2 7.0 5.8 + 0.1 6.9
106 6.8 + 0.3 8.1* 5.7 + 0.1 5.5 5.2 + 0.3 5.6 5.1 + 0.0 5.7-107 5.7 + 0.1 5.6 5.0 + 0.1 5.0 5.1 + 0.0 5.2 5.0
108 6.3 + 0.0 5.7 5.9 + 0.0 5.7 5.9 + 0.1 5.7 5.1 + 0.2 5.7-109 6.9 + 0.2 6.7 6.6 + 0.1 7.4 6.6 + 0.5 6.6 6.3 + 0.5 7.1
110 6.5 + 0.2 6.3 6.8 + 0.2 5.7 6.3 + 0.1 5.8 lost 5.8
III 7.0 + 0.1 5.9 6.4 + 0.1 5.7 6.0 + 0.1 5.9 lost 5.9
113 6.0 + 0.0 5.9 5.6 + 0.3 5.3 lost 5.4 5.6 + 0.4 5.5
114 7.6 + 0.1 7.3 7.3 + 0.5 5.9 5.7 + 0.4 6.4 5.6 + 0.5 6.4
115 8.6 + 0.3 21. 9* 7.9 + 0.5 7.0 6.2 + 0.4 7.2 6.2 + 0.7 6.8-
In plume at time of measurement.1 Plant not operating.2 Plant operation variable.
3 Plant operating
Note: + values are 10.
Exposure rates measured while the station wasoperating and when it was not operating were averaged.The difference between the two averages representsexposure due to station operation in the absence ofsignificant changes 10 the natural radiationbackground.
Radiation exposure rates during station operationwere estimated (Table 6.10) using the method ofBurke. (25) This assumes that the exposure rate due to
134
the plume of radioactive gases from the stack variesinversely with distance from the stack, weighted by thewind direction frequency from data reported by thestation operator for the period most nearly coincidingwith the period of interest (in this case, March andApril 1972). (26) The values obtained from the modelwere then normalized to correspond to the measuredvalues. Although the measured net values are notstatistically significant at the 2u level, except for two
Table 6.10 Comparison of Operating vs. Shutdown Period Exposure Rates, IlR/hr(September 29, 1971 to June 15, 1972)
Distance from Plant Not Net Due To EstimatedLocation Stack (km) Plant Operating1 Operating 2 Plant Operation Exposure Rate
101 2.5 NNE 6.1 ... 0.1 5.5 ... 0.6 "'0.6 ... 0.6 0.5
103 1.7 ENE 5.8 ... 0.6 5.8 ... 0.5 0.0 ... 0.7 0.6
104 3.8 ENE 5.8 ... 0.5 5.8 ... 0.4 0.0 ... 0.6 0.4
105 0.6 S 9.5 ... 0.3 6.6 ... 0.7 "'2.9 ... 0.8 2.9
106 1. 2 ESE 7.1 ... 0.5 5.3 ... 0.6 "'1.8"'0.7 0.7
107 2.4 ESE 5.8 ... 0.1 5.2 ... 0.4 "'0.6 ... 0.4 0.4
108 2.7 SSE 6.2 ... 0.1 5.8 ... 0.5 "'0.4 ... 0.5 1.0
109 7. 1 N 6.6 ... 0.3 6.8 ... 0.6 -0.2 ... 0.7 0.1
110 2.6 WSW 6.3 ... 0.3 6.8 ... 0.5 -0.5 ... 0.6 0.4
111 2.0 WNW 6.6 ... 0.4 6.6 ... 0.6 "'0.0 ... 0.7 0.6
113 7.9 NE 5.7 ... 0.4 5.6 ... 0.4 "'0.1 ... 0.6 0.2
114 1. 0 NNE 6.9 ... 0.7 6.1 ... 1.0 +0,8 ... 1.2 1.2
115 0.5 E 8,3 ... 0.6 6.8 ... 1.1 "'1. 5 ... 1.3 2.0
Note: ... values are lao
1Measurements obtained during March 14 to April 20, 1972.
2Measurements obtained during September 29 to November 11, 1971 and April 21 and June 31, 1972.
3.0
-1.0-+-_-f -r- -.- -.-__
Estimated Exposure Rate, ~R /hr
Figure 6.17 Comparison of measured and estimatedexposure rates. March 14 to Apri I 20. 1972.
Locations for the second group of measurementsare shown on Figure 6.18. Most of these locations arethe same as, or very near, the locations used earlier.Results of these measurements are shown in Table 6.11.The environmental exposure rates ranged from 4.3 to6.5 uR/hr. The TLD values were again relativelyconsistent with the survey meter readings at the time ofcollection. Net exposure rates attributed to plantoperation were found to be positive in 15 of 16 casesand in 8 cases were found to be statistically significantat the 20- level.
Exposure rates due to the plume of radioactivegases from the stack were again estimated by themethod of Burke and are shown in Table 6.11. Winddirection frequencies were reported by the station. (27)The estimated and measured net exposure rates arehighly correlated, as shown on Figure 6.19. Lines ofbest fit for all points (correlation coefficient of 0.64)and for 13 points excluding 3 outlying values(correlation coefficient 0.86) are.shown.
Recent studies indicate that instead of using the"invariance with time" technique as above forestimating background exposure rates, a "climateexposure model" would allow one to more sensitivelyquantify exposures attributable to station operationswith TLD.(28) In fact, TLD may be used to determineyearly exposures with standard deviations as low as 0.6mr. However, this method could not be used at theOyster Creek Station due to a lack of meteorologicaldata.
3.0
Flogs indicate 10'"
2.0/.0o
.: 2.0.....ct:::1
'0fi:o"::fo
~ 0-++-tl"'t4r--+-+-------------
locations, the set of all measured and estimated valuesare highly correlated, as shown in Figure 6.17. The lineof best fit drawn for the 13 points has a correlationcoefficient of 0.94.
135
Figure 6.18 Locations of TLD measurements, April 17 to July 2.1973.
136
Table 6.11 Long-Term Exposure Rate Measurements, IlR/hr (April 17 to July 2, 1973)
4/17-6/4/73 6/4-7/2/73Distance Plant not operating Plant operating Net due to Estimated
from Survey Survey Survey plant exposureLocation stack, km meter TLD meter TLD meter operation rate
120 7.9 NE 4.6 4.5 + 0.3 4.9 4.6 + 0.5 5.0 0.1 + 0.6 0.1
121 2.5 NNE 5.0 4.5 + 0.2 4.9 4.9 + 0.4 5.1 0.4 + 0.4 0.3
122 2.2 N 4.2 4.3 + 0.1 4.6 4.8 + 0.1 0.5 + 0.1 0.2
123 1.0 NNE 5.7 4.8 + 0.5 5.9 5.5 + 0.2 6.1 0.7 + 0.5 0.7
124 1. 7 ENE 4.7 4.5 + 0.0 5.0 4.9 + 0.3 5.2 0.4 + 0.3 0.5
125 3.8 ENE 4.1 4.4 + 0.2 4.5 4.6 + 0.4 5.5 0.2 + 0.4 0.2
126 1.5 E 4.6 4.3 + 0.2 5.1 4.6 + 0.3 5.2 0.3 + 0.4 0.6
127 0.5 E 8.6 4.5 + 0.4 6.8 6.5 + 0.2 7.1 2.0 + 0.4 1.7
128 0.6 S 7.5 5.4 + 0.2 6.6 5.2 + 0.3 8.4' -0.2 + 0.4 0.6
129 1.2 ESE 5.0 4.6 + 0.0 4.7 4.8 + 0.1 5.9 0.2 + 0.1 0.8
130 2.4 ESE 4.5 4.4 + 0.2 4.6 4.5 + 0.2 6.9 0.1 + 0.3 0.4
131 2.7 SSE 4.9 4.6 + 0.3 5.1 4.8 + 0.4 5.1 0.2 + 0.5 0.3
132 2.6 WSW 4.9 4.9 + 0.1 5.1 5.7 + 0.4 5.9 0.8 + 0.4 0.2
133 2.0 WNW 4.6 4.5 + 0.4 5.0 4.9 + 0.4 5.3 0.4 + 0.6 0.2
134 7.1 N 6.1 5.0 + 0.4 6.6 5.7 + 0.5 7.4 0.7 + 0.6 0.1
135 3.8 NNW 7.9 6.4 + 0.1 8.0 6.7 + 0.0 8.4 0.3 + 0.1 0.2
In plume at time of measurement.
Note: + values are 20.
6.6References
-1.0,-4------T'"""----.....,.-----"'T'"-
1. Jersey Central Power and Light Co., "OysterCreek Nuclear Generating Station - EnvironmentalReport," Amend. No.2, Morristown, N. J. (1972).
2. Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission, "Final Environmental Statement Relatedto Operation of Oyster Creek Nuclear GeneratingStation," AEC Docket No. S0-219 (1974).
3. Kahn, B., et a1., "Radiological SurveillanceStudies at a Boiling Water Nuclear Power Reactor,"_U.S. Public Health Service Rept. BRH/DER 70-1(1970).
4. Kahn, B., et a1., "Radiological SurveillanceStudies at a Pressurized Water Nuclear PowerReactor," EPA Rept. RD 71-1 (1971).
S. Kahn, B., et a1., "Radiological SurveillanceStudy at the Haddam Neck PWR Nuclear PowerStation," EPA Rept. EPA-S20/3-74-007 (1974).
6. McCurdy, D. E. and J. J. Russo,"Environmental Radiation Surveillance of the OysterCreek Nuclear Generating Station," New Jersey StateDepartment of Environmental Protection Rept. (1973).
7. Kastner, J., J. Rose and F. Shonka, "MuscleEquivalent Environmental Radiation Meter ofExtreme Sensitivity," Science 140, 1100 (1963).
3.0
Circles
Flags Indicate ZCT
Note' X's indicate outlying pointsneglected in determiningsolid line.
o 1.0 2.0Estimated Exposure Rate, lIR Ihr
Figure 6.19 Comparison of measured and estimatedexposure rates. Apri I 17 to July 2. 1973.
3.0
io1I:
... Z.O.I:.....1I::>
'0~iiio..~
o 0..JI-
137
8. Gustafson, P. F., J. Kastner and J.Luetzelschwab, "Environmental Measurements ofDose Rates," Science 145, 951-954 (1964).
9. Levin, S. G., R. K. Stoms, E. Kuerze and W.Huskisson, "Summary of National EnvironmentalGamma Radiation Using a Calibrated PortableScintillation Counter," Radiol. Health Data Rept. 9,679 (1968).
10. DeCampo, J. A., H. L. Beck and P. D. Raft,"High Pressure Argon Ionization Chamber Systemsfor the Measurement of Environmental ExposureRates," AECRept. HASL-260(1972).
II. Stevenson, D. L. and F. B. Johns, "SeparationTechniques for the Determination of 8sKr in theEnvironment," in Rapld Methods for MeasuringRadioactivity in the Environment, IAEA, Vienna,157-162 (1971).
12. Turner, D. B., "Workbook of AtmosphericDispersion Estimates," USEPA Rept. AP-26 (1970).
13. Briggs, G. A., Plume Rise, U.S. AtomicEnergy Commission Critical Review Series (1969).
14. Fankhauser, R., U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, personal communication, April1973.
15. Beck, H., et a1., U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission, personal communication, July 1972.
16. Slade, D. H., ed., "Meteorology and AtomicEnergy 1968," USAEC Rept. TID-24190 (1968).
17. Beck, H., U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,personal communication, April 16, 1973.
18. Andrews, V. E. and T. R. Horton, "HumboldtBay Nuclear Power Plant Survey, March through May,1971," USEPA Rept. WERLV-l (1972).
19. EG&G, Inc., "Dresden Nuclear PowerStation, July 1970," EGG-1183-1545 (1972).
20. Golden, J. C. and R. A. Pavlick,"Measurements of Radioactivity in Process Systems of
138
Dresden Station Units 1 and 2 and in the Environment,January-February, 1971," abstract, Health Physics 25,308 (1972); Commonwealth Edison Co.,. Rept. 21(1973).
21. Lowder, W. M., "Environmental GammaRadiation from Nitrogen-16 Decay in the Turbines ofaLarge Boiling Water Reactor," USAEC Rept. HASL271 (1973).
22. Beck, H., U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,personal communication, Feb. 15, 1972.
23. Partridge, 1. E., et ai., "Suitability of GlassEncapsulated CaF2:Mn Thermoluminescent Dosimeters for Environmental Radiation Surveillance," U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Rept. ORPJEEF73-1 (June 1973).
24. Gross, K. c., E. J. McNamara and W. L.Brinck, "Factors Affecting the Use of CaF2:MnThermoluminescent Dosimeters for Low-LevelEnvironmental Radiation Monitoring," to bepublished.
25. Burke, G. deP., "Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Measurements of Perturbations of the NaturalRadiation Environment," in The Natural RadiationEnvironment II, ERDA Rept. CONF-720805-Pl(1972).
26. Jersey Central Power & Light Co., "OysterCreek Nuclear Generating Station Semi-AnnualReport," No.6, January 1, 1972 to June 30,1972.
27. Jersey Central Power & Light Co., "OysterCreek Nuclear Generating Station Semi-AnnualReport," No.8, January 1,1973 to June 30,1973.
28. Burke, G. deP., "Variations in NaturalEnvironmental Gamma Radiation and its Effect on theInterpretability of TLD Measurements Made NearNuclear Facilities," USERDA Rept. HASL-289(1975).
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Radionuclides in Effluents from theOyster Creek Station
Radionuclides were discharged by numerouspathways in small amounts relative to effiuent limits.The most abundant constituents among radioactiveeffiuents were 'H, 61 percent in liquid waste, and theradioactive noble gases, mostly in airborne wastes. Alsoin the liquid wastes, the activation products s'Cr, "Mn,"Fe, .oCo and 134Cs and fission-produced [311, IJ3Xe,13SXe and mCs were discharged in relatively largequantities. These observations appear to be generallyapplicable to large BWR nuclear power stations.
Results of effiuent measurements in this study aresummarized below, based on the information inSections 3 and 4. For simplicity, they are given asannual releases. Because these values were obtained byoccasional sampling, they should be considered onlyindications of the magnitude of radionuclidedischarges. Exact values must be derived from frequentor continuous measurements at each dischargelocation.
The estimated amounts of radionuclides in airborneeffiuents during the second half of 1971 through thefirst half of 1973 are as follows:
Radionuclides in airborne effluents, Ci/yr
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)Main
condenser Turbine Buildingsteam jet gland seal ventilation Reactor
Radionuclide air ejector condenser aIr drywell Stack'H 5.0 x 10-1
<2 X 10-3 2.7 X 101 8 X 10--4 2.6 X 10'IJN 5.0 x 10-1 5 X 10' NAt NA NA"c 3.0 5 X 10-' 1.2 9.6 x 10--4 9.1"mKr 3.1 x 10'· NA NA NA NA8SmKr 6.9 x 10' 8.2 X 10' NA NA NA"Kr 1.1 x 10' 1.9 X 10-1 2.0 2.8 X 10-' 1.7 X 10'"Kr 1.3 x 10' 2.9 X 10' NA NA NA"Kr 1.4 x 10' 1.4 X 10' NA NA NA'9Kr O· 6.2 x 10' 2.1 X 10'· NA NA1)11 1.7 NA 5 x 10-'· NA 1.7 x 10'IJlmXe 3.7 X 10'· NA NA NA NAlJ'mXe 5.1 X 10' NA NA 1 x 10-1 7 X 10''''Xe 1.6 x 10' 2.1 X 10' 1.0 X 103 2.2 1.2 x 10'IJSmXe 8.8 x 10' 1.2 X 10' NA NA NA'''Xe 3.0 x 10' 4.7 X 10' 4.0 X 10' NA 3.5 x 10'"'Xe 2.2 1.1 x 10'· 3.6 X 10'· NA NAmXe 6.0 x 10' 2.0 X 10' NA NA NA
Long-livedparticulate·· NA NA NA NA 5.0 x 101
• Calculated value, radionuclide not measured.**Excluding particulate IJlI.
t NA - not analyzed.
139
The values for stack discharge in data column 5reflect radioactivity from individual waste pathways,columns 1 through 4. Effluent radioactivity fromreactor startup, not included since it was not measured,is expected to be a minor contributor. The 3H and I·Cvalues are for all forms of the radionuclides;distinctions between tritiated water and gases andbetween I·C in CO2 and other gases are made in Section3 for most pathways. The amounts of radionuclides insome waste streams were inferred when theircontributions were expected to be significant. Shortlived progeny of noble gases, such as "Rb and '38Cs, andrelatively short-lived iodine isotopes, such as 1321, 1331,1341 d 1351 Ian , were a so expected to be present.
Most stack radioactivity resulted from' the airejectors on the main condensers. Ventilation aircontributed most of the 3H effluent. Much of the 13Nand short-lived noble gases in stack discharge camefrom the turbine gland seal condenser.
Airborne effluents are expected to yield a totalbody dose of 2.3 mrem/year to an adult residing wherethe highest annual average concentration occurs (seeSection 3.3.10). The closest resident is estimated toreceive 0.39 mrem/year, and a member of the closestpopulation group, 2.1 mrem/year. (Actual dose wouldbe lower since residential shielding and occupancyfactors were not considered.) Dose to persons fishing inthe discharge canal 700 hrs per year is expected to beabout 0.1 mrem/year. .
The estimated amounts of radionuclides in liquideffluents during the period from August 1971 toNovember 1973 are as follows:
Radionuclides
Radionuclide3HI<C
"pSlCr
"Mn"Fe"Fe"Co'"Co"Cu
"Zn"As'"Sr"Sr"'Zr"'Nb""MoIO'Ru
140
in liquid effiuents, Ci/yr
Waste sample Laundry draintank tank
4 x 10'· 1 X 10-1
8 X 10-' 1 X 10-4
6 x 10-' 2 X 10-45 X 10-1 3 X 10-'4 X 10-1 2 x 10-'6 X 10-1 4 X 10-'7 X 10-1 4 X 10-'5 x 10-' 4 X 10-'9 X 10-' 5 x 10-'
1 x 10-' ND5 x 10-' ND
5 x 10-1 ND1 x 10-1 3 X 10-41 X 10-' 3 x 10-'2 x 10-' 1 X 10-'
2 X 10-1 2 X 10-'2 X 10-1 ND1 x 10-2 2 X 10-4
'''Rh 5 x 10-1 NDllomAg 2 X 10-' ND'''Sb 9 x 10-' 7 X 10-4
'51 I 1 x 10-1 5 X 10-3
IJJI 5 x 10-1 ND"'Xe 9 x 10-1 ND'''Xe 1 ND
'J4
Cs 2 2 X 10-3
137Cs 4 4 X 10-3
14°Ba 3 x 1Q-1 9 X 10-4I<'Ce 4 x 1Q-1 4 X 10-4
, '44Ce 3 x 10-1 9 X 10-4J39Np 3 x 10-' ND
Note: ND - not detected
The bulk of the liquid effiuent radioactivity wasdischarged from the waste sample tanks after treatmentand storage. Only a small quantity, generally less than5 percent, was discharged directly from the laundrydrain tanks to the discharge canal. For the 17radionuclides which could be compared with annualdischarges reported by the station operator, agreementwas reasonable except for the relatively low measuredquantities of l39Np, "Sr and 90Sr. Further evidence ofagreement was derived from the ability to predictradionuclide concentrations in the circulating coolantcanal during discharge from pre-dischargemeasurements of the sample test tank contents andappropriate dilution factors (see Section 4.4).
The results obtained in this study reflect theoperations and conditions at the station during thestudy period, October 1971 to November 1973.According to the station operator, the replacement oforiginal fuel and improved fuel claddmg pertormancesince the study period has significantly reduced off-gasrelease rates. Further reduction of radioactivity in theoff-g.as from the steam condenser air ejectors will berealized when the plant is fitted with an extendedradwaste treatment system. Radioactivity in liquideffluents have also been reported by the stationoperator to have decreased due to improvements in theradwaste treatment system.
7.2 RadionucJides in the AquaticEnvironmentat the OysterCreek Station
Radionuclides from the station were found at lowconcentrations in various media sampled in the aquaticenvironment:
(1) The following radionuclides discharged by thestation were at concentrations greater than 1
pCi/liter in the coolant canal: SICr, s4Mn, 60Co,99Mo, 1311, D4CS and mCs. In addition, s'Co,s9Fe, 9SZr, 9SNb, wCe and I"Ce were detected atconcentrations between 0.1 and 1.0 pCi/liter.Concentrations of 90Sr in water from BarnegatBay and the intake and discharge canals weregenerally near background levels. Manganese54 and 60Co were measured at levels up to 2.2and 4.0 pCi/liter, respectively, in large watersamples (76-380 liters) collected from thecanals and bay. They were associated mostlywith suspended material. Predictedradionuclide concentrations in the coolantcanal during discharge agreed usually withmeasurements (see Section 5.2).
(2) Radionuclides found in station effiuents wereobserved in macro-algae and aquatic grassescollected from all sites in the bay and canals.The predominant radionuclides were "Mn(0.2-26 pCilkg) and 60Co (0.2-45 pCilkg).Some samples contained S1Cr, SHCO, I06Ru, 1J4Csand 137Cs in quantities slightly exceedingbackground concentrations. Highestconcentrations were observed usually in G.verrucosa, followed by U Jactuca and Cfragile. Radionuclide concentrations variedsignificantly with season of the year,presumably resulting from variations - inatmospheric fallout, plant growing periods,and time of sample collection relative todischarge. The concentrations of s4Mn and60Co in algae reflected relative amountsdischarged and indicated little uptake fromsediment. Algae proved to be sensitiveindicators for monitoring radionuclides whenwater concentrations were below detectablelevels (see Section 5.3).
(3) Manganese-54 (to 34 pCi/kg) and 60Co (to 54pCilkg) were predominant in fish muscle.Their concentrations generally increased withgreater station discharges and decreased withdistance from the mouth of Oyster Creek.Small quantities of D4CS were detected in fishthat also contained mCs above backgroundlevels (see Section 504).
(4) Similar concentrations of 6oCo were detected inshellfish muscle and fluid, ranging from120--260 pCilkg. Almost all 60Co in fluid wasassociated with protein. Although notdetected in clam muscle, the shells of clamsfrom Barnegat Bay contained twice as much
90Sr as those from the background area, 190 vs.105 pCilkg. Barnacles collected from bothca_nals contained s4Mn, s'Co, 60Co, 90Sr andIJ7Cs from the station, and, being fixed inposition, they provide good indicators ofstation discharges. Differences inconcentration in barnacles from the dischargeand intake canals indicated that 10 to 15percent of the station effiuent is recirculated.The radionuclide of highest concentration inclams was naturally-occurring 2IOpo, 230 to500 pCilkg muscle, which is not attributed toreactor operations. An average 21OPO/210Pbactivity ratio of 9 indicated clam food (algaeand plankton) was the probable source of the2IOpo (see Section 5.5)..
(5) No effiuent radionuclides were detected incrab muscle, gills, gut or stomach, althoughthe exoskeletons of some from Barnegat Baycontained more s4Mn and 90Sr thanbackground samples. Because the exoskeletonis not eaten and is periodically molted, littleuseful information can be obtained from theseanalyses (see Section 5.6).
(6) In sediment, 60Co was the most widelydistributed radionuclide, ranging from 0.26 to18.6 pCilg in the discharge canal to less thandetectable quantities at the extremities ofBarnegat Bay. Some sediment contained s4Mn,D4CS and 137Cs in excess of background. Thehighest 60Co concentrations occurred insediment from the wide area of the dischargecanal that consisted of clay minerals andorganic matter of low density. Core samplesindicated that s'Mn and 60Co were deposited toat least 6 cm, and possibly to 12 cm below thesurface. The underwater probe proved to beuseful for locating areas of radioactive buildupabove 0.5 pCi 6°Co/g (see Section 5.7).
Except for a few elements, the ability to determineconcentration factors (CF) was not possible at OysterCreek. Water concentrations were generallyundetectable and, except for barnacles, effiuentconcentrations were unuseable due to uncertainty inthe amount of dilution occurring in Barnegat Bay withits complicated hydrology (see Section 5.1.1). In a fewcases, however, it was possible to estimate CF's for thissite when the concentrations were constant andmeasurable. In other cases, the magnitude of publishedCF's could be evaluated from measured sampleconcentrations and knowledge of station discharges.CF's derived from this study are:
141
Element or Fish Wholeradionuciide Aigaet Grasses muscle whole Clams barnacles
Fe 5000 6200 700 1850 ND* NDSr 0.9 1.7 0.5 4 ND 1600**Ca 1.4 1.9 1.8 19 ND NDK 14 10 15 II 7 ND
"'Cs 13 23 30 23 ND 10054Mn ND ND ND ND < 1000 800"Co ND ND ND ND 600 1000
* ND - not determined.**Based on ·'Sr.t The average CF's for the three species of algae are given,
but significant species differences were noted for K and"'Cs.
Published CF's of 100 and 600 for oOCo and "Mn,respectively, in fish do not satisfy the observed data.The CF for s4Mn is probably too high and may benearer the value for 60Co. Also, the CF for s4Mn in clammeat was shown to be < 1000 rather than thepublished value of 12,000. The difficulties associatedwith the utilization of concentration factors arediscussed in detail in Sections 5.4.4, 5.4.5, 5.5.3 and5.5.4.
The highest population radiation doses from liquiddischarges were computed from the annual averagecoolant canal concentrations to be from consuming fishcaught in and near the coolant-water discharge canal.Fish {:onsumption may result in 6 mrem/yr to bone, 0.9mrem/yr to the GI tract, 1 mrem/yr to thyroid and 0.3mrem/yr to the total body. These doses, althoughmuch greater than those based on measuredradionuclide concentrations, are less than 5 percent ofthe limit recommended by the Federal RadiationCouncil and are almost entirely due to 32p, 1311 and 133LThese radionuclides were generally not determinedwith sufficient sensitivity or in sufficient samples offishor clams to confirm the calculations and should,therefore, be measured (see Section 5.4.5). Naturallyoccurring 2lOpo is a major contributor to the total clamingestion dose. and, although its content in fish was notmeasured, a similar situation may apply to fish. Itwould be desirable to determine this radiationbackground dose from consuming seafood wheneverthe dose due to nuclear operations is evaluated.
7.3 Radionuc/ides in the TerrestrialEnvironment at the OysterCreek Station
Gaseous radioactive effiuents and direct radiationfrom the station were detected in the terrestrial
142
environment. No samples of milk or food wereobtained since they are not produced near the station insignificant quantities due to poor soil conditions. Thefollowing measurements of radionuclides or radiationfrom the station in the environment were made:
(1) By collecting large volumes of air duringroutine stack discharge, Il3Xe was measured inground-level air at concentrations rangingfrom 3 x 10-3to 3 X 10-2uCilm3, and 8sKr at 3x 10-4 uCilm3(see Section 6.2.5). Other shortlived gases would have been detected ifanalysis was initiated promptly. The shortlived progeny of 88Kr and 138Xe were measuredby drawing 133 m3 of air through particulatefilters and immediately analyzing them.Particulate or gaseous l3llcould not bedetected during brief sampling periodsalthough large volumes of air were sampled.
(2) Measurements of radioactive gases from thestack were made near the station with amuscle-equivalent ionization chamber, apressurized ionization chamber and portableNal(TI) survey meters. The plume was readilydetectable above the background radiationlevel. Computed radiation exposure rates at alocation 1.5 km from the stack were two tothree times higher than the measured rates(see Section 6.2.6).
(3) A muscle-equivalent ionization chambermounted in a helicopter was used to measureradiation exposure rates in the plume ofradioactive gases from the stack. This.technique was shown to be useful in measuringthe rise of the plume and its vertical andhorizontal spreading. Exposure ratescomputed with models generally exceededmeasured values (see Section 6.3).
(4) Direct radiation from station 'buildingsmeasured with survey meters and a muscle~
equivalent ionization chamber along thestation boundary ranged up to 1.8 uRlbr (16mR/yr) above the background radiationexposure of approximately 4.3 uRlbr (38mR/yr). Extrapolation of elevated radiationexposure rates within the boundary to distantsites gives a result comparing well withmeasurements. The exposure rate at thenearest residence is' estimated to be 0.08mR/yr. The annual population dose topersons driving along Rt. 9, the eastern siteboundary, is estimated to be 0.034 man-rem(see Section 6.4).
(5) Long-term radiation exposures in the station'senvironment were measured withthermoluminescent dosimeters. Measuredlevels above the natural radiation backgroundwere cbrrelated with estimated exposurescomputed from a model (see Section 6.5).
7.4 Monitoring Procedures
The following procedures were demonstrated inthis study for monitoring effiuents and environments ofBWR stations:
(1) analysis by gamma-ray spectrometry withGe(Li) detectors of multiple radionuclides insamples of primary coolant and effiuent waterbefore discharge and dilution, and in off-gasfrom reactor coolant and in various airbornewaste pathways;
(2) measurement of effiuent radionuclides otherthan the long-lived ones readily detected bygamma-ray spectrometry; of particularinterest, in addition to usually measured 3H,89Sr and 90Sr, are 14C, 32p and sSFe;
(3) collection of ionic and insoluble radionuclidesin fresh and sea water by concentration from4OO-liter volumes for measurements atconcentrations as low as 10-10 llCilml;
(4) collection and analysis of food samples,including fish, clams and crabs;
(5) collection and analysis of environmentalmedia that serve as indicators, includingaquatic grasses, algae, barnacles and sediment;
(6) surveillance of sediment with submersiblegamma-ray detectors to indicate "hot spots"for detailed sampling and analysis, and thesuperiority of sediment sampling by hand(diver) rather than by dredge;
(7) measurement of 3H and 14C in several gaseousspeCies;
(8) use of portable S- x S-cm NaI(Tl) surveymeters as sensitive detectors ofthe plume fromthe stack;
(9) use of muscle-equivalent ionization chamberand pressurized ionization chamber forquantifying the radiation exposure rate duringbrief periods within or beneath the plume;
(10) use of thermoluminescent dosimeters toquantify the average long-term radiationexposure rate from the plume;
(11) use of pressurized ionization chamber, large15- x 23-cm NaI(Tl) detector andspectrometer, muscle-equivalent ionizationchamber with Shonka electrometer, and aportable S- x 5-cm NaI(Tl) survey meter tomeasure direct radiation from the station;
(12) use of helicopter to characterize plume shapeand dispersion;
(13) collection of large volumes of environmentalair and applying separation techniques formeasurement of 133Xe and 8sKr at very lowconcentrations, (applicable also to short-livednoble gases);
(14) collection of ~8Rb and J38Cs in environmentalair on filters with high-volume samplers, andanalysis by gamma-ray spectrometry; and
(l S) use of measured release rates at the station,meteorological data and transfer coefficientsto estimate radionuclide concentrations insamples for comparison with measured orminimum detectable values.
In addition, the following procedures weredemonstrated in a previous study for monitoringenvironments ofBWR stations:
(1) collection and analysis of drinking water andfood samples, including vegetables, milk,rabbits and deer; .
(2) collection of radioiodine from 22.S-litervolumes of milk on anion-exchange resin, andanalysis by gamma-ray spectrometry; and
(3) use of bovine thyroids to detect IllI at very lowconcentrations (equivalent to 0.02 pCi/litermilk) in the terrestrial environment.
7.5Recommendations forEnvironmentalSurveillance
The fundamental objective of an environmentalsurveillance program is to measure radiation dose rates
143
and radionuclide concentrations In the criticalexposure pathways in order to determine radiationdoses to individuals and selected population groupsfrom operation of a nuclear facility and to determine orconfirm compliance with applicable standards. Otherobjectives are to confirm estimated environmentalconcentrations based on effluent data, determine anyaccumulation of long-lived radionuclides in the plantenvirons, and respond to public concerns and inquiries.
The recommendation for radiological surveillanceprograms conducted by nuclear generating stations tomeet the above objectives, based on observations in thisstudy and those at Dresden I BWR, and the Yankeeand Haddam Neck PWR's, is that all radioactiveeffluents be analyzed to obtain in detail theirradionuclide content. Environmental radionuclidesand radiation levels attributable to station operationare generally too variable, obscured by the radiationbackground, or near instrumental detection limits to bemeasured with sufficient accuracy for evaluatingexposure. ,The measurements at the source mustinclude all significant pathways and radionuclidesduring the entire period of operation; criticalradionuclides can be missed by monitoring only theobvious effluents and, as in the case of 32p, the easilymeasured radionuclides, or by ignoring the effects ofchanges in the operating cycle. After all radionuclidesin the effluent have been quantified and all criticalpathways identified, analyses can be limited to theradionuclides at highest abundance and of greatesthealth significance in environmental samples from thecritical pathways. Additional samples for analysisshould include only media that are known or observedto concentrate radionuclides discharged by the station.As knowledge of the environment increases and thepattern of radionuclide discharges is established, fewermeasurements will be needed. However, significantchanges in station operation or radionuclide content ofeffluents will require at least a brief return to moredetailed analysis.
The environmental program must be evaluatedperiodically to consider modification in response tochanges in effluent radioactivity, new patterns ofpopulation distribution and environmental use, andincreased knowledge of the behavior of radionuclides inthe environment.
Adhering to these recommendations will insure aradiological surveillance program that will provide thenecessary information to satisfy the above objectives ata lower cost than many current programs that includenon-pathway type samples or samples that continuallycontain either less than measurable quantities orconcentrations indiscernible from the natural radiation
144
background. Also, the recommended program willgenerate on-site transfer coefficients and concentrationfactors providing a better and more pertinent basis forcalculating exposures at the site from station effluentdata than most published values.
Environmental measurements at the Oyster CreekStation were found to be useful in developing theenvironmental surveillance recommendationsdescribed above, for supporting and confirming thepopulation radiation exposures computed from on-sitemonitoring, and for providing these computations withnumerical factors applicable to the site. Suchmeasurements, if performed reliably, can also bereassuring in demonstrating that no unexpectedradioactivity is in the environment. For a station andsite such as Oyster Creek, the following measurementsprovide useful information:
(1) confirmation of critical pathwaysa) measure inhalation and external radiation
exposure rates from the plume at off-sitelocations,
b) measure direct radiation exposure rateson site and the decrease of the exposurerate with distance to off-site locations,
c) measure critical radionuclides in fish,clams and crabs caught in the intake anddischarge canals and in Barnegat Bay;
(2) determination of numerical factors forcomputing radiation dosesa) determine the soluble and insoluble
radionuclide fractions in liquid effluentsand in the discharge canal,
b) confirm or ascertain applicability ofaquatic concentFation factors,
c) compute X/Q values by measuring 133Xeor other radionuclide concentrations inground-level air relative to the releaserate at the station;
(3) utilization ofenvironmental concentration locia) measure critical radionuclides in marine
grasses, algae and barnacles to determinethe extent of contamination in the aquaticenvironment;
(4) assurance that no significant exposure existsfrom unforeseen sources or occasionaloperational occurrencesa) measure radiation exposure at nearby
habitations, canal banks utilized byfishermen and beaches in the immediatearea,
b) measure radionuclides in seafood andwater collected from the immediatevicinity of the station,
c) if agricultural practices change in thevicinity of the station, measureradionuclides in milk and food products.
7.6SuggestedFuture Studies
The following studies at nuclear facilities aresuggested on the basis of the previous four field studies:
1) develop more sensitive technqiues formeasuring radioiodines in various chemicalforms in airborne waste pathways through thestation and in environmental air;
2) develop techniques to measure gaseousradionuclides, such as 8JmKr and lJImXe thatemit only low-energy photons, while beingpart of a noble gas mixture;
3) examine the effect of radioactive wastetreatment on discharge practices in order toevaluate the cost of reducing the radionuclidecontent of effluents;
4) characterize the physical-chemical states ofradionuclides in liquid wastes discharged tothe environment and determine changes
occurring after mixing with environmentalwaters;
5) measure critical radionuclides 10
environmental samples that are difficult toanalyze, such as J2p in Oyster Creek fish, toconfirm hypothetical concentrations based onstation effluent analysis;
6) perform a radiological surveillance study at ahigh temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR)similar to previous studies except focus efforton the gaseous effluents and their impact onthe environment;
7) perform a surveillance study at a multiplereactor site to determine modeling parametersfor dual stack releases and the existence of ascaling factor - quantities discharged vs.power generation; and
8) perform studies to validate atmosphericdispersion models used in dose assessment atsites with different meteorological andtopographical characteristics.
These studies will further determine theenvironmental impact of nuclear facilities and developbetter environmental surveillance techniques.
145
Appendix A
Acknowledgments
This report presents the work of the staff of the Radiochemistry and Nuclear Engineering Facility, USEPA,consisting of the following:
Alex MartinEleanor R. Martin*Daniel M. Montgomery*James B. MooreRichard SporrerEthel M. Tivis
Betty J. Jacobs*Bernd KahnJasper W. KearneyHarry E. KoldeHetman L. Krieger*B. Helen Logan
William J. AverettRichard L. BlanchardWilliam L. BrinckTeresa B. FirestoneGeorge W. Frishkorn*Gerald L. GelsSeymour Gold*
*Field and analytical support provided by staff of the Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,ORD.
Participation of the following is gratefully acknowledged:
David McCurdy, New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJJohn Feeney, New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJCharles Amato, New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJFloyd Galpin, Office of Radiation Programs, USEPA, Washington, D.C.William Lahs, Office of Radiation Programs, USEPA, Washington, D.C.W. Neill Thomasson, Office of Radiation Programs, USEPA, Washington, D.C.Lois Fischler, Office of Radiation Programs, USEPA, Washington, D.C.Chris Nelson, Office of Radiation Programs, USEPA, Washington, D.C.Raymond Johnson, Office of Radiation Programs, USEPA, Washington, D. C.Michael Terpilak, Region II Office, USEPA, New York, NYBruce Jorgensen, Region II Office, USEPA, New York, NYJoseph Cochran, Northeastern Radiological Health Laboratory, USEPA, Winchester, MAJames Hardin, Northeastern Radiological Health Laboratory, USEPA, Winchester, MAGeorge C. Nicholson, Northeastern Radiological Health Laboratory, USEPA, Winchester, MASamuel Windham, Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, USEPA, Montgomery, ALJ. Partridge, Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, USEPA, Montgomery, ALRichard Douglas, Western Environmental Radiation Laboratory, USEPA, Las Vegas, NVFred Johns, Western Environmental Radiation Laboratory, USEPA, Las Vegas, NVHarold Beck, Health and Safety Laboratory, AEC, New York, NYCarl Gogolak, Health and Safety Laboratory, AEC, New York, NYPeter Raft, Health and Safety Laboratory, AEC, New York, NY .Ernest Karvelis, National Field Investigation Center, USEPA, Cincinnati, OHRichard Dewling, Edison Laboratory, USEPA, Edison, NJRobert Davis, Edison Laboratory, NJCharles Pelletier, AEC, Washington, D.C.Jacob Kastner, AEC, Washington, D.C.John Sullivan, .Jersey Central Power and Light Co., Morristown, NJ
147
Donald Ross, Jersey Central Power and Light Co., Morristown, NJAllen Dhams, Cmdr., U.S. Coast Guard, Floyd Bennett Field, Long Island, NYF. M. Blackburn, Lt. Cmdr., U.S. Coast Guard, Floyd Bennett Field, Long Island, NYPaul Humphrey, Meteorological Laboratory, USEPA, Research Triangle Park, NCGerard DeMarrais, Meteorological Laboratory, USEPA, Research Triangle Park, NCRobert Fankhauser, Meteorological Laboratory, USEPA. Research Triangle Park, NCHoward Moneypenny, Meteorological Laboratory. USEPA, Research Triangle Park, NC
We thank David E. McCurdy, State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Stephen V.Kaye, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; John T. Collins and Bernard Weiss, Nuclear Regulatory Commission;Wayne M. Lowder, Health and Safety Laboratory, ERDA; Messrs. E. J. Growney, R. L. Stoudnour and J. T.Carroll, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station; and Messrs. Sam T. Windham, Charles R. Porter, Floyd L.Galpin, Charles Robbins, Paul L. Giardina, James M. Gruhlke, J. W. Phillips, J. Broadway and E. G. Karvelis,USEPA, for reviewing the report.
148
Appendix B.1
Oyster Creek Average Monthly Power and Reactor Coolant Chemistry Statistics from Semiannual Operating Reports
MWe/hour MWe/hourPeriod (net output) MWt/hour pH Period (net output) MWt/hour pH
Jan. 1970 1330 Jan. 1972 545 1608Feb. 756 Feb. 609 1735March 1593 March 621 1807April 939 April 553 1625May 395 May 18 55June 1274 June 155 376
Jan. -June '70 Avg. 346 1052 Jan.-June '72 Avg. 412 1228 6.1
July 1970 480 1473 JUly 1972 620 1885Aug. 484 1550 Aug. 458 1412Sept. 403 1244 Sept. 631 1885Oct. 298 954 Oct. 645 1885Nov. 521 1567 Nov. 568 1651Dec. 476 1371 Dec. 548 1671
July-Dec. '70 Avg. 442 1366 JUly-Dec. '72 Avg. 579 1725 5.9
Jan. 1971 504 1515 Jan. 1973 362 1058Feb. 447 1347 Feb. 607 1776March 541 1606 March 635 1847April 562 1677 April 269 778May 551 1671 May (1) 0)June 545 1685 June 392 1213
Jan.-June '71 Avg. 523 1580 6.3 Jan.-June '73 Avg. 368 1101 6.0
July 1971 535 1687Aug. 525 1654Sept. 286 904Oct. (1) 0)Nov. 203 511Dec. 584 1702
July-Dec. '71 Avg. 351 1087 6.0
MWe/hour Gross Beta 3H131 1
Period (net output) MWt/hour (2 hrs ).lCi/ml) ().lCi/ml ) ().lCi/g) pH
July 1973 513 1428 0.41 3.8 x 10- 3 5.87 x 10- 3 6.1Aug. 601 1838 0.39 4.4 x 10-3 1.6 x 10-3 6.1Sept. 156 428 0.13 1.5 x 10- 3 5.59 x 10- 3 5.8Oct. 322 1087 0.25 1.2 x 10- 3 0.81 x 10- 3 5.8Nov. 524 1574 0.37 4.2 x 10- 3 2.85 x 10- 3 6.1Dec. 609 180B 0.43 1.5 x 10- 3 0.9 x 10- 3 6.2
July-Dec. '73 Avg. 450 1377 0.37 2.9 x 10-3 2.93 x 10-3 6.0
(1 ) shutdown, no output.
149
Appendix B.2
Oyster Creek Radioactive Waste Discharges from Semiannual Operating Reports
Liquid GaseOJlS: Volume of Gross Dissolved
liquid wastes S,y noble gases Tritium Noble gases Halogens' Particulate' TritiumPeriod (li ters1 (Cil (Ci) (Ci 1 (Ci) (Ci) (Cil (Cil
May-Dec '69 3.27 x 107 0.48 5.07 0.70 x 104 < 0.01 0.08 x 10- 2
Jan-June' 70 2.55 x 107 7.2 10.35 4.35 x 104 0.13 0.32 x 10- 2July-Dec' 70 2.67 x 107 11.2 11. 51 6.83 x 104 0.18 0.67 x 10-2Jan-June' 71 1. 46 x 107 8.81 9.87 17.49 x 104 0.70 2.11 x 10- 2July-Dec'71 0.94 x 107 3.31 1. 25 11. 59 34.15 x 104 1. 33 8.90 x 10- 2 0.11Jan-June '72 0.74 x 107 0.87 1. 21 22.82 60.62 x 104 2.76 8.40 x 10- 2 0.24July-Dec'72 0.85 x 107 9.16 2.08 38.79 26.01 x 104 3.50 14.60 x 10-2 0.52Jan-June' 73 0.58 x 10 7 1. 07 1. 26 16.99 63.16 x 104 4.90 24.20 x 10-2 0.15July-Dec' 73 0.65 x 107 3.08 1. 71 19.63 18.08 x 104 1. 83 18.08 x 10- 2 0.17
July '71 0.79 x 106 0.12 0.22 0.78 6.22 x 104 0.30 0.7 x 10- 2 0.03Aug. '71 0.85 x 106 0.11 ().25 1. 02 10.66 x .104 0.28 1.9 x 10-2 0.03Sept. '71 0.85 x 106 0.05 0.20 0.98 6.75 x 104 0.10 1.3 x 10-2 0.02Oct. '71 3.08 x 106 0.41 ( 0.01 3.60 0 0 < 0.1 x 10~2 aNov. '71 2.74 x 106 0.72 0.31 3.55 0.86 x 104 0.16 1.4 x 10- 2 0.01Dec. '71 1.14 x 106 1. 90 0.28 1. 65 9.66 x 104 0.49 3.5 x 10- 2 0.03
Jan. '72 1. 17 x 106 0.08 0.27 1. 73 11.5 x 104 0.42 1.3 x 10- 2 0.03Feb. '72 1. 27 x 106 0.08 0.35 3.11 . 12.78 x 104 0.51 1.1 x 10-2 0 ..06March '72 0.98 x 106 0.17 0.33 3.06 16.73 x 104 0.54 1.9 x 10-2 0.05April '72 0.38 x 106 0.03 0.11 0.84 18.09 x 104 0.71 1.6 x 10- 2 0.05May '72 1. 55 x 106 0.24 ( 0.01 5.06 0.82 x 104 0.39 1.4 x 10- 2 0.00June ' 72 2.02 x 106 0.27 0.15 9.02 0.70 x 104 0.18 1.1 x 10- 2 0.04July '72 2.08 x 106 1. 23 0.52 10.52 2.13 x 104 0.30 1.3 x 10- 2 0.11Aug. '72 2.55 x 106 5. 05 0.66 12.33 2.41 x 104 0.49 1.2 x 10-2 0.12Sept. '72 1. 67 x 106 2.09 0.40 8.36 3.34 x 104 0.53 1.1 x 10-2 0.06Oct. '72 1. 05 x 106 0.63 0.25 5.19 4.30 x 104 0.77 1.2 x 10- 2 0.08Nov. '72 0.44 x 106 0.05 0.08 ( 0.01 4.91 x 104 0.64 6.4 x 10- 2 0.06Dec. '72 0.69 x 106 0.11 0.18 2.39 8.41 x 104 0.78 3.4 x 10- 2 0.08
Jan. '73 0.81 x 106 0.19 0.07 2.38 5.00 x 104 0.93 1.4 x 10- 2 0.03Feb. '73 0.77 x 106 0.20 0.28 2.37 15.07 x 104 0.82 12.0 x 10-2 0.03March '73 1.14 x 106 0.18 0.48 3.46 29.02 x 104 1.11 5.0 x 10- 2 0.04April '73 1. 05 x 106 0.23 0.37 3.06 12.18 x 104 1. 44 2.8 x 10- 2 0.02May '73 1. 79 x 106 0.18 < 0.01 4.98 0 0.06 0.3 x 10- 2 aJune '73 0.27 x 106 0.09 0.05 0.72 1.89 x 104 0.54 2.7 x 10- 2 0.03July '73 1. 49 x' 106 0.99 0.55 4.68 3.30 x 104 0.49 1.8 x 10- 2 0.07Aug. '73 1. 38 x 106 0.84 0.48 4.31 5.03 x 104 0.65 3.8 x 10-2 0.02Sept. '73 1. 72 x 106 0.56 0.28 5.13 0.70 x 104 0.15 3.6 x 10- 2 0.01 'Oct. '73 1. 26 x 106 0.36 0.20 3.86 1.66 x 104 0.21 2.1 x 10- 2 0.02Nov. '73 0.29 x 106 0.12 0.08 0.. 67 3.12 x 104 0.20 4.1 x 10- 2 0.02Dec. '73 0.41 x 106 0.23 0.13 0.97 4.08 x 104 0.13 2.7 x 10- 2 0.03
,half life >8 days
150
Appendix B.3Oyster Creek Noble Gas Discharges from Semiannual Operating Reports
Discharge, Ci
Period 85~r 87Kr 88Kr 133Xe 135Xe 138xe
July-Dec. 1971 3.37 x 104 3.93 x 104 6.57 x 104 7.17 x 104 1.11 x 105 2.04 x 104
Jan.-June 1972 4.58 x 104 1. 05 x 105 1.40 x 105 1.12 x 104 1.59 x 105 4.40 x 104
July-Dec. 1972 1.97 x 104 4.42 x 104
6.01 x 104
3.84 x 104 7.20 x 104 2.57 x 104
Jan.-June 1973 4.79 x 104
9.88 x 104
1.55 x 105 9.50 x 104
1.86 x 105 4.88 x 104
July-Dec. 1973 1.16 x 104 3.46 x 104 3.99 x 104 3.11 x 10
43.47 x 104 2.89 x 104
151
f-'Cllt>:l
Appendix B.4a
Radionuclides Discharged in Liquid Wastes by the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, 1971
Cone. in AverageOys ter Creek . (2) .', . . . ** Concentra tion
Discharged 1/1-6/30, Discharged, C, Concentrat1ons 1n Oyster Creek,pCl/llter 7/1-12/31,
Nudide 1/1-6/30,*Ci (1) pCi/1 July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. pCi/l
Vol. of wastes (liters)
Total dilution (liters)
0.043 0.32 0.16 0.012 <0.012
0.049 0.084 0.061 0.023 0.023
0.048 <0.0084 <0.00880.012 0.16
0.409 0.025 0.026 0.058 1.05
NR NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR NR
0.14 0 35 ND NO
0.0084 0 0088 0.023 0.63
0.46
0.10
0.17
0.14
0.006
0,51
0.54
0.055
0.24
0.19
1. 26
21.22
NR
0.13
0.77
0.19
1. 46
NR
NR
NR
19.30
NR
0.012
2.25
0.56
4.78
NR
NR
NR
0.84
0.58
0.50
0.57
0.023
1. 68
2.13
0.047
0.60
0.66
6.92
39.23
NR
0.29
1. 68
0.42
2.83
NR
NR
NR
0.24
NIl
0.033
0.055
0.011
0.20
0.95
0.19
0.45
0.14
0.39
1. 57
NIl
0.093
0.40
0.058
0.023
ND NIl
0.30 0,73
0.046 <0.012
NIl NIl
ND NIl
0.061 ND
0.096 0.023
NIl
0.079
0.088
8.95 11.36 41.91
NR NR NR
0.0088 0.081
NIl ND
6.55
NR
NO
0.059
0.042
0.004 ND
0.051 ND
0.057 0.20
0.592 0.12
1. 14xl06
8.55xl010
0.002
0.144
0.182
0.072 0.017
0.050 ND
1. 65
NR
0.001
0.192
NR
3.55
NR
0.026
0.152
0.038
0.256
NR
NR
0.022
ND
0.003
0.005
0.001
0.018
0.086
0.017
0.041
0.013
0.035
2.74xl06
9.05xl010
3.60
NR
NIl
0.054
0.014
0.090
NR
NR
NR
0.135
ND
<0.001
0.002
ND
0.063
<0.001
0.008
0.034
0.005
0.002
3.08xl06
8. 59x 1010
0.007
ND
0.001
0.002
ND
0.026
0.004
NIl
ND
0.98
NR
NO
0.002
0.001
0.005
NR
NR
NR
ND
0.002
8.44xl05
8.63xl010
1. 02
NR
0.040
0.001
<0.001
0.003
NR
NR
NR
0.001
NIl
0.018
0.007
NO
0.009
O.OlD
ND
NIl
0.007
0,011
8.52xl05
1. 14xl011
0.002
ND+
0.038
0.010
ND
0.007
0.005
ND
ND
0.024
0.014
7.91xl05
1.19xl011
0.78
NR
0.017
0.001
<0.001
0.003
NR
NR
NR
21.0
NR
0.17
0.062
0.015
0.12
0.096
<0.011
0.22
NR
0.055
0.055
NR
0.25
O. OlD
0.15
0.25
0.12
NR
1. 46xlD 7
4.70xlOll
NR
0.026
0.026
NR
0,115
0.0044
0.072
0.116
0.054
NR
0.104
9.87
NR+
0.080
0.029
0.0070
0.057
0.045
<0.005
3H
32 p51
Ct54
Mn58eo60eo59
Fe65
Zo89
Sr90
Sr9l
Sr99
Mo99m
Tc124
Sb131
1133
1134es137e8140Ba / La239
Np
* Reported semiannual totals**No correction foy recirculation has been included.+ NR - not reported; NO - not detected.
Notes:1) Jersey Central Power & Light Company. "Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Report of Operations - January 1. 1971 to June 30~ 1971;1 Semi-Annual
Rept. 1;4,
2) Jersey Central Power & Light Company, "0ys ter Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Report of Operations - July 1, 1971 to December 31 1 1971,11 Semi-Annual
Rept. 115,
Appendix B.4b
Radionuclides Discharged in Liquid Wastes by the Oyster Creek NuclearGenerating Station, Jan.-June 1972
Concentration in Oyster Creek, pCi/liter*Discharged, Ci (1) AverageConcentration,
Nuclide ~Jan. Feb, March April May June Jan. Feb. March April May June pCt/l
ND
NO
0.093
0.070
0.0062
0.13
0.19
0.038
0~07B
0.07B
0.35
0.32
0.045
0.u42
<0.002
<0.036
NO
NO
NO
ND
0.025
0.16
0.15
0.2B
0.012
0.14
0.45
0~14
0.B1
0.OB6
0.65
<0.061
NO
ND
NO
0.20
0.037
0.20
0.037
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.62
0.25
0.100
0.62
<0.012
<0.050
NO
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
ND
0.021
0.011
0.14
0.021
0.032
<0.011
<0.011
<0.011
<0.011
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
ND
0.36
0.18
0.21
0.35
0.062
0.2B
0.062
0.010
0.092
ND
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
0.24
0.12
0.14
0.011
0.14
0.14
0.023
0.011
<0.011
<0. 034 <0.021
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
O.OBO
0.080
0.067
0.040
0.55
0.027
0.054
<0.013
<0.013
<0.04
NO
NO
ND
O. all
0.012
0.002
0.037
0.066
0.023
0.011
0.013
0.053
0.007
<O~ 001
<0.005
NO
2~02xI06
NO
NO
NO
0.003
0.016
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.016
0.052
0.020
0.002
0.008
0.050
<0.004
<0.001
1. 55xl06
NO
NO
NO
NO
ND
NO
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.013
0.003
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
NO
3.82xI05
NO
NO
NO
ND
ND
0.020
0~006
0.034
0.006
0.009
0.035
0.018
0.001
0.027
NO
9.BOxI05
<0.002
NO
ND
NO
ND
ND
0.001
0.011
0.021
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.001
0.002
<0.001
<0.003
ND
1. 26x106
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
0.003
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.002
0.041
0.004
<0.001
<0.001
<0.003
ND
1.17xl06Vol. of wastes(liters)
Total dilution 7.46xlO lO 8.B6xlO lO 9.73xlO lO 9.46xlO lO 8.02xl010 8. 14x1010
(liters)
3H 1.73 3.11 3.06 0.84 5.06 9.02 23.19 35.10 31.45 8.88 63.09 110.81 45~42
32 p NR+ NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
51Cr NO+ NO O.OOB 0,006 0.038 0.001 ND NO 0.OB2 0.063 0~47 0~012 0.10
54Mn 0~017 0.004 0.005 <0.001 0.02B 0.030 0.23 0.045 0.051 <0.011 0.35 0.37 0.185B
Co60
Co59
Fe65
Zn89
Sr90Sr9lSr99
Mo99m
Tc124
Sb131
1133
1134
Cs137
Cs140Ba / La239
Np95
zr_95
Nb
* No correction for recirculation has been included.+ NR - not reported; NO - not detected
Note:
1) Jersey Central Power & Light Company, "Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Report of Operations - January I, 1972-June 3D, 1972," Semi-AnnualRept. 1/6 .
......01CJ,J
-~Appen~ix B.4c
Radionuclides Discharged in Liquid Wastes by the Oyster Creek NuclearGenerating Station, July.Dec. 197~
Discharged, Ci(l) Concentration in Oyster Creek, pCi/l* AverageConcen tra t ion,
Nuclide July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. pCiit3H 10.5 12.3 8.4 5.2 0.001 2.4 87.5 102.5 72 .4 43.7 0.011 31. 3 56.2351Cr 0.036 0.022 Nn+ ND ND 0.007 0.30 0.18 ND ND ND 0.09 0.1054Mn 0.041 0.193 9. 252 0.046 0.002 0.011 0.34 1. 61 2.17 0.39 0.023 0.14 0.7858Co 0.010 0.046 0.059 0.012 <0.001 0.003 0.083 0.383 0.509 0.101 <0.011 0.039 0.1960Co 0.094 0.369 0.853 0.161 0.008 0.023 0.783 3.075 7.353 1. 353 0.091 0.300 2.1659 NR+Fe NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR
65zn NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR89Sr 0.058 0.002 0.002 0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.483 0.017 0.017 0.008 <0.011 0.026 0.09390Sr91 Sr ND 0.006 0.014 0.045 ND NO ND 0.050 0.121 0.378 NO ND 0.09299Mo 0.037 0.055 0.035 0.029 0.006 0.014 0.308 0.458 0.302 0.244 0.068 0.182 0.2699mTc 0.037 0.039 0.035 0.029 0.006 0.014 0.308 0.325 0.302 0.244 0.068 0.182 0.24124Sb ND ND NO ND ND ND ND ND NO ND NO NO ND1311 0.042 0.161 0.085 0.053 0.005 0.005 0.350 1.342 0.733 0.445 0.057 0.065 0.501331 0.103 0.096 0.064 0.072 0.003 0.006 0.858 0.800 0.552 0.605 0.034 0.078 0.49134Cs 0.292 1. 376 0.285 0.059 0.004 0.008 2.433 11.467 2.457 0.496 0.045 0.104 2.83137Cs 0.440 2.058 0.402 0.077 0.008 0.010 3.67 17 .15 3.47 0.65 0.091 0.130 4.19140
Bs_La 0.008 0.037 NO <0.001 <0.001 0.002 0.067 0.308 ND <0.008 <0.011 0.026 0.069
239Np 0.031 0.589 0.005 0.046 0.005 0.007 0.258 4.908 0.043 0.387 0.057 0.091 0.96
Vol. of wastes 2.08xl06 2. 54x10
6 1. 67xl06
1.05xl06 4.35xl05 6.93xl0
5
(liters)
Total dilution 1. 20xl011 1.20xl011 1. 16xI011 1. 19x1011 8.80xl01O 7.67xl0 lO
(liters)*No correction for recirculation has been included.~R - not reported; ND C not detectedNote: .
1. Jersey Central Power & Light Company, "Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Report of Operations - July 1, 1972 to December 31, 1972," Semi-AnnualReport it7.
Appendix B.4d
Radionuclides Discharged in Liquid Wastes by the Oyster Creek NuclearGenerating Station, Jan.-June 1973
7.77xl010
7.30xl010
7.77xl010
9.08xl010
8,77xl0 10 11.19xl010
34.12
0.27
0.16
<0.011
0.036
0.24
<0.011
0.22
o 039
o 003
0,003
0.19
0.19
ND
0.13
0.043
0.72
1. 87
0.086
0.092
0.12
0.007
0.031
0.28
56.78 6.47
0.30 020
0.18 0.11
ND NO
0.034 0 018
0.27 0.12
ND ND
0,50 0.054
0.091 0.009
<0.011 ND
ND 0 018
0.034 O. 054
0,023 0.054
ND NO
0.14 <0.009
<0.011 0.009
0.057 0.089
ND 0.35
0.068 0.009
0,068 0.009
0.057 0.018
0.03.4 0.009
0.17 0.018
0.011 0.063
32.48 44.54 33.74
0.041 0.50 0.60
0.27 0.013 0.033
ND ND <0.011
0.069 <0.013 0.011
0.56 0.052 0.088
ND ND 0.011
0.19 0.32 0.25
0.027 0.052 0.044
ND ND 0.011
ND ND ND
0.21 0.44 0.29
0.21 0.44 0.29
ND ND ND
0.014 0.052 0.35
0.027 0.052 0.088
0.97 0.97 1.99
2.93 5.17 2.13
0.069 0.052 0.055
0.055 0.026 0.022
0.16 0.13 0.26
ND ND ND
ND NO ND
0.82 0.18 0.17
Concentration in Oyster ~reek, pCi/l*
30.70
ND
0.36
NO
O. 077
0.34
ND
0.026
0.013
ND
ND
0.13
0.13
ND
0.21
0.077
0.25
0.64
0,26
0.37
0.077
ND
ND
0.43
0.724
0.022
0.012
ND
0.002
0.013
ND
0.006
0.001
ND
0.002
0.006
0.006
ND
<0. 001
0.001
0.010
0.039
0.001
0.001
0.002
0,001
0.002
0.007
2.69xl05
4.980
0.026
0.016
ND
0.003
0.024
NO
0.044
0.008
<0.001
NO
0.003
0.002
ND
0.012
<0.001
0.005
ND
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.003
0.015
0.001
17.94xl05
AverageConcentration I
April . l1"Y J_une ~ Feb_._ March Apr~ May June pCi/l
3.064
0.054
0.003
<0.001
0.001
0.008
0.001
0.023
0.004
0.001
ND
0.026
0.026
ND
0.032
0.008
0.181
0.193
0.005
0.002
0.024
ND
ND
0.015
10.52x105
Discharged, Ci (1)
March
3,461
0.039
0.001
ND
<0.001
0.004
NO
0.025
0.004
ND
NO
0.034
0.034
ND
0.004
0.004
0.075
0.402
0.004
0.002
0.010
ND
ND
0.014
11.43xl05
Feb,
2.371
0.003
0.020
ND
0.005
0.041
ND
0.014
0.002
ND
ND
0.015
0.015
ND
0.001
0.002
0.071
0.214
0.005
0.004
0.012
ND
NO
0.060
7.65xl05
2.385
ND+
0.028
ND
0.006
0.026
ND
0.002
<0.001
NO
ND
0.010
0.010
ND
0.016
0.006
0.019
0.050
0.020
0.029
0.006
ND
NO
0.033
8.06xl05
Jan.Nuclide
Total dilution(liters)
3HH Cr54
Mn59
Fe58Co60
Co65
Zn89
Sr90
Sr91
Sr91y
99Mo99mTc124
Sb131
1133
1133
Xe135Xe134Cs
137Cs
140Ba
_La
141'·Ce
144Ce
239Np
Vol. of wastes(liters)
Jersey Central Power &. Light Company, "Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Report of Operations - January 1. 1973 to June 30, 1973," Semi-AnnualRept. '8. .t-'
CIlCIl
*No correction for+ND - not detectedNote:
1.
recirculation has been included.
....~ Appendix B.4e
Radionuclides Discharged in Liquid Wastes by the Oyster Creek NuclearGenerating Station, July-Dec. 1973
29.74
0.52
0.14
0.014
0.036
0.24
ND
0.09
0.009
NO
0.026
0.22
0.22
ND
0.026
0.083
0.58
1. 94
0.062
0.055
0.13
0.002
0.005
0.15
NO
0.08
0.08
ND
0.008
0.287
0.19
0.89
0,017
<0.008
0.05
ND
NO
0.15
ND
8.21
0.10
0.008
ND
<0,008
0.025
ND
<0.008
ND
ND
0.07
0.07
ND
ND
ND
0.08
0.63
<0.009
<0,009
0.04
ND
ND
ND
6.27
0.11
<0.009
<0.009
<0.009
0.028
ND
<0.009
ND
0.071
0.16
0.16
ND
0.009
0.045
0.28
1.48
0.027
0.035
0.11
ND
ND
0.13
34.35
0.44
0.071
0.036
0.018
0.098
NO
<0.009
ND
ND
0.22
0.22
ND
0.118
0.107
0.78
2.17
0.118
0.011
0,11
0.011
0.032
0.15
55.04
0.93
0.29
ND
0.064
0.61
ND
0.043
0.025 <0.011 <0.009 <0.009 <0.008
ND
0.016
0.38
0.38
ND
0.017
0.041
0.96
3.04
0.181
0.255
0.18
ND
ND
0.16
35.50
0.65
0.11
0.041
0.033
0.31
ND
0.12
Concentration in Oyster Creek, pCi/l rr
39.04
0.89
0.35
<0.008
0.092
0.38
ND
0.38
0.0084
ND
0.067
0.40
0.40
ND
<0.008
0.017
1. 18
3.45
0.025
0.017
0.28
ND
ND
0.31
0.974
0.012
0.001
ND
<0.001
0.003
ND
<0.001
<0.001
ND
ND
0.010
0.010
ND
0.001
0.034
0.023
0.106
0.002
<0.001
0.006
ND
ND
0.018
0.406x106
ND
0.668
0.012
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
NO
<0.001
<0.001
ND
ND
0.007
0.007
ND
ND
0.009
0.067
<0.001
<0.001
0.004
ND
ND
ND
0.288x106
3.860
0.049
0.008
0.004
0.002
0.011
ND
<0.001
<0.001
ND
0.008
0.018
0.018
ND
0.001
0.005
0.031
0.166
0.003
0.004
0.012
ND
ND
0.015
1.265x106
Discharged, Ci (1)
5.130
0.087
0.027
NO+0.006
0.057
ND
0.004
<0.001
ND
NO
0.020
0.020
ND
0.011
0.010
0.073
0.202
0.011
0.001
0.010
0.001
0.003
0.014
1.720xl06
4.310
0.079
0.013
0.005
0.004
0.037
ND
0.015
0.003
NO
0.002
0.046
0.046
NO
0.002
0.005
0.116
0.369
0.022
0.031
0.022
ND
ND
0.0196
1.379x10
AverageConcentration)
July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. pCi/l
4.676
0.106
0.042
<0.001
0.011
0.045
ND
0.046
0.001
ND
0.008
0.048
0.048
NO
<0.001
0.002
0.141
0.413
0.003
0.002
0.034
ND
NO
0.0376
1. 490x 10Vol. of wastes(liters)
Nuclide3H51
Cr54
Mn59
Fe58
Co60
Co65
Zn89
Sr90
Sr91
Sr9ly99
Mo99mTc124Sb131
1133
1133
Xe135
Xe134Cs137Cs140
Ba_
La141Ce144
Ce239
Np
Total dilution(liters)
11.977x1010 12.141x1010 9.320x1010 11.235x1010 10.659x1010
11.860x1010
Jersey Central Power & Light Company, "Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Report of Operations - July I, 1973 to December 31, 1973," Semi-AnnualReport //9.
*No correction for+ND - not detectedNote:
1.
recirculation has been included.
Appendix C.I
Calculated Generation Rate of Fission Products in Fuel at 1930 MWt Power
FissionProduct Yield, /b)
Decay constantA, s-l
Generation rate]lCi/s
Accumulation in700 days, ]lCi
3H 9.5 x 10- 5 (c). 1.78 x 10- 9 2.2 x 102 1.3 x 101083mKr 5.8 x 10- 3 1.04 x 10- 4 7.7 x 108 7.5 x 101285mKr 1.3 x 10- 2 4.30 x 10-5 7.2 x 108 1.7 x 101385Kr 2.9 x 10- 3 2.05 x 10-9 7.6 x 103 4.4 x lOll87 Kr 2.4 x 10- 2 1.51 x 10-4 4.8 x 109 3.1 x 101388Kr 3.5 x 10- 2 6.88 x 10- 5 3.2 x 109 4.5 x 101389Kr 4.2 x 10- 2 3.66 x 10- 3 2.0 x lOll 5.4 x 101389Sr 4.5 x 10- 2 1.57 x 10- 7 9.1 x 106 5.8 x 101390Sr 5.5 x 10- 2 7.82 x 10- 10 5.5 x 104 3.3 x 101295Zr 6.4 x 10- 2 1.23 x 10- 7 1.0 x 107 8.3 x 101395Nb 6.4 x 10- 2 2.29 x 10- 7 2.2 x 107 (d) 1.8 x 101499Mo 5.7 x 10- 2 2.90 x 10- 6 2.1 x 108 7.4 x 1013103Ru 3.3 x 10- 2 2.03 x 10- 7 8.7 x 106 4.3 x 1013124Sb 3.0 x 10- 7 1.33 x 10- 7 5.2 x 101 3.9 x 108131 1 3.2 x 10- 2 9.96 x 10- 7 4.1 x 107 4.1 x 10131331 6.5 x 10- 2 9.21 x 10-6 7.7 x 108 8.4 x 1013135 1 6.0 x 10- 2 2.87 x 10- 5 2.2 x 109 7.7 x 10 13131mXe 4.5 x 10- 4 6.74 x 10- 7 3.9 x 105 5.8 x lOll133mXe 1.9 x 10- 3 3.57 x 10-6 8.6 x 106 2.5 x 1012133Xe 6.5 x 10- 2 1.52 x 10-6 1.3 x 108 8.4 x 1013135mXe 1.1 x 10- 2 7.38 x 10-4 1.0 x 1010 1.4 x 1013135Xe 6.3 x 10- 2 2.10 x 10- 5 1.7 x 109 8.1 x 1013137Xe 6.0 x 10- 2 3.02 x 10- 3 2.3 x lOll 7.7 x 1013
138Xe 5.8 x 10- 2 8.15 x 10- 4 6.1 x 1010 7.5 x 1013n4Cs 1. 2 x 10- 7 1. 06 x 10- 8 -4 x 104 (e) -1. 6 x 1012 (e)136Cs 1.6 x 10-4 6.17 x 10-7 1.3 x 105 2.1 x lOll137Cs 6.2 x 10- 2 7.30 x 10- 10 5.8 x 104 3.4 x 1012140Ba 6.0 x 10- 2 6.26 x 10- 7 4.9 x 107 7.7 x 1013141Ce 6.0 x 10- 2 2.48 x 10- 7 1.9 x 107 7.7 x 1013144Ce 5.2 x 10- 2 2.82 x 10- 8 1.9 x 106 5.5 x 1013
aBased on 100% uranium fission; actually there is an increasing fractionwith time related to the fission of generated plutonium.
bHeek , M. E. and B. F. Rider, "Compilation of Fission Product Yields,"General Electric, Vallecitos Nuclear Center Rept. NEDO-12154-1 (1974).
cAlbenesius, E. L. and R. S. Ondrejcin, "Nuclear-Fission Produces Tritium,"Nucleonics 18 (9), 199 (1960).
dEqUilibrium~ith longer-lived parent is assumed.
eMountain, J. E., 1. E. Eckart and J. H. Leonard, "Survey of IndividualRadionuclide Production in Water-Cooled Reactors," University of CincinnatiRept. (1968).
Notes:
Generation1.
2.
3.
fission raterate = thermal power x MWt x use factor x y x A
3.1 x 1016 fission/s ]lCi1930 MWt x -'---=--c--::....:..._....:....:;:.:;...;;:..::...::~_ X O. 8 x Y x A xMWt 3.7 x 104 dis/s
A use factor of 0.8 was assumed typical.
fission rate AtAccumulation = thermal power x x use factor x y (l-e- )MWt
157
....<:l100
Appendix D.I
Con~entrations of Radioactive Gas Effluents from Main Condenser'Steam Jet AirEjectors after Passage Throu~ 7S-minute Delay Line
AverageConcentration, ~Ci/cc concentration,
Radionuclide Aug. 31, 1971 Jan. 18-20, 1972 Feb. 29, 1972 Apr. 10-12, 1972 Mar. 28, 1973 IlCi/cc. 13
NM x 10- 4NM x 10- 4 .10.0 -mIn N 4 NM NM 4
4.4 -hr 85mKr -2 -2 -2 -2 -1 -29.1 x 10 5.6 x 10 5.8 x 10 7.6 x 10 1. 9 x 10 9.4 x 10
10.76-yr85 Kr NM x 10- 5 x 10-4 x 10- 5 -4 -4
9 1 4 5.1 x 10 1. 9 x 10 '7 . 87 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -16.4 -mIn Kr 2.0 x 10 1. 2 x 10 1.0 x 10 1.4 x 10 3.6 x 10 1. 8 x 10
2.8 -hr 88 Kr -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -11. 5 x 10 1.1 x 10 1.0 x 10 1. 3 x 10 5.2 x 10 2.0 x 10
8.05-d131
1 -6 -6 -6 -8 -6NM 2.5 x 10 4.0 x 10 4.0 x 10 7.6 x 10 2.6 x 10
2.26-d133m
xe-2 -3 -3 -3 -2 -3
1.1 x 10 2.9 x 10 2.5 x 10 4.5 x 10 1.8 x 10 7.8 x 10
5.27-d133
Xe -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -13.0 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.8 x 10 2.5 x 10 4.5 x 10 2.7 x 10
15.6 -min 135mXe-1 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1
1.1 x 10 3.1 x 10 2.7 x 10 3.5 x 10 1. 1 x 10 1. 3 x 10
9.16-hr 135 Xe** -1 -1 -1 -1 -13.8 x 10 2.7 x 10 2.6 x 10 NM 9.7 x 10 4.7 x 10
14.2 -min 138Xe-2 -2 -2 -1 -27.0 x 10 4.0 x 10 4.7 x 10 NM 1. 7 x 10 8.2 x 10
Gross radioactivityrelease rate,JlCi/s
Plant report 3.6 x 104 4.7 x 104 No data 7.8 x 104 51.2 x 10
HASL measurement4 4 4 4 5
6.1 x 10 3.6 x 10 3.5 x 10 -4.5 x 10 1.2 x 10* Beck, H. et al., U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, personal communications, July 1972 and H. Beck, April 16, 1973.** 135mIncludes decay of Xe.
NM - not measured.
Appendix D.2
Release Rates and Estimated Annual Discharges of Radioactive Gases fromMain Condenser Air Ejector Delay Line
Average release Normalized avg. Estimated annualrate during release rate,t release,tt
Radionuclide sampling,**lJCi/ s lJCi/s Ci13N 2 x 101
2 x 101
5 x 102
85mKr 4.2 x 10
32.7 x 103 6.9 x 104
85Kr 8.6 5.6 1.4 x 10
2
87Kr 8.4 x 10
35.2 x 103 1. 3 x 105
88Kr 9.1 x 10
35.7 x 10
31.4 x 105
l3l r 1.2 x 10- 16.6 x 10- 2 1.7
l33mXe 3.5 x 10
22.2 x 10
25.5 x 10
3
13\e 1. 2 x 104
7.6 x 103
1.9 x r05
l35mXe 5.6 x 10
33.5 x 10
38.8 x 10
4
135Xe 2.0 x 10
4 1. 3 x 104 . 3.3 x 105138
xe 3.6 x 103 2.4 x 10
36.0 x 104
* Computed from data given in Appendix 0.1.**
Based on delay line off-gas flow rates of 4.5 x 104 eels (95 cfm).t Average of gross radioactivity stack release rates during sampling normalized
to annual average stack release rate of 3.90 x 104 lJCi/s reported by plantfor period of July 1, 1971 to June 30, 1973.
ttBased on 292 days (2.52 x 10 7 s) of reactor operation per year.
159
AppeildixD.3
Release Rates and Estimated Annual Discharges of Noble Gases in TurbineGland Seal Condenser Off·Gas, February 29, 1972
Radionucl ide85mKr87 Kr88 Kr133 '
Xe13Sm
Xe135
Xe138
Xe
Release rate,** Estimated annualIJCi/s release,t Ci
2.9 8.2 x 101
1. 03 X 101
2.9 x 102
5.1 1. 4 x 102
7.5 2.1 x 102
4.2 x 101
1. 2 x 103
1.65 x 101
4.7 x 10 2
7.15 x 101
2.0 x 103
* Beck, H. et ~., U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, personal communication,July 1972.
**Based on off-gas release rate of 2.8 x 105 cc/s (600 cfm). Gross radio-activity release rate was 3.47 x 104 IJCi/s on February 29,1972.
tCalculated for an annual average stack release rate of gross radioactivityof 3.90 x 104 IJCi/s during reactor operation and 292 days (2.52 x 10 7 s).
160
Appendix D.4
Release Rates of Gaseous Radionuclides from End of Steam Condenser AirEjector Delay Line and in Stack, IlCi/s
Radionuclide85mKr85 Kr87
Kr88 Kr89 Krl33m Xel33Xel35m
Xe135 Xel37 Xe138 Xe
Total activity
Jan. 1972**Delay Line Stack
2.6 x 1032.0 x 103
6 6
4.4 x 10 3 4.9 x 103
4.4 x 103 4.9 x 103
8.0 x 103 7.9 x 103
1.3 x 10 32.5 x 10
3
1.15 x 104 1.13 x 104
103 ?1.4 x 7 x 10-
3.36 x 104
3.42 x 104
Mar. 28, 1973t
Delay Line Stack
8.8 x 103
8.9 x 103
2.7 x 101 NM
1.60 x 104 1.59 x 104
2.3 x 1042.0 x 104
0 0
8 x 10 29 x 10
2
-2.0 x 104
2.02 x 104
4.9 x 103
1.15 x 104
4.31 x 104
4.07 x 104
0 0
7.4 x 103 NMtt
1.24 x 105 51.26 x 10
* Beck, H. et ~., U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, personal communication,July 1972 and H. Beck, April 16, 1973.
** Based on delay line time of 72 min and release rate of 4.46 x 104 ccls andstack flow rate of 7.79 x 10 1 m3js.
t Based on delay line time of 75 min and release rate of 5.33 x 104 ccls andstack flow rate of 7.79 x 101 m3/s.
ttAssumed to be 7.4 x 103 ~Ci/s for total radioactivity calculation.
Note: NM - not measured.
161
....ent-.:l
Appendix E.I
Radionuclide Concentrations Measured in Aquatic Samples by the Station Operator
AnalysesJan .-June
1970July-Dec.
1970Jan.-May
1971June-Nov.
1971Dec.-May
1971-2June-Nov.
1972Dec.-MaY
1972-3June-Nov.
1973
Surface Water, pCi/1
<0.3 <0.30.53 < 0.31.7 0.513.7 2.0
296 2700.63 0.360.040 0.0231.1 1.1
65Zn « 9. 0), 131 I
No. samples NR**
Gross a (S)* NRGross a (0)* NRGross B (S) NRGross B (D) NR40K NR90Sr NRU NR228Ra NR
Nuclides not detected were226Ra «0.2).
NR
NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
3H « 1000) ,
NR.
NRNRNRNRNRNRNRNR
58Co « 7.0),
31
< 0.3<0.3
1.93.8
3200.580.0391.6
60Co « 7. 0) ,
30 35 30
< 0.30.270.661.6
2570.460.0250.97
« 6. 0), 137Cs
35
< 0.3< 0.3< 1. 4< 2.1
1910.70
< 0.020.93
«7.0),
No. of samples
Gross aGross B
NR
NRNR
NR
NRNR
Silt, pCi/g
NR 6
NR 1.5NR 10
10
3.131
15
1.111
15
1.38.7
13
< 2.021
9
< 0.11.2
< 1. 2< 0.09< O. 003
0.08
< 0.11.23.0
< 0.090.0210.10
69
< 0.11.13.6
< 0.090.0210.09
6
0.12 <0.10.9 1.12.9 3.4O. 09 0.110.005 0.0210.12 <0.07
131 I « a.06) .
Clams, pCi/g
21 6
< 0.11.33.50.150.0080.10
60Co « O. Oi) ,
24NR
<0.1-1.2 0.1-0.27< 0.1-1. 7 0.4-2.3
2.3-3.2 1.7-4.5<0.12 <0.1-0.25
0.006 < 0.001-0.011<0.009 <0.07-0 .. 15
detected were 58Co « 0.07) ,Nuclides not
No. of samples
Gross aGross B40K65Zn90Sr137Cs
* S - suspended solids; 0 - dissolved·
**NR - not reported
Notes: 1. Data reported by station operator from June-Nov. and Dec.-May due to one month delay forsample analysis and reporting. (5)
2. Data for clams during 1970 were reported as a range rather than an average.
Appendix E.2
The Average Radionuclide Concentrations in Aquatic Samples Reported by theState of New Jersey (BRP)
Surface Water Samples, pCi/l*
Radionuc 1ide Forked River Oyster Creek3H < 1100 < 110054Mn < 0.14 (trace) 0.958Co < 0.13 0.360Co 0.09 2.659Fe < 0.2 < 0.34 (trace)90Sr 0.3 0.3134Cs < O. 2 4.0137Cs 0.4 6.3
*Water was continuously sampled from April to December 1972 in Oyster Creek andfrom January to April, 1973 in Forked River.
Sediment Samples, pCi/g-dry weight
1971 1972
Location 54Mn
58Co 60 65zn
137Cs 54
Mn60Co 137Cs .Co
Oyster Creek 2.0 0.6 9.5 0.4 0.5 0.8 4.8 0.4
Forked River 0.9 0.2 3.0 < O. 2 0.4 0.3 2.1 0.4
Barnegat Bay* 0.13 < 0.1 0.3 < 0.1 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 0.07
*Near mouth of Cedar Creek.
Macro-algae and Marine Grass Samples, pCi/kg-wet weight*
1971 1972
Species 54Mn 58Co .60Co 54Mn . 58Co 60Co 103Ru
G. verrucosa 1400 190 + 160 1260 264 < 50 560 74
C. fragile 130 31 + 23 150 70 < 20 120 25
u. 1actuca 1420 250 + 110 830 180 < 50 300 80
Z. marina 820 180 + 95 630 150 < 40 580 < 50
*Radionuc1ides not detected and their minimum detectable levels were: 51Cr« 130) , 59Fe « 75). 65Zn « 65), 106Ru « 260) .
Shellfish Muscle Samples, pCi/kg-wet weight*
Analysis 1971 1972
No. samples 21 1054Mn < 70 - 250 (70)** < 6058Co < 70 - 310 (75) 20 110 (47)60Co < 30 - 470 (160) 60 - 220 (100)65 Zn < 100 < 10090Sr 3 - 90 (20) 1 - 5 (2)1311 < 40 NRt
134Cs < 40 < 40137
C5 < 40 - 180 (80) 20 - 44 (24)
* Samples co11ected.in Barnegat Bay near Waretown and near the mouths ofOyster and Cedar Creeks.
**Average concentrations given in parentheses.
tNR_ not reported.
163
x/Q .. =1J
Appendix E.3
Estimation ~ of Airborne Radioactivity in the Environment
Oyster Creek uses the following diffusion equation for estimating annual
average relative concentrations at distances downwind of its stack [see Oyster
Creek Nuclear Generating Station - Environmental Report, Amend. No. 2 (1972~ :
L L f ..i j 1)
( -H~ /202
)x/Q .. =~ exp1) e x 0 u .. ) Z •.
z .. 1) 1)1J
where:
average relative concentration for the ith stability condition and the
jth wind speed class, s/m3 (X represents the radionuclide concentration,
in ~Ci/m3; Q, the stack emission rate, ~Ci/s)
f. . = fraction of time the wind direction occurs in the i, j condition1J
8 = sector angle in radians (22.S degrees)
x = receptor distance downwind, m
o vertical plume standard deviation for the i, j condition, mz ..1J
U. . = average wind speed at stack height, m/s1J
H. effective stack height (112 m plus plume rise) for j wind speed, mJ
The station Environmental Report provides annual average relative concen
trations calculated for 16 22.S-degree sectors at 10 incremental distances to
80 km. Values of 0 were obtained from Watson and Gamertsfelder. Stack plumezrise was calculated by the Holland-Moses method. The meteorological data were
collected from February 1966 to February 1967, after a 122-m instrumented tower
was erected 390 m west of the stack in February 1966. (The AEC Final Environ
mental Statement indicates that much of the meteorological data collected up to
1974 are of doubtful accuracy and notes that an improved program is being
implemented. During the EPA study, misadjustments of some wind sensors,
temperature indicators and chart recorders were detected by weather balloon and
other observations.)
Average annual relative concentration values for various sector midpoint
distances calculated by Oyster Creek staff are as follows:
164
Annual average x/Q,Characteristic Location s/m3
Highest concentration 2.4 km N (of stack) 6.02 x 10-9
Approximate fenceline 0.8 km N 4.24 x 10- 9
Nearby population 2.4 km ESE 5.45 x 10-9
Nearby population 2.4 km NNE 3.86 x 10- 9
Waretown, NJ 2.4 km SSE 3.43 x 10- 9
Fishing in discharge canal 0.8 km ESE 4.04 x 10-9
The annual average stack release rate (Q) used for the station calculations
was 25,000 ~Ci/s for a 365-d year. The station operator, indicates that the
highest average concentration occurs in the city of Forked River. Dose at the
north exclusion fence is lower than in Forked River due to release from a tall
stack. Annual dose to the closest resident (1.3 km NNE of the stack) is
computed by the station operator to be 4.6 mrem after applying shielding and
occupancy factors.
The AEC Final Environmental Statement indicates that the nearest residence
is located about 1.1 km N of the stack, where x/Q is 1.6 x 10- 9 s/m3. The
total body dose due to air submersion at that location is 0.31 mrem/yr.
Fishermen spending 700 hrs/yr at the highway bridge over the discharge canal
receive an estimated total body dose of 0.20 mrem.
165
Appendix E;4
_ ___~_~~I1l~~h~ric ~ispersion and Plume Rise Estimates for Sh~rt.term Air Sampling
Concentrations of stack effluents at ground level on the plume centerline·
at various downwind distances during the test described in. Section 6, were
estimated by:
where:
x _--CQ>--_ exp {
7f 0y 0z u
2lz (--.!!) }
°z
xQ
ground-level centerline concentration, ~Ci/m3
- source release rate, ~Ci/s
° = crosswind plume standard deviation, my
°z = vertical plume standard deviation, m
u average wind speed, mls
H = effective stack height (112 + lih), m
Plume rise (lih), the height of the plume centerline above the stack height,
was calculated by the methods of Briggs. Stack parameters for the computations
were effluent temperature of 3050 K, velocity of 16 mis, exit diameter of 2.5 m
and volume flow of 78 m3/s. The Meteorology Laboratory, EPA, provided calcula
tions for various ambient air temperatures, wind speeds and atmospheric
stabili ties.
Parameters used to estimate dispersion for air concentration measurements
(see Table 6.2) :
Test u, 0y, °z, li,no. mls m m TIl
Ie 8.8 122 48 24
2b 8.7 108 43 17
4d 5.4 240 75 41
5a 7.6 145 85 15
5b 7.3 97 41 26
166
Appendix F.l
Relation of Airborne Radionuclide Concentration to Dose Rate
Air cancentration-dose rate factors,(l)
Radionuclide Critical organ pCi/cc rem/yrGases
3H (HTO) Total body (In)(2) 2/5 0.4
(HT) Skin (Sub) (3) 400/30 13l4
C (CO2
) Fat (In) 1/5 0.2
Total body (In) 2/5 0.4l3
N Total body (Sub) 0.43/5(4) 0.09B5m
Kr Total body (Sub) 1/5 0.2B5
Kr Total body (Sub) 3/5 0.6B7
Kr Total body (Sub) 0.2/5 0.04BB
Kr Total body (Sub) 0.7.B/5(4) 0.06l31m
Xe Total body (Sub) 4/5 O. B133m
Xe Total body (Sub) 2.8/5(4) 0.613\e Total body (Sub) 3/5 0.6135Xe Total body (Sub) 1/5 0.2
other fission gaseswith half-lives < 2hrs Total body (Sub) 0.27/5(4) 0.05
A.irborne particles and iodine by inhalation51
Cr Lung (1) (5) O. B/15 0.05354
Mn Lung (I) 0.01/15 0.0006755
Fe Spleen (5), Lung (I) 0.3/15 0.02059
Fe Lung (1) 0.02/15 0.001358
co Lung (I) 0.02/15 0.001360
co Lung (I) 0.003/15 0.0002065
zn Lung (I) 0.02/15 0.0013B9
Sr Bone (5) 0.01/30 0.0003.3
Lung (1) 0.01/15 0.0006790
Sr Bone (5) 0.0001/30 0.0000033
Total body (5) n.0003/5 0.00006099
Mo Lung (1 ) 0.07/15 0.0047131
1 Thyroid (5) 0.003/30 0.0001133
1 Thyroid (5) 0.01/30 0.00033135
1 Thyroid (5) 0.04/30 0.0013134Cs Lung (1) 0.004/15 0.00027136
Cs Lung (I) 0.06/15 0.004137Cs Lung (1) 0.005/15 0.00033140
Ba Lung (1) 0:01/15 0.00067141
Ce Lung (1) 0.05/15 0.0033239
Np Gl (LLI) (1) 0.2/15 0,013
1. lCRP J Report of Committee 2 on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation.lCRP Publication 2, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1959). Concentrations basedon 168-hour limits,
2. (In) - Inhalation
3. (Sub) - Submersion
4. Based on ICRP Publication 2, equation 21, divided by 4 for a 168-hour week:
(MPC)a = i(~) x 1/4 = pCi/cc,
where l:(E), the total effective energy per disintegration (y,B,S"", e J x-rays),has the values:
13N 1.51 MeV
BB Kr 2.33 MeV
1HmXe 0.234 MeVShOTt-lived nuclides
(Tl / 2 < 2 hn) 2.42 'leV (based on B9 Kr , the radionuclide
of the highest disintegration energy with a half-life less than 2 hours)
5. (I) - Insoluble
6. (5) - Soluble
167
Appendix F.2
Relation of Daily Radionuclide Intake in Water to Dose Rate
Daily intake-dose Daily intake-doserate factors, (1) rate factors, (1)
Radionuclide Critical organ pCi/day + mrem/yr Radionuclide Critical organ pCi/day + mrem/yr3H Total body 22,000 99~c G1 (LL1) 8,80014
C Total body 4,400 103Ru GI (LL1) 12024Na GI (LLI) 290 106Ru GI(LLI) 1532p Bone 15 105Rh GI (LL!) 150
Total body 400 110mAg GICLLI) 40
GI (LL1) 130124Sb GI(LLI) 30
51Cr GI (LLI) 2,900 131 1 Thyroid 1. 5 (3)54Mn GI(LLI) 150 1331 Thyroid 5.1(3)55Fe Spleen 1,170 135
1 Thyroid 15 (:»
59Fe GI(LLI) 90 134C5 Total body 40
Spleen 150 136C5 Total body 40057Co GI (LLI) 730 137Cs Total body 9058
Co GI(LLI) 150 140Ba GI(LLI) 4060Co GI(LL1) 70 141
Ce GI(LLI) 13064 Cu GI (LL1) 440 144
Ce GI (LLI) 1565 Zn Total body 440 210po Spleen 1.076
As GI (LLI) 30 Kidney 1.289
Sr Bone 7.3 Liver 4.490Sr Bone 0.30(2) Bone 7.391 Sr GI (LL1) 100 Total body 3095 Zr GI (LLI) 90 GI(LLI) 4095Nb GI(LL1) 150 239
Np GI (LL1) 15099Mo GI (LL1) 290
1) ICRP Report of Committee 2 on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation, ICRP Publication 2, PergamonPress, Oxford (1959); Intake, based on 168 hour concentration limits, assumed to persist for 50 yearsor until equilibrium is reached in the body.
2) Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (As Amended 1959 andRevised 1962), ICRP Publication 6, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1964).
3) To calculate a child's thyroid dose, divide this factor by 10.
168
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 11. Report No.
SHEET EPAI520/5-76/0034. Tide and Subtitle
Radiological Surveillance Studies at the Oyster Creek BWRNuclear Generating Station
7. Author(s)
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnati, OhioRadiochemistry and Nuclear Engineering Branch
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
15. Supplementary Notes
3. Recipient's Accession No.PB-257 952
5. Report Date
Jun 766.
8. Performing Organization Rept.No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
13. Type of Report & PeriodCovered
14.
16C
Abstra'ctsontents:
Radionuclides in water on site; Airborne radioactive discharges; Radionuclides inliquid wastes; Radionuclides in the aquatic environment; Environmental airborneactivity; Summary and conclusions.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 170. Descriptors*Nuclear power plants,*Radiation measuring instruments,
Radioactive wastes,Radiation hazards,Environmental surveys,Statistical anslysis,Aquatic biology,Waste disposal,Boili~g water reactors.
17b~ Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
*Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant.
l7c. COSATI Field/Group 18 H 18 E18. Availability Statement
National Technical Information ServiceSpringfield, Virginia 22161
FORM NTI5-35 (REV. 1073) ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO.
19. Security Class (This
/ Re~~~tJl ACC'''''''"'20. Se.:ufity Class (This
Page -UNCLASSIFIED
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
21. -N o. of Pages178p
USCOMM·DC 828S· P 74
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (Bibliographic Data Sheet based on COSATI
Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Federal Government,PB-180 600).
1. Report Number. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation selecred by the performing
organization or provided by rhe sponsoring organizarion. Use uppercase letters and Arabic numerals only. Examples
F ASE B-NS-73-87 and F AA-RD-73-09.
2. Leave blank.
J. Recipient's Accession Number•. Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, subordinate subtitle to themain title. When a repott is prepated in more than one volume, ~epeat the primary title, add volume number and includesubtitle for the specific volume.
50 Report Date. Each report shall carry a dare indicating at. least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was selected
(e.g., date of issue, dare of approval, date of prepararion, date published).
6. Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
7. Author(s).'. Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J.Robert Doe). List author's affiliation if it differsfrom the performing organization.
8. Performing Organization Repart Number. Insert if petforming organization wishes to assign this number.
9. Perfarming Organizatian Name and Mailing Address. Give name, street, city, state, and zip code. List no more than twolevels of an organizational hierarchy. Display rhe name of the organization exactly as it should appear in Government indexes such as Government Reports Index (GRI).
10. Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency 'Name and Mailing Address. Include zip code. Cite main sponsors.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. State interim, final, etc., and, if applicable, inclusive dates.
14. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
15•.Supplementary Notes. Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with
Translation of ... Presented at conference of ... To be published in . .. Supersedes... Supplements ...~ite availability of related parts, volumes, phases, etc. with report number.
16. Abstract. Include a br ief (200 words or less) facr ua I summary of- the most s ignif ic a nt information c onta ined in the re port.If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey; mention it here.
17: Key Words and Document Analysis. (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms theproper authorized terms thar identify the major concept of rhe research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be usedas index entries for cataloging.(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use identifiers for projecr names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Useopen-ended terms written in descriptor form for those sub jects for v.:hich no descriptor exisrs.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken from the 1964 COSATI Subject Category List.Since the majoriry of documents are multidisciplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignment(s) will be the specificdiscipline, ·area of human endeavor, Or rype of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondaryField/Group assignments that will follow rhe primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denot~ public releasability, for example "Release unlimited", or limitation·for reasons orherthan securiry. Cire any availability to rhe public, other than NTIS, with address, order number and price, if known.
19 & 20. Security Classification. Do nor submit classified reports to the National Technical Information Service.
21. Number of Pages. Insert the total number of pages, including introducrory pages, but excluding disrriburion list, if any.
22. NTIS Price. Leave blank.
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 10-731 USCOMM-DC 8265-P74