ML19211A163

Forwards Findings from Nov 1978 Power Plant Cumulative Environ Impact Rept. List of 12 Questions Re Radioactive Effluents & Spent Fuel Storage Pools Encl

ML19211A163
Person / Time
Site:	Calvert Cliffs
Issue date:	11/06/1979
From:	Winegrad G MARYLAND, STATE OF
To:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 7912170116
Download: ML19211A163 (27)

Text

.

', 01 3 Si) @

>C } DOCKETIE r a

@4%4 PT.0D. a UT'L ??.0...p ,3f 7, 3f g

. v . x' - , - --

House OF DELEGATES AN NAPoLis, M ARYLAND 21401 GER ALo W. WINEGR AD DELEGATION AnoREssa DISTRICT 30-5 212 HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY ANNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21408 ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS 269 3262 269-3264 COM MITTEE HOME ADDREssi 1428 CATLYN PLACE C2

~ NNAPOLIS. MARYLAND 21408 November 6, 1979 0' 4 26e.742s

& v;.

Y 1, \

Joseph M. Hendrie d \1 ""

Chairman NQO  ;

Nuclear Regulatory Commission $0 -

Washington, 9 -

D.C. 20555 8 s

Dear Mr. Hendrie:

All Your assistance in evaluating the enclosed materials relating to the radiological impact of the operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant is earnestly solicited.

The enclosed compilation of findings is taken from the November 1978 " Power Plant Cumulative Environmental Impact Report" of the Maryland Power Plant Siting Program. In addition to your overall evaluation of the degree and type of radioactive releases into the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and the atmosphere it ~

would be most helpful if you could answer the following questions:

1. In 1976, BG&E predicted amounts of only 19 radio-active elements entering the Bay as liquid effluents.

Through December 1977 at least 48 such elements were identified. Is this cause for concern?

2. Of the 19 predicted liquid radioactive effluents, BG&E.'s cumulative predictions through December 1977 were frequently underestimated by factors of at least 10 and in the case of Cr-51 the estimates were off by a factor of over 9,000. Is this cause for concern?

3. Has adequate research been done to assess the long term impacts of the radiation releases, such as tritium, into the waters of the Chesapeake Bay?

What about the cumulative impact on such organisms as oysters and the people who may eat them?

4. Is the release of the liquid radioactive effluents "as low as is reasonably achievable" as required?

1594 149 70121 70 Hl'

5. Storm water runoff samples at the Calvert Cliffs plant have contained these radioactive isotopes:

Co-60, Co-58, Mn-54, Cx-134, and Cs-137. Is this cause for concern?

6. Ag-110m has been found in oysters six miles from the plant. This isotope was not one of the pre-dicted liquid effluents. Is this concentration of Ag-110m in sediments and oysters near and as far as six miles from the plant cause for concern?

7. Can you comment on the analysis on page IV-19 and the chart at Page IV-21 that Ag-110m, Co and Co-60 doses found in oysters near the plant produce risk levels when eaten by humans that "are minuscule compared to the normal risk levels.

..of the U.S. population today"?

8. BG&E predicted 18 radioactive isotopes in varying amounts would be released to the atmosphere.

'However, 45 such isotopes, some at much higher rates than predicted, have been released. Are these failures to predict and under-predictions cause for concern?

9. Generating Unit 2 began commercial operation on April 1, 1977 so that the cumulative impact measured in the enclosed report only includes Unit 2's impact for nine months. Are you satisfied that the accuracy of predictions and impacts of cumu-lative discharges are and will be within safe

~

limits?

10. BG&E has recently applied for authorization to nearly double its storage of spent fuel rods.

Is this long term storage, perhaps into the 1990's, cause for concern?

11. Are you convinced that the airborne and liquid effluent discharges from the Calvert Cliffs plant present no threat to human health or safety?

12. Can you comment on th'e potential for serious calamity given the nearness to Calvert Cliffs of the Cove Point Liquid Natural Gas facility?

I am a member of the House Environmental Matters Committee.

This committee reviews legislation involving the operating of the Calvert Cliffs facility. Your comments and answers will greatly aid me in my legislative work.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. 1594 150 S* cerely, Gerald W. Winegy d GWW/pb M

.t .'..y*;--*

• ?

' Y . e ' y Y * *s,.*l w .-,,

. ~V

• &Y ~^ #

.. ~

!. **,s

}.f

• p/ et +.; 6 *. t

• .'.3.- /.s. - . = - I .g;;f.'. _

4fp e e.- - .6.-***

. =)~; r. . -- 'y:~.:n

- ,..n(-'.fe.. .1

-s- .Q_ . .l g5 7.*s Gf 1f , ' .4J

.' ,,- --.. , 3.j'3. , .

z. ,,

. . . . - Q;,t n m; .

g

v. r s t b y;5 .. .

%y,; ..a.; lN. 'ly .

.w. . . .: ; .

gm,:g:,g. ;2v. e..a l PPSP-CEI R-2.

9..M."..W.e.,;O@e -'/..*r..-E M,n/.Z,.

c ..-

L 8 E. 1,.y M M.fM.o . . ~fs. . c ; . ., ., :;.,f. eg q , .: -x:. . - - i,

. c;~ ge

. t:

. .. .p  !

%  :;w,,,.b..

s

.; .**. c .,

• ' - ^  % m .. .

f..v 9. . $+3 s.a .

v Fjc$cM;MG;~'1fluf a . ' 0:,1 ' ~ ~ j

. go 5

' *~

.c.

. ./ .

.. *' ) r - *

.$ Jq. .I '

-}$'.ii.<*.M'*W.4S' @

. A '#I " ' *

• ihr. - )-4 cc ,,jd t ~

ft%M3 q i..

g .p% .QM .' i, '(Q'y ,,.[. ,,y  ; , .,,, t' 9'g.k.hYNd

.H.y., .

• 8 . . !. Q4 . ~ '- # ,7

.g . .,

s.,fy,::*. fg v. M.m'('4 g g-e r h *'

i; .

~"',. - ~ -

W9.. '.y: JM ..,

.? -

• u.-

. ., ' r.- /

S , g:.W:.%s. . .T,'w< d' S ..P .:.ps w .Q . ~..&,g w @Fq't y

,; , l. ; . , .. ~.m. 'v. -.. ..  ; . S,b. ' . >E 1.

D .<,1n, . ..c./

. g- h,

,;;u .y , w.

.r M..

• . ~ . . .

gt ~ ,,

". .?. . w ,\.,.: M...

- .: - . .. ,wd;n. ,;.m.-

. .:.:r.w# uuv.-

v .w n w - '. .: ,

w n-m+M :n ." .---.

., y .My t ikg. m. . ). $....W g,.. .

d 4

. . .. m. -

. ;w; .y%, .t;.4. m'4.d.@;p,g. m. . . . v: ..,m. :' u. . .

n M.

upK w

w..sw-e:,x- .

. . .E. . ' u. s- =, p ..

~ %n

~ . . . -- .. e.- - ... . , .

. . . . . . . m.

w . .

. . ,y,y. . , ..

.,:.m. ~ ' -'.f.

-- ; .. .y .. .. ... -%.

.. r.

;e. , -

..,,..,..g..p,.

. . . .. T 3.. l u;c .

1' ,- ,,d POWER PLANT CUMULATIVE i

s e .

w

,.J

; i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT -"

g .

":.y l$.r i REPORT sc  ;-

l

, 1

' .nf Y V .. * ,'!

. '-r (- l.

n.

x, u

,,, / -

@r a kQQ,..-t :Q$  ? I h

f- .q;yyggw w .vX.s. y4 8

• 1 -

. .- , l ,

' , . . g, 4 J ' s,

' l e e **.* .P i .

,.. -r

'.'a' .

, Cj.'.Th

.&w&, em .i ,. p*l[% -h'cit hl6. , , *', , . ,&1*:e,. s

..w--

I

.\*a a ,.:,

. MD, .r  ;>{ */d**.. :}! I

• ".. .o ? ' ' .p!

4. /. E.'";W . b.'l.T'j..

~ ! . ,t;,M ' c',. . -

. e. ,.I!...- ,7'.y$.M* k.% f;-.'f.,'"i .

. m.y

. m.,.

. " , .',. ...., m.:

3y.. ~ v

%l5 g sfl.v.p .

% .a.:, .

.c ,,

..o .

- 9 :.. - -;;s.g . .

E a, - y . , . - ,, rg g ..** f . .

.' a L' . ,'.'. **.

x .Y.' C',~

.. n

' We.

- w W^

^ * ' '

W.*:C- s NOVEMBER,.1978

.-. ' . .v.

.7

a , $;.;c.a$pi....-jw f).

.s;>. -

'.g. ,

s, .

., .t.

t s.

. , .  :. - 61.t .&. .s r..

.-v

.wg,s ' * ~. e. r;,' , " -

f g

e.

qq' o g '

r'y F ] ,~'? 7 1  %

D

[

. *g'{[ ' , p',' ,

.xt aw a e,. . +.. .

..,.o e ,. . , , . .. ;

w.:. v.. .m...

I.

3.e.

~

~

I 1 5'9 4 i.5.1 W..cm.. ..5.;

a+

... e. ....

r .u

. u.. .

n..

ARYLAND POWER PLANT. SITING PROGRAM L1

.-7...,-:r.i?.$r'Wd*N*.'V((':hf,1IY...-[5h#

' / _i jy ;e.!%sig; Lw.4n by/k'$$ -- ,dhi." "

'ARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES E DEPARTMENT OF ' HEALTH AND .

M  :,f.*;'i t:;{) .'], .,

4TAL HYGIENE eDEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOP.

4T u DEPARTMENT OF STATE PLANNING W COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY

[l . y 2/".-T / .,.; .,.

JSLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ...'.,,.. 'i 9. ~. "'l N . . .a '-' 4: - .,q;

.r,,..,, ,. p/. . '  ! I' ~";I w 8k '* 2'J"' > 1

., ~ 'O .

. ='

. ,. 'i -

- - N.,;....w ,...$wu...

M.LAw;.rt.m.$ b,Nbik r-m<-r=== '3 -- Ehfdhk -

. ie, i

n .

CHAPTER IV

[ j RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS  !

li i

i The first Cumulative Environmental I= pact Report has presented a discussion e of general siting, safety and health issues pertinent to nuclear power plants. l It also presented projections of radiological impacts in Maryland, based upon  ;

the utility companies' projections for additional nuclear plants, as delineated l in their 1975 Ten Year Plans. I l

Since 1975, extensive changes have occurred in the utility companies'  !

scheduling for new generation. In addition, the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant has commenced operation, providing an opportunity to compare actual impact {

measurements with preoperational predictions. '

This Chapter summarizcf, the current planning for additional nuclear power l in Maryland and focuses. on the operations to date at Calvert Cliff s. The '

quantities of electrical energy produced, ef fluents released and wastes created are discussed. Results of radiological environmental monitoring activities are presented and radiation doses from plant operation are estimated. Comparisons '

are made, where appropriate, to regulatory limits and to predictions made prior  !

to reactor start-up. Emphasis is placed on continued compliance with NRC ,

ft j guidelines for keeping radiation doses to the public "as low as reasonably  ;

achievable". Finally, radiation doses from plant operations to date are compared to variations in natural dose levels measured in Maryland, and the health risks i from low level dose increments are tabulated.

A. Status of Nuclear Power in Maryland e The Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, owned by the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, is the only operating nuclear power plant in Maryland. Each of its two units has ,a Pressurized Water Reactor licensed at 2700 W (thermal),

with design net electrical power output of 845 MWe. Present ratings are 820 We for Unit 1 and 855 MWe for Unit 2 in the winter but 810 MWe for both units in ,

the summer, when maximum discharge temperacure restrictions may limit plant l power (1).

[

The Peach Bottom Atomic Generating Station, owned by Philadelphia Electric Company, is situated in Pennsylvania on the Susquehanna River, approximately 3 ,

miles north of the Maryland border. Peach Bottom Unit 1, a 40 MWe High Tempera- '

ture Gas Cooled Reactor, was decommissioned in January 1975. It was originally I placed in service on May 25, 1967 as a demonstration plant. During its operating l lifetime, it generated more than 1 billion kilowatt hours of electrical energy (2). i Peach Rottom Units.2 and 3 are both 1065 Mue Boiling Water Reactor systems. l Unit 2 began commercial operation in July of 1974, and was followed by Unit 3 in i l-December of the same year (3).

fjj According to their 1978 Ten-Year Plans filed with the Maryland Public Service l Commission, none of the State's utilities now plan new nuclear units for at least  ;

the next ten years (4). The Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station planned by t i  ?,,

j ES 1594 152 l .l, ,

d."f Ah 1., i@

to retain the site and to pursue a regulatorche n e y. Potomac 50 y 7~h E suitability.

y determination of the site'sPEPCO intends,$

33 dc.4

%y EO year plan the nuclear units scheduled ee man site. rom itsfor theten-current PerryThe RD 1977, that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission OniDecember 1, .]l y.)

BG&E's application for an early siteconstruction review and ssued be a' report site permit denied on the basis that at least one other a y related issues of surrounding population respect todensity and ne

..g the safety 3.s 7'~.~ e arby military activities ( .,

city near Maryland before theThe Philadelphia Electric Company n for any new nuclear capa- ,Y'

.does

(.!/59 Fulton site, 1992-1994 in Pennsylvania directly time frame acros .

Bottom.

s the Susquehanna River fromgPe Company at Chesapeake City on the C&D CanalThree owned by the alternati ready .thw St Program far its site land-bank. River, Maryli.nd.

plus the Bainbridge site, ught by the Power Plant Siting .g.g .curr 'M f,q '

All three of these alternatives are located f1 in ,

zation to begin construction ofo asnuclear a Limited Work plant at SDelma Authori- .,m?f..:

i -

the C&D Canal three miles easty of andthe Mar border. ummit l Bridge, Delaware, on Current plans do not d[<g specifyten current theyear typeplanning of reactor to be used and indicate period. an on-line date beyond g thei F%

its Point of Rocks site, both on theackPOak tThe Potomac site, but retaining Edison Q Co o omac River. . e,1 However, the Company currently mate hascapacity no plans toriginally o of 2500 MWe.

~

o use the site. (l[ ' '

B. 5 '

.9 Operations at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power n Pla t t.j M. ,

{

Electrical Power Production M

~f

.. . )

Calvert Cliffs Unit l? T L Following start-up test procedures 1 achieved initial criticality on October 7

-}

May 8, 1975. , 1974.

.$/ .}

was declared commercialUnit 2 achieved on April 1,initial 1977 criticality on Novemb, it was placed , [.8in com "I e -g er 30, 1976, and r produced a total of .

14,778,865,000 kilowattAs hoof r January 1,1978, Unit 1 had N

Unit 2 had produced 4,541,354,000 kilowatt u sh of electrical energy, and ours (6). .ki /. jh.

,s h

mental impact calculations made by .

fortheUnit 2.Baltimoraverage The environ- -h[ ca the Atomic Energy Comission for the Cal e Gas & Electric Company and by

.i.L. c

' h ,C.

city factor, and attempted to estimate an annual divert Cliffs Plant assumed an 8 representative of the average over the plant's 30 scharge value that would be }'E(1 year lifetime (7). In the "f3j values given are based upon 3.42 factor. c reactor ollow, years*' ofcomoari the " predicted ' 9 'j~.-

,f M ;

The reader should bear in mind thatoperation at 80% capacity jff time after start-up, but neither reactor hsame amountperiod ofof the pow or an equivalent -?pp as yet built up its internal inventory i ,'y qfd IV-2 m 1594 153 ..T

g. 1,. s

. e we . . .e~

-[UMee->=

. . .i*:.m.*

1 l

i i

' i

,f the

• longer-lived radioactive materials to the levels that will be representa-ive of the average values over the lifetime of the plant.

h I

adioactive Ef fluette Releases Tables IV-la and IV-lb present listings of the total reported releases from the I i

alvert Clif fs plant through December 31, 1977, for liquid and atmospheric k .

rathways , respectively (8,9,10,11,12,13,14). Reported releases are derived [ ,

' rom reasured total releases or from sampling of continuous or semi-continuous ov-level discharges. Also included in the tables for comparison are the release ,

salues predicted by the Atomic Energy Commission in its Final Environmental ' 9 i

tate ent before plant start-up, and the values predicted by the Maltimore Gas & f {

,

lectric Company in 1976 for its " Appendix I Evaluation Report"* (15). l l t

The tabulated quantities of radionuclides released to the environment are l

i-all f ractions of the releases that are allowable under the portion of the '

31 ant's operating license which limits concentrations and quantities of radio- '

active materials in plant ef tluents.** The various limitations on plant efflu-ents are summarized in Table IV-2, along with the maxi =um fraction of the limits l4h ictually reached in plant operations through December of 1977. l 9

i ,

{

In addition to the limitations on the quantities and concentrations of l r radionuclides in ef fluents, the plant is also required to keep the radiation [  ; j ioses to the public "as low as reasonably achievable". Guideline dose values ,

',.;p felineating what the NRC considers reasonably achievable will be discussed later l [ !d in the impact section of this Chapter. It has been customary for estimates of I

j!

l

robable plant radioactivity ef fluents to be made prior to plant start-up, and l

o oredict maximum dose rates which the power plant could deliver to members j l, {g at the public, assuming that the plant released effluents at the predicted rate, '

f rather than the maximum allowable rate. Two such sets of effluent predictions l [

, ave been included in Tables IV-la and IV-lb. It is useful to assess the accuracy of  ;

these predictions as well as trends in the actual release rates in order to ' i i l usess the level of confidence for prediction of the plant's future performance l' f in keeoing doses "as low as reasonably achievable". ,

lf i I In general, the total quantity of radioactive material released to the sater has been about one third the level predicted before startup. Total J atmoseheric releases, which are predominantly Xe-133, have exceeded predic- f Ui tiems because the release rate of this radionuclide was underpredicted by more ,

k

,l 1 ,

, 9, i'  ! i .

• Appendix I to 10CFR50 established " Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and I.iciting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion 'As Low As Is Reasonably l

l l q f

Achievable' for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Power Plant Effluents". al p All licensed nuclear power plant owners were required to file a report with the "I ,  ;

i NRC by June of 1976, demonstrating that their reactor design complied with the ' '

provisions of the Appendix I. .?;

I

• Ef fluent concentrations and quantities are limited by Section 2.3 of Appendix B, -

j h,

, i Environmental Technical Specifications to the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Facility Operating License issued by- the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  ; i:

i ).

O IV-3 1594 154 h]

h.

y- m m w:C%%'RYf)

Table IV-la. 'i 3 4ig Liquid radioactive effluents cumulative to December 31

)j

, 1977 M alWs 70:21 Releases AEC Prediction '? d Reported by 30:2 2002 Pralierien 1:

(1973 Es:.x 3.42) 2 T.-1:ium (1376 Est.x 3.42) Q 1110. C ries .3, f.)

Dissolvei Noble 3420. Curies 1160. Cries (*) ..It Cases 38.9 -

0:her -

7+

6.14 17.1 2.120 ..;

• MTAI. "

1155.04 Curies 3437.1 C ries Na-24 0.0356 1162.12 Ories d'

Ar-41

- 'N 0.0000239 Cr-51 0.320

- '. h

}h-54 0.137 ~l 0.104 0.0000342 l th-56 0.'205 - y, 0.000532 - 3 Fe-55 -

Fe-59 0.371 0.787 0.0000342 .[

Co-57 0.171 -

0.00321 - I. ,

Co-58 -

.9 1.95 Co 60 7.18 0.0140 0.263 Kr 85a 0.205 0 0.0298 Ir 87 0.000117 0.000626

- [*

Kr 88 - i.

U.0000726 -

Rb 86  ; ~

St 85 0.000729 0.000445 0.00171 -

'(I '

St-89 -

1,4 -

0.118 Sr-90 0.0123 0.00410 - -[$

Sr 91 0.00127 0.000137

- ["

Y 90 -

-  !)

Y-91 -

0.000185 - ".'

'y 2r/Sb-95 0.855 0.406 0.0000342 Ir-97 0.00137 - Ji-

>b-99 0.00391 0.0156 3

4 #

Tc 99m 0.342 .

- 0.00157 h-103 0.00168 3

0.0789 k-106 0.000639 0.000479 - \[

0.000133 Rh-103m - -

-h Rh-105 0.000479 -

.2 Ag-110m C .10',

0.0000787 - .4 Ci-109 0.t, M37

- ;h Sn-ll3 -

0.00!$4 -

.ii' Q Sn-125 - -

Sb-124 0.00000445 -

l'A, Sb-125 0.00518 -

E '

0.0103 Sb 127 -

- 7.69. . '

7

Te-125m 0.0000257 -

Te-127 0.000410 - ' [-

Te-1272 -

0.00325 - -l- .,

Te-129 0.00325 -

0.00422 0.342 -

h# -

• i..__']g o

g 8-

- y i.,,,_.

i l l Table IV-la. Liquid radioactive effluents cumulative to December 31, 1977 i (Continued)  !'

l i ll Radienuclides Total Releases AE; Predi: tic: ECE Predicticn Reper si try EG2 (1973 Est.x 3.42) i (1976 Est.x 3.42) t Te-120m -

0.342 -

Te-131 - <

0.000839 -

Te-131m - 3 i i ,

0.00479 - '

Te 132 0.000300 0.161 s , l 0.000308 I 130 -

• i i 0.0000684 I-131 0.872 0.923 l

0.0332 I-132 0.00805 .- l ,

l 0.00103 I-133' O.231 -

i 0.0195 I-134 0.00201 - {

I-135 0.0268 - l 0.00277 Xe-133 _ 38.0 -

l Xe-133m 0.242 - i Xe-135 I 0.523 -

Cs-134 I Cs-136 0.236 0.00781 3.76 1.27 0.718 l\

9 0.229 id Cs 137 0.848 4

0.205 0.581 *y Cs-138 0.00638 -

3 Ba-133 0.000172 - -

f Ba-137m -

0.239 0.445 I. [

Ba/La-140 0.233 0.00821 -

'h Ce-139 0.00206 - -

h Ce-141 -

ll 0.000718 -

Ce-143 -

0.000106 -

)l l Co 144 - p 0.000410 Pr-143 -

0.000581 H

l' hli Mi-147 - , i 0.000233 -

Pm-147 - j '

0.0000445 Pm-149 -

0.00171 -

j  ; f,]

W-137 ': q.

0.000762 -

I Au 198 0.000163 - - {

U-235 0.000161 -

i Np-239 0.0385 -

'. ld thidentifiei > 0.0295 ,

j -

0.000171 @) . t

< 0.136 li!

'.'d* 4! ,

."!hl '

l (a)BCE also used the 1976 vintage NRC model which would have predicted a 1 <

release of 1,810 cries of tritit=t in the 3.42 reacter years of cperation. l, (b)This iten cantains "all other" releases predicted by the BCE model. !ll I

, I N o

u -

1594 156 f

, i .

h

,: i'!

. , 1 I I iI b IV-5 L Eli li

9 7. m - t 4

Table IV-lb. .~rt.

.s.,- r

w. ' Q Airborne releases cu::nlative to, December 31 xeno., .m-1977 u.d._,E

.S D pg g-u,s Total Releases Reported by BC E AEC Prediction ~W f;M Total Noble Cases (1973 Est.x 3.42) EC E PredictienOO (1976 Est.x 3.42) f ;s.. b !$b  %

39400. Curies Total Halogens 12300, C: ries < }e. .yi^j w-

.311 23700. C.: ries - .

Particalate 0.855 0.79 Gross 8 0.619

. iQ'3. .-l,j' g, .l Par icalate -

- .-7 tC ~ *C Gross Tritita a >0.00000131

<0.00000345 -

- . Q. Q [ ti

".'MW.<-

Na-24 159.

1160.00

Ad W ' -

Ar-41 0.000992 - 4 i

-h. JM 9.20 Cr-51 -

0.00674 2-54 -

d.i23%

m-56 0.0494 - D, 5 rs.

0.000330 0.000787 Fe-59 ~4 / .

Co-57 - k-Co-58 0.0000249 .-

0.000257 '

A',.e -. .

0.00634 Co-60 0.0103 0.00257 fi 'k

• Ni-65 O2-64 0.00000317 0.00116

. h)

Br-82 0.0125 -

Z.h Dyf/

t 0.00107 Kr 85 -

lh 7.94 - } .

Kr-85m 2370.0 'n ,

38.0 6500.

Kr-87 - -

11.9 13.7  :-. . .

Kr-88 20.5 Mig 21.4 3.42 Rb-88 68.4 .[pf;7 1.47 27.4 Sr-89 - ' 'f.g 0.000370 4 St-90 -

0.0000147 0.0000547 Sr-91 0.00116

[k 2r/Nb-95 -

0.0000103 j.7 W-99 0.00774 -

' .j N 103 0.000271 -

N

- n 0.00135 Cd-109 -

'l i*c 0.00000440 Sn-113 ,

h 0.000107 .,'-

Sn-133 -

Te-129 0.00000436 - I. I.;

Te-132 0.0000000805 - -

- :s I-131 0.0000389 - +

0.313 -

I-132 0.855 * ..,

0.0685 0.342 I-133 - U-L 0.247 -

I-134 - 3p 0.0231 0.410 I-135 - I +

0.189 -

s sg.

Xe-131m -

,h.a 23.1 -

Xe-133 37600.

109.

23 6.

g. ,

j Xe-133m 176.

9400.

21900.

A e Xe-135 -

1500. 147 ,,

Xe-138 1.23 123.

68.4

~,5 -

• 20.5 IY 0.00

-)

~%

.s 2.; i IV-6 1594 157 _a 4' _

l

I /z

. i ._.

-s Table IV-lb. Airborne releases cu :ulative to December 31, 1977 '

U

=.

(Continued)

! J t

Total Releases AEC Preiictica 3,011 Predictica b P.2dionuclides i Reported by BC;Z (1373 Est. x 3.42) (1375 Est. x 3.42) j i

Cs-134 - - 0.000787 l -

Cs-137 0.001CS - -

l ,'

Cs-138 0.9516 - -

Ba-133 0.00105 - - 1 Ba/La-140 0.00564 - - .

~

Co-139 0.000498 - -

Au-198 0.00000634 - - .

Np-1~,9 0.000232 - -

}

l l (a)This r.:odel neglects any noble gases centributing less than 3.42 c:=ies to -

this table ani any iodines contributing less than 0.000342 c ries to this .

table. . i:

i in (b)3C3E also used the 1976 vintage NRC odel which would have predicted a 1

• ji release of 1,850 curies of tritiu:n in the 3.42 reactor years of operation. ql

t. :

i,

'f i

,k I;

L i'l 1594 \SB &i

• i11

'l I'! ,

p q i l!'

,j , !, ,F

!l It ii i, il ;'. .

! ', f

.! j..

d

.p J.

i

.t .,

' t i.,

i';

• r  :

e i h.

l i: l..(

. 11? ,

m

- i

. -l; l

;fj t

i. t:f: -

'l , :t T :ii h

4 -

pi IV-7 l . 1 i Ii 2 Iii*

Table IV-2. Regulatory limitations on radioactivity in Calvert Cliffs effluents .

t Type of Effluent Limited value or D iuation Il'* I#'ss i f imit A

Total quantity of radioniclides, 10 cl/ unit / calendar quarter 0.07 excInling trititta and dissolved noble gases, in aqueous effitents Al ucous concentration for all Limits specified in 10 CITt20, Appendix radionisclides, including trititsa 0.000111 (trititsa) and dissolved notele gases B for concentrations in waters in tai- 0.00393 (dissolved, restricted areas noble gases) 0.0244 (others)

Average qtutterly rate of release (Qiantity of rusclide "i")

in atsuspheric offluents of

-< 0*6 0*0763 all radioniclides except I-131 i (3.85 x' 105 ) pgcg) and particulates with Ictf-lives -

> 8 days Micre 7011 values are defined in Appendix n, Table II, Colinius 1 of 10 CI'It20 U'

s cn Average annual rate of rclesso in atmospheric effluents of E (Quantity of ruclide "i") 0.0732 all radionuc!! des except I 131 i (3.85 x 105 ) OKg) -< 0.08 ami particulates with half-lives

> 8 days Mere FDit vattes are defined in

. , Appendix B, Table II, Coliers 1 of 10 GR20 Qurterly average release rate of I-131 anl particulates witle half- 0.16 :: C1/sec (I-131 equivalent) 0.0538 lives > 8 days U'l e hinual average release rate of 0.08 p Ci/sec (I-131 equivalent) 4 I-131 anl particulates with half- 0.0719 lives > 8 days

• I w _ _ - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ g* - -

I, '

.1 j h

than a factor of three.* In order to understand the significance of differences i between the predicted and reported release values, it is necessary to make [ l comparisons for individual radionuclides or groups of radionuclides in the [

context of the various pathways by which they deliver radiation doses to the public. [

At=ospheric releases are predominantly radioactive isotopes of the inert or " noble" gases krypton and xenon. These gases do not accumulate in biota or {

soil, but will give a radiation dose as they blow past an individual. Xenon-133 i makes up 95% of the reported airborne releases, and is averaging approximately '

.. l four times the AEC's predicted release rate. Although relatively large batch i releases of Xe-133 during the first half of 1977 resulted in quarterly totals ,

two of three times greater than the average for the remainder of the operating -

period, it is still clear that the average release rate for the plant will exceed the AEC's predicted value by a factor of three to four. The more recent calcu-lations by BG&E assumed a Xe-133 release rate of 6,000 Ci/yr/ unit which has been exceeded by 50% to 70%.in operations reported to date. Since Xe-133 has only a .  :

5.27 day half-life, production and discharge of this isotope has already reached equilibrium in the reactors, and an increase is not to be expected with increas- , i ing cumulative generation. Since Xe-133 is a gas produced within the fuel road during fission of uranium, it can be expected that the release rate for this isotope i, will vary somewhat among fuel batches, depending upon the number of imperfections .'

in the fuel cladding. Changes in the leakage rate from the primary coolant loop ,

U could also result in future changes in atmospheric release rates for Xe-133.

1 N Except for Xe-135, reported reluses of other noble gases have been near or  ! p below their predicted values. Kr-89 is the only noble gas radionuclide with a F d half-life long enough (10.2 years) to allow for continued build-up in the reactor -

h over a period of years. However, reported releases of Kr-85 have been only a few .

thousandths of the predicted values, and it appears that the turnover of fuel, j water and air in the reactors and containments will prevent future increases o'f , 6 the magnitude necessary to approach predicted levels. "

i Atmospheric releases of radioactive halogens (i.e., iodines and bromines) o h

may be bioaccumulated in the human thyroid gland through several pathways, y fr.cluding inhalation and absorption through the lungs, ingestion of leafy veget-ables with radiohalide deposition, and ingestion of milk containing radiohalogens l4 l!

l bioaccumulated by cows. Because I-131 has an 8 day half-life and constitutes the [

majority of radiohalogen releases, it is responsible for the majority of radio- ,

halogen delivered doses. [

Releases of radioactive I-131 were approximately one-third of the value  ;

originally predicted by the AEC, but closely approximated the values predicted i later by BG&E. Releases of the other detected isotopes of iodine were not j ,

predicted, except for BG&E's prediction for I-133. Because of their low release l .

rates and very short half-lives, these isotopes are of ten neglected in impact -

I d predictions. Again, 'because radioactive halogen isotopes all have short half- i lives (except for I-129, which has not been predicted or detected), the reactors l ,'

already should have attained their equilibrium releases rates for this group of radionuclides.

• As will be discussed later, this release rate is still well below allowable limits, and has not resulted in environmental dose rates of any significance.

"- S 1594 160 t a ,

~~i e- *E.

T %.

9 c6

%.$ NA gy vapor (HTO instead of H O) and can potentially 2 er deliver i *yM public in body cnly by fluids. inhalation, absorption through the lungs and subsequent i ose to the -

their pre-operational calculations. Atmospheric release of tritium was nclusion not predic S

1(

5:

models predict atmospheric tritium release rates nearly twelve timesHow reported by BC&E for operations to date.

h@

greater thanQ F Since tritium has a 12.3 year half-life, reported eported. releas increase somewhac in the future as concentrations water systems. increase in i t e n ernal plant Gd either radioactive decay or atmospheric release rate in $limiti this increase will be less than if the equilibrium concentrati entrations,d controlled by radiological half-life. ons were principal 17 increase in release rate with time until the last two quartersQuarterly rate dropped by two orders of magnitude.

.igi r crease in reported releases occurred because of a change -i M i

. ing the activity discharged during purges of air in the contain of estimat-e M rather than because ment buildings, of an actual change in the plant's internal concent j operating procedures (16).

one reason for the large variability ,in which theare model pr based upon earlier observations at other operating reactors. dh

(

Original AEC predictions did not sition for radioactive particulates to be released to the atmospherinclude

kk @

g.g recent BG&E predictions do include predictions for 8 isotopes ments indicate e.

Actual The more measure-ay 6 of the29 different by radionuclides being released in a p rti M -4 including 8 predicted BG&E. culate form, $$

potentially enter the human body by deposition in lungs orRadioactive particulate but y.t radioactive particulates actually released.these pathways are usu BC&E's Reportedtherelease rates approximate ?  :

by factorspredictions ranging from only 2.6 for Sr-90 and Cs-13'7, to 63. other e pr di ctions being low 90% was Rb-88, an isotope not included in the predictiOf ons. The presence of this isotope is to be expected, however, since it is prod Q,h .

decay of Kr-88 as well as directly by fission of uranium uced by the radioactive W atotal of the factor other particulates released exceed the total BG&EExcluding of 23'. e Rb-88, the -

- @Q . 'W amounting to less than 2 mil 11 curies, exclusive .*

of the Rb-88Sti mall s.a 3

• l j noble gases, which do not participate in biological es: 1) dissolved process '

does not bioaccumulate, but which does enter biological , 2)*

systtritium, which N biological and inorganic processes of the environmentas .

eract in both 'q ;.gstab

..g was not estimated by the AEC in their original prediction us releases ,3 '

Since they are chemically inert and the water shields aquatic bi vert Cliffs. /7f emitted in onlyecosystem.

the aquatic a short distance away, dissolved noble gases have insiota from rad quantity discharged discharged directly to the water is only about 0.001 to the atmosphere. of the qua e-133 s

73;' f

..f 1594 161  %. ~gi

J,,' samiig '

).1 m 3 m'Y &

O

. o Ju 6, . &){ x 0

o i

L H

h  !

Aqueous releases to Chesapeake Bay have contained one-third of the AEC's D, E i predicted quantities of tritium. The more recent predictions by BG&E indicate "

l that this will be the equilibrium release rate, while the never NRC model (see y f footnote to Table la) indicates that the release rate will increase with time by nearly a factor of 2. The quarterly total release data are somewhat difficult to H <

extrapolate because Unit 2 has just recently begun operation. However, it does i -

appear that RG&E's predictions are most consistent with the data to present. If fl 8 s o, it indicates that tritium concentrations reach equilibrium between production and discharge within several months of commercial reactor operation, and that both '

y the aqueous and gaseous releases of tritium will remain stable near their , resent i values. '

e The total of other radionuclides contained in the aqueous discharges has been about one-third the pre-start up prediction, but is about three time greater b, i than RG&E predicted in its Appendix I Evaluation Report, which considered rela-tively few isotopes. The radionuclides which have been reported in plant releases ll and are most lik.ely to be of significance in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem are

, 'j ,'

y b Cr-51, Mn-54, Co-58, Co-60, Zr/Nb-95, Ru-103, Ag-110m, I-131, Cg-134, and I-131. !i d Of these, only the two cesium isotopes were predicted in the proper range by the 9 R

BG&E Appendix I Evaluation Report, while the others were either greatly under pre- l dicted or not included in these predictions at all. The earlier predictions by

{l;'l' u

the AEC more reasonably approximate the reported releases for all these isotopes Y except Zr/Nb-95, Ru-103 and Ag-110m. Because the ecological portions of the impact prediction models were grossly pessimistic, however, actual measurements f I h

of these radionuclides in biota are used later in this Chapter to assess the '

I significance of this under prediction of releases insofar as it affects actual .

1, radiation doses to the public.

g Solid Radioactive Waste i ll

! 3

1 Low level radioactive waste shipments from the Calvert Cliffs plant during  ! I calendar year 1977 are given in Table IV-3, tabulated by the type of waste and the j [ l:

estimated radionuclide content. There were 19 separate shipments of radioactive i i

wastes by truck from the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power plant to Barnwell, S.C.

pl l during 1977. Prior to 1977, BG&E was not required to tabulate such shipments and report them to the NRC.

. E

'. f Spent Fuel Accumulation P o d;

,  ! N As of January 1, 1978, Unit 1 had refueled only once and Unit 2 not at all, ,,

giving an on-site inventory of 72 spent fuel assemblies in the storage pool. i; '

' j During 1978, both Units 1 and 2 will refuel, bringing the total of spent fuel j ,'

l I stored on site to 216 assemblies (17). To date, no spent fuel has been shipped j {

off-site. ,

f g  ;

Y -

In the sp' ring of 1977, President Carter initiated a major change in federal l ,

l

.j .

Ocy by prohibiting the commercial reprocessing or disposal of spent nuclear }

.ii !I; reactor fuel. Although he announced plans for the federal government to begin y WA-ing spent fuel from utility companies for federal disposal, the time-table d

,! Iq$

p, T.i specified by the Department of Energy does not anticipate that federal 0 i y i acquisition could begin before 1982. Permanent federal disposal sites are not j .

j expected to be available before 1988, and perhaps as late as 1993 (18). :j,

j IV-11 . 594 1b2

m r sy

..g

• 3

't 5,9

- e Table IV-3. Solid wastes shipped off-site during 1977 ' d5 y

Quantity of Wastes _

..A utl y

.'mab 7

Tvoe of Waste Volt =,e :a Radioactivity 2 3

a. spent resin, filter sludge 3

evaporator bottoms, etc. 28.8 m 33.9 /S curies ..g

b. dry cenpressible wastes, :A contaminated equipment, etc. 3 a.$

232.0 m 0.807 curies '

c. irradiated cc=onents, 48.7 m3 63.6 4O control rods, 'etc. curies 1+ T1 Q3 li N '

Comoosition by Radionuclides -E h Q*

o Nuclide . iu ~

Total Activity hh-54 33 1.75 curies Co-57 Co-58 0.102 curies v

@h Co-60 9.94 curies MN.e .

68.3 Zr-95 curies 0.0142 curies

'!Il .

h"o-95 &

I-131 0.0279 curies 4 Cs-134 1.74 curies 6.

4.65 curies Cs-137 10.9 curies 3 c? 3 Ba-140 #6,$k 7 La-140 0.267 curies 4 0.385 curies g,

,f-['.-g g a

~ $.

.3 'j.

1594 163 .y ..

e

,Q.

' d?2

,/ .' {? .

. I'4b

- r 'f#

?8

]o

.h -~

/

IV-12 y'#g

% g.

. ,',y*

. , w-

I M

tihen the Calvert Clif f s plant was designed and constructed, it was assumed ,

that spent fuel assemblies would be stored on-site for cool-down for approximately Y one year, followed by shipment off site to a commercial spent fuel reprocessing .

.u.

plant. The spent fuel storage pool was therefore designed to hold 410 fuel .N assembli~es, so that it could accommodate one annual discharge (72 assemblies) M from each reactor plus one complete core (217 assemblies), in case it ever became .g necessary to empty one reactor.

Under the new f ederal policy, the Calvert Clif fs Nuclear Power Plant would .} ;g completely fill its spent fuel storage pool in 1980. Unless BG&E makes arrange-  !'

ments to store additional spent fuel on-site, this would force a shutdown of the .-

plant. In response to this situation, BG&E has redesigned the racks which contain e the spent fuel in the storage pool (19-23). The new densely packed racks can ,

accommodate 528 spent fuel assemblies on each of the two sides of the storage . -

pool. On January 4,1978, the NRC issued amendments to the Facility Operating l !

Licenses for both units at Calvert Cliff s, allowing the new rack design to be j j i i~

placed in both halves of the spent fuel pool. BG&E has since changed the racks in '

the Unit 2 side, thus providing sufficient storage for continued operation until

! 1

.ianuary of 1982. A similar substitution of racks on the Unit 1 side can be used '

to extend operations through September 1984, without shipping spent fuel off-site.

As of January 1982, 720 assemblies are expected to be in storage. This number could increase to 1000 by 1984 if there is no shipment to a federal facility before l I

that date.

l Spent fuel elements are kept at much lower temperatures in the spent fuel '

l pool than they experienced in the reactor core. Experience has shown that even fuel rods which leaked fission products while in the reactor will cease leaking j when cooled-down and transferred to the spent fuel pool. In addition, Zircoloy cladding has been demonstrated to withstand storage for many years in demineral-  :

ized water. Consequently, the storage of additional spent fuel elements is not l expected to cause any significant increase in the discharge of radioactivity in i ef fluents f rom the reactor site.

Safety issues investigated for spent fuel pool rack modifications include 6 the possibility of accidently initiating a fission chain-reaction in the spent  :

fuel pool and the , consequences of accidently releasing a puf f of radioactive noble gases by damaging fuel rods while they are stored in the pool (e.g., by

(

f dropping a heavy object on them). The additional risks involved in utilizing the densely packed racks at Calvert Cliffs were found to be insignificant in investigations by BG&E (24) and the NRC (25).

C. Radiological Ef fects Around the Calvert Cliffs Plant Site \

\'

Extensive radiological sampling is conducted around the Calvert Cliffs site by both BC&E and the State. In addition, other radiological sampling activities of the State Government elsewhere in Maryland provide context for interpreting the results around Calvert Cliffs. \  !

. l g Sampling methods used to detect atmospheric discharges from the plant in the m surrounding environment include: h i

g.,.

IV-13 1594 I64 3 g

h

- . .e

~ '

. fj e Measurement of monthly external radiation dose by thermoluminescence rj.

dosimetry (?LD) techniques at multiple sites, to detect radiation doses given by noble gases. *

~

• Collection of iodine and atmospheric particulates by air pump / filter devices at several locations, with gross a, gross 6, radiostrontium ,

and Y spectrum analyses of the samples, to detect radionuclides which

"~

may give a dose through inhalation.

e Collection of precipitation, local vegetation and soils for Y spectrum analysis to detect deposition of particulate effluents on crops and soils.

o Collection of milk from nearest dairy for radiostrontium and Y spectrum fj analysis to detect bioaccumulation in cows milk of radionuclides [t inhaled by cattle or ingested by grazing.  !

Data reports addressing methodologies and results of these analyses have been published by.the various investigators (26-37). Only the overall conclusions will f-be addressed here. ~

Detection of power plant effects is complicated by two factors. First, the f:'

natural radiation in the environment is not constant. Variations in rainfall and sunspot activity, and disturbances of soils by human activities such as bulldozing f; and fertilizing all produce variations in the level of natural background radiation. [

The second complicating factor is fallout from nuclear weapons testing, which continues to deposit some of the same types of radioactive material that are re- .;

leased by the power plant. To date, no measured doses and only one concentration of a radionuclide detected around Calvert Cliffs can reasonably be attributed to "-

airborne releases from the power plant. ,,

Two measurements of atmospheric concentrations of radiciodine by BG&E on-site --

for the weeks of March 30 to April 6 and April 20 to 27,1976 are most likely due to plant ef fluents (29), as radioiodine was not detected at any other location or

• in precipitation, in milk, or on ggass.

which averaged 0.02 and 0.01 pCi/m Inhalation at these measured concentrations, for t'eir h respective periods, could potentially result in dose rates of 0.0074 and 0.0037 mrem / week, respectively, to an infant's .;

thyroid gland.* NRC regulations set the limit for such doses to 30 mrem / year (0.6 mrem / week average) of f-site. Radioactive iodine was again detected in the --

atmosphere during each of the fallout periods from the Chinese nuclear weapons ,

tests on September 26, 1976, November 17, 1976 and September 17, 1977. Only during fallout from the 1977 test did calculations based on the plant's release rate and -

meteorological measurements indicate that the plant could have contributed detectable quantities to any of the radioiodine concentrations measured. Plant contributions "-

to measurements could have been as high as 10% of the measured value at an on-site location during the week of September 27 through October 4, 1977 (31), when fallout Li-iodine was detectable at all stations. Two on-site stations also showed detectable --

concentrations the following week. BG&E's calculations indicate that the plant s

• The thyroid gland of an infant will receive a greater radiation dose than the thyroid gland of an older individual who breaths air with the same concentration lu-of radioactive iodine. Consequently, the infant thyroid gland dose calculation is the controlling parameter for compliance with standards for maximum dose to }

any organ of an individual in the general public. .

IV-14 1594 165 B

e

/

may have contrihnted to these values (31). The equivalent maximum individual thyroid dose due to inhalation of these concentrations was only 0.005 arem/ week.

No measurements of radiotodine in milk are attributed to Calvert Cliffs effluents.

Measurable concentrations of radionuclides in atmospheric particulates, I precipitation, vegetation and milk have all been attributed to f allout, rather than to the power plant. These conclusions are based upon comparisons of near-field and farfield data during the periods of fallout.

Measurements of external radiation doses by TLD techniques have resulted in several instances when the BC&E operational phase data exceeded the range expe:ted f rom their preoperational measurements of ambient doses. Calculations of dose l based on the plants release records and meteorological data were used to aid  !

in interpreting these differences. Typically, variations in quarterly doses during i' the operational phase, which are above the range expected in ambient dose, are on the order of 1 mrem, while calculated plant contributions are on the order of 0.001 mrem or less for the same periods (29,30,31). Since the BC&E control station l in Raltimore ha. also exceeded its expected value by a significant margin,- these (

occurrences have been attributed to the random fluctuations and systematic varia-  ;

tion:. incumbent on any TLD system used to monitor for small increases above natural dass rates.

f As previously discussed, release rates of Xe-133 and Xe-135 have been signif-icantly higher than predicted. Calculation of the maximum site boundary dose due (

to these isotopes for the first quarter of 1977, when the greatest release was L

reported, produces an estimate of 0.23 mrem total body dose increment and 0.62 mrem E

skin dose increment (36). These estimates are based on the annual average dis-  :

persion factor to a point on the site boundary 1190 m SE of the plant. Calculations '

using actual meteorological data for that quarter may vary, but the accuracy is t.

sufficient to conclude that the maximum external dose increment due to the plant's h operations should he of the same order or smaller than the fluctuations in the TLD monitoring systems used for this work. These calculated dose rates, even if ]

3 they continued for the entire year, are only about 5% and 6% respectively, of the NRC guidelines applicable to the plant. {'

D, For additional perspective, it should be noted that the State's TLD data $

at Calvert Cliffs and elsewhere have shown over the past two years that the )

external dose rate near the power plant, including whatever increment is being 1 contributed by the plant, is among tse lowest in Maryland (36): about 55 mrem / j year compared to a value of 95 mrem / year tabulated by EPA as the MaryA'nd aver- 3 age (41). Moving from the Calvert Cliffs area to the Baltimore area can be [

expected to increase the annual dose rate by an average of 24 mrem / year. Moving -

From a wooden frame house to a stone house may add 14 mrem / year. Even the )

variation of soil composition among sites within the Calvert Cliffs area has been shown to account for dif ferences of 30 mres/ year. Consequently, the dose incre-j ments from the Calvert Cliffs airborne releases are not considered significant '1 in the context of normal human activities. 4 y

Sampling activities used to address the radiological impact of Calvert Cliffs j in the aquatic ecosystem of Chesapeake Bay include sampling water, sediment, and d aquatic biota, both edible and forage species.

y 1594 166 i a

IV-15 1

u

Discharges of radionuclides to the Bay were predicted to occur only through the cooling water discharge conduit (see Figure IV-1). However, sampling of storm water runoff and the sand below the storm water outfall pipe 002 have revealed that minor amounts of radioactivity are also being discharged by this path (37).

At least two discrete incidents (38,39) reported by BO&E to the Maryland Water Resources Administration have been responsible for discharges of radioactive material from this outfall. Continued discharge of barely detectable radioactivity may be due either to continued flushing of contamination caused by these two incidents, or by some other source. Isotopes associated with this discharge include Co-60, Co-58, Mn-54, Cs-134, and Cs-137. Sampling of shorezone fishes, oysters and sediments in close proximity to this outf all has indicated that the radioactivity discharged from the storm drain has probably not made any detectable contribution to radionuclide concentrations in the Bay. This is due in part to the (assumed) degree, it small quantity of radionuclides discharged, but also, in large is due to the rapid dispersion of effluents once they cross the beach and enter Chesapeake Bay.

This finding, that some radioactivity may be discharged into stormdrains, should be carefully considered when evaluating other nuclear power plant designs which may be proposed for sites where storm water runoff enters creeks or other natural water bodies with poor natural flushing.

Radionuclides discharged through the cooling water conduit at Calvert Cliffs have been detected in sediments, oysters and crabs (31,32,33,35,37). Although fallout contributions have also been detected, especially in shore zone fishes, ,

the plant's contribution can be ascertained by the near-field /far-field distribu- -

l tion or, in the case of Co-58 and Ag-110m, the additional fact that these isotopes were not detected in recent atmospheric fallout samples.

{

Table IV-4 presents a list of the =aximum concentrations of radionuclides which l have been detected in various media and attributed to the power plant's discharges. .

Of the items listed, it can be seen that Ag-110m has accumulated in the greatest concentrations.

This finding was somewhat s" nrising because discharges of Ag-110m

• had not been included in the plant's predicted releases nor reported in the plant's effluents prior to the time that the geographic correlation of Ag-110m concentrations ,

in oysters with distance from the plant's cooling water discharge location lead to the conclusion that this radionuclide was coming from the plant. -

However, Ag-110m had previously been detected in effluents from other nuclear plants, and NRC models

• current in the su=mer of 1977 were predicting Ag-110m discharges. The discrepancy between field data and release reports was resolved when it was discovered that an ,

error in BG&E's computerized effluent analysis routine caused AG-110m to be mis-identified as Zr-97. Zr-97 (probably actually Ag-110m) was first reported released -

by the plant in the first quarter of 1976.

• near Calvert Cliffs in the fourth quarter of 1976.Ag-110m was first detected in oysters By the summer of 1977, the concentration to date. of Ag-llom in oysters near the plant had reached its maximum value ,

While the nearfield concentrations in oysters remained essentially .

unchanged, Ag-110m reached detectable levels in sediments near the plant and also in oysters near Kenwood Beach, some 6 miles away, by the winter of 1977-78. At this point,

• it is not yet possible to predict equilibrium concentrations and distri-butions for the life of the power plant. Ag-110m has a 253 day radiological half- ,

life.

Biological turnover in biota and physical movements of water and sediment -

can be discharge. expected to produce a shorter ef fective half-life for media near the plant's This may be the case insofar as the Ag-110m concentration in oysters '

/

j there has remained relatively stable for three quarters, whereas the concentrations could be expected to continue to rise for a period of a few years if radioactive ,

((

to tv-t6 1594 167

r s

v,.

OUTFALL 001 1 y

COOLING WATER 3

OUTFALL 002  %. DISCHARGE POINT I STORM WATER ro . -j / i; DlSCHARGE i N / /// .

.v /// \

),

,j:

-/ i.

,//

/

j

// j u II o

ll INTAKE j

%m .

i

/ h i ST h \ l EACTORS h t

_ \

CURTAIN WALL f c: i

/ >

TUR81NE BUILDING e k

a 1

+

j.

u q

i

, Approx. 500 ft ,

8, 8

[

5. '

\ i i

3 l'

Ir fi-P Figure IV-1. Locations of radionuclide discharges into Chesaueake say i w

bl 1594 168  ; !

Iv-17 '

s u.

Hl a.

[

Table IV-4. Maximum concentrations of radionuclides attributed to plant operation

• in various environ- .

mental media Radionuclide Concentration Media Co-60 Units Ag-110m Co-58 Estuarine Biota Oysters 620 20 615 3i 1 pCi/Kg i 1.960 (wet)

Crab Meat 14 i .8 -- -- pCi/Kg i 1.96a (wet)

Shell 72 1 7 15 i 5 -- pCi/Kg i 1.960 (dry)

Fishes --

Estuarine Sediments Sand (5 i 7) 1715 18 i 6 pCi/Kg i 1.96a (dry)

Clay 31 i 10 6017 53 1 10 pCi/Kg i 1.96o (dry)

(:'

r

~

Beach Sand Discharge 002 Area --

12 1 4 53 1 4 pCi/Kg i 1.960 (dry)

Other Arcas -- -- -- pCi/Kg i 1.96o (dry) s

• 'Ihc radionuclides Zr-95, Nb-95, Ru-102, Ru-106 have also been detected in these media. Although documented as constituents of plant releases they are also fallout products. Levels in the plant area are not significantly different from control area concentrations, thus any plant contribution

]

m to the existing fallout-contributed level is unas_scssabic. Suc;. possible contributions have been a neglected here as insignificant contributors to total impact.

W

.'. m 4. +. e-.wg e w nm m .v p wa m ,,,, m m m p ,, % , , .

g i

decay were the only operable removal mechanism.

However, variations in the plant's discharge rate and seasonal speculative at this time. fluctuations make such treatments of the data very A program has been started in which uncontaminated oyster stock is placed directly in the Calvert Cliffs effluent for various periods of time to various ef provide fects. a ;roperly controlled experiment for the evaluation of these Figure IV-2a and IV-2b demonstrate that Ag-110m has become the predominant radioisotope in rysters near the power plant discharge. However, the dose received by an individual eating these oysters is quite small.

dose of 0.000009 An adult would receive a tract by eating one dozen " select" mrem to the whole body and 0.006 mrem to the gastrointestina 500 pC1/Kg.* (large) oysters with a Ag-1104 concentration of Talen computing doses to the " maximum exposed individual", the NRC's Regula-tory Guide 1.109 (40) recommends an assumption, that an adult will eat 5 kg of seafood other than fish, each year.in lieu Fiveof more specific data kilograms of oysters corresponds to about 24 dozen " select" or 29 dozen " standard" oysters.

Five kilograms of crab meat corresponds to about 15 dozen medium crabs. Rather than arbitrarily divide the assumed 5 kg intake between crabs and oysters , Table IV-5 gives the doses that individuals of various ages would rece tions given plant. in Table IV-4 as the maximum contributions yet detected from the power None of these doses is considered significant in comparison with the flue- '

tuations created in an individual's natural dose rate by routine human activities as was discussed in the section on impacts of the airborne effluents. ,

For purposes of absolute risk evaluation, it has been customary to assume that 'i L

any incremental radiation dose, no matter how small, increases the risk of certain hiological disorders, including cancers, thyroid nodules and genetic defects in progeny.

Table IV-6 gives the assumed incremental risk of each effect due to 1 mrem of dose to the appropriate organ (41). In this context, an individual who y lived for a year at the site boundary where the maximum dose rate occurs and who ate 5 kg of oysters and 5 kg of crabs from the plant discharge area would expose himself to an additional risk of about one in three million that the nuclear l power risk of plant's about effluents would indr'.a a biological disorder in him, and an additional effect in his progeny.one in five hundred million that it would cause a serious genetic Such additional risk levels are miniscule compared to the normal risk levels '(43) associated with the same effects in the U.S. population today. 3 E

~

r D. p.

Conclusions

• V Although the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant is reporting releases to the atmosphere which are several times greater than originally predicted, and although h the reported aqueous releases of the more important radionuclides are greater [

than BG&E predicted when demonstrating compliance with NRC's design bases dose {

values, it is still concluded that operations of the plant to date have resulted e p.

• e c

The value of 500 pCi/kg is used for illustration because it is a reasonabla approximation of the concentrations in oysters in the plant vicinity, where [.

x values at Campranged Canoy. from 620 pCi/kg directly in the discharge plume, to 420 pCi/kg e

IV-19 1594 170 h

_. ,.e m _-

t 1

L t-L t

41,E E-..YS s

g

!. = , k i .,  :

nas .

t _c:

'yjd.%r-i:"-*'"

.-.o i.

b .

- % p. .a ,m  ;

< ~- a

. 5' -

TNydg%g*i*%8eQ, gg.

o ... . . . . cm uw <. .e Figure IV-2. (A) Gama spectron of oysters from Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant discharge area showing effluent radionuclide bicaccumulation i:

1 I.

t l

. i

. r.

5 g K 40

-. 2

.._ms.

y.,y -_ ua.ra

~~'N~~.- _

_._ l on -ia.

Figure IV-2. (B) Gama spectrum of oysters from Kenwood Beach area showing only natural radioactivity .

T D

"}D ]D lfN lru M IV-2 1594 171 o o Ju o Ju S . a .

r B

Table IV-5. Dose comitment(a) due to Calvert C1'iffs Nuclear Power Plant Y efflunts for an individual who takes all his seafood from the plant vicinity (assum.es radienuclide concentrations given in hS Table IV-4). "ia si

. .I if i3 Age Group Adult Teen Child ,,

C h ption:

Oysters 5.0 Kg/yr 3.8 Kg/yr 1.7 xg/yr -

(29 dozen) (22 dozen) (10 dozen)

Crabs 5.0 Kg/yr 3.8 Kg/yr 1.7 Eq/yr -

(15 dozen) (11 dozen) (5 doran)

Total Body Dose Co-58 0.0000543 neem /yr 0.0000553 nrum/yr 0.0000609 rarea/yr Co-60 0.0000708 0.0000722 0.0C00796 Ag-110n 0.000279 0.000284 0.000314 ,

Total 9 00040 0.00041 0.0004S Bone Doses co-58 (b) (b) (b)

Co-60 (b) @) (b) i Ag-110m 0.000507 0.000494 0.000581 Total 0.00051

• 0.00049 0.00058 d 4

l Liver Dose: )

Co-58 0.0000242 0.0000240 0.0000119

• Co-60 0.0000321 0.0000320 0.0000270 Ag-llora 0.000469 0.000467 0.0003 %

Total 0.00053 0.00052 0.00043 f.

=

l xidney Doses Co-58 (b) @) (b) {

Co-60 (b) (b) (b) ,

Ag-110:n 0.000922 0.000891 0.0C0731  ;

Total 0.00092 0.00089 ,0.00073 j

.f CI Tract Dose:

Co-58 0.000491 0.00033L 0.000116 [j i

Co-60 0.000603 0.000417 0.000149  ;

Ag-110m 0.191 0.131 0.0467 l Total, 0.19 0.13 0.047 s

(a) The dose comnit:nent from ingestion of a given quantity of a radiormt 11de is the I total dose that will be received by the individual before the ==M~ctive meterial.  !

is lost from the body by excrocion and/or radioactive decay.

(b) Dose / concentration conversion factors not available.

1594 172 i r

i.

i.

It I.

1 I!

t i!

IV-21 ll

- .e4

4+ jck Table IV-6. Dose-risk conversion factors

}A GC S~;'

jg.%

4g 2.ku;

.._xsut.

3 :s ' @ ;1 .

.; l

.~ .,

Mu Incremental probability of a particular health effect caused by radiation dose: him u

e 1 chance in 5,000,000 per nrem total body does for fatal cancer. .

e 1 chance in 5,000,000 per mrem total body does for non-fatal cancer.

M .v i e 1 chance in 250,000,000(a) per mrem gonadal dose for serious genetic effect in progeny b~s ,_ .

y.g;p g.

f ; .

e 1 chance in 17,000,000 per mrem thyroid dose for thyroid cancer (b)

{,g.jg,g" e 1 chance in 4,000,000 per mrem thyroid dose for benign thyroid nodule (c) 3g  ;  :

e 1 chance in 25,000,000 per mrem lung dose for fatal lung cancer .]ETsj..

g( 4 l

_lfW (a) Gonadal dose risk is established on the basis of a continuous annual exposure rate for a 50 year generation time. The value given here is jk.

based upon 1/50 of the estimated value for the continuous 50 year expo-sure. That value is 200 effects /yr for 106 Ap ,

person-rem annual exposure. M.it in the U.S. population with a 50 year generation time. .

~

(b) Usually not fatal.

(c) The absolute risk level for benign thyroid nodule incidence was not given in reference 41, but is computed here as the risk of thyroid  ?--g cancer given by reference 41 times the ratio of benign-to-cancerous e" radiogenically-induced thyroid growths given in Reference 42.  ;

- -S

~

[>,

1594 173 g r.

3$s3

5.$

[h;~e.

(.;

?

IV-22 -M;i

. .Y.sM!J

~,,_: --

- r n.- -- ur u %:- a~- g -

I i

h .

f in doses to maximally exposed individuals which are. well within the guidelines 1 1 ~

established by the NRC. These guidelines are given in Table IV-7, along with  !

estimates of the fraction of the guidelines values which the plant has actually l )

contributed. t l

l  : '

Predictions regarding future release rates and environmental concentrations  ! I h of radionuclides produced by Calvert Clif,fs are difficult to make with accuracy, I

{ '.

given the present state of predictive models and the short period of actual plant :i operations available for model tuning. However, in view of the very small fractions l ,'

of the "as low as reasonably achievable" dose guideline values now resulting from j ,  ;

plant operations, and with the absence of any visible trends of increasing radio-g ,

nuclide release rates, it appears that the Calvert Cliff s Nuclear Power Plant should i continue to operate well within applicable standards. ii m

i!!  !

. i. i i i. s'

. ,s

hi l !'r

.M i ki  !

f

> ~I m

l< Il

{. ~ !! j'

.; i l il '

t il i ,i -

tp 1594 174 O I

I

,j a : 's d

• ll ' '

f ll:l 1 li l ,

c

'! t '

.)

I i

1:  !

l l  !' I

! 't

j.  ! i!

ii-i'

'q -

! ii a iI

. i; 1

! .,j

i.  ; i

i. p:

' ~ .i '

li: ,

i I

. ij  ;.1 4

.3

.1;. ,

! If '

.,24

.,. s.

TV-M . . =' ,;lf

,, [

% Table IV-7.

Comparison of Calvert Cliffs radiological impact estimates with NRC guideline dose value -

(SEED E?e)

(ssso Appendix I ** " ""

Q I' '

Design Objectives

• Point of Dose w

Liould Efflurrnts g Evaluation Dose te ;' hole *:ody 3 mrem /yr por unit (0.007%)

from all pathways Location of the highest dose offsite.(b) kl o a$1p$@aSys

• Cascous Effluentc(C) camma dose in air 10 mead /yr por unit (2.5%) Location of the highest Deta doso in air 20 mrad /yr per unit done offsite.(d)

(3.4%) So e as above.

Doso to whole body 5 mrem /yr por unit (<56) g of an individual Location of the highest dose offsite.(b) f w

Doso to skin of an individual 15 mrc # yr per unit (<4.0%) same as above. g Radiolodince and Particulates(0) Deleased to the Atmosphore Doce to any organ 15 arem/yr per unit . (< 0. 01) Incation of the highest frors all pathways dose offsite.(f)

(n) Evaluated for a max _imura exposed individual.

(b) Evaluated at a location that is anticipated to be occupied during plant lifetime or evaluated with respect to such potential land and water usage and food pathways as could actually exist during the term of plant operation.

(c) calculated enly for noble gasos. .

(d) Evaluated at a location that could be occupied during tho torte of plant operation.

g (e) Doces due to carbon 14 and tritiusa intako fro:s terrestrial food chains are included in this category. .

.g s (f) Evaluater) at a location where an exposure pathway and dose receptor actually exist at thr! tinie of licensing. HovcVer, if the applicant datermines design objectives with respect to radioactive lodine on the bacis of existing conditions

~ pr.d if potential changos ip land and water usage and food pathways could result in exposuras (n excess of the guido-N line values given above .the applicant should provide renconable assuranco that a monitoring and surve111snee prograra willbeperformedtode(erminos y (1) the quantlties of rac.oactive lodino ectually released to the atmosphere and deposited relativo to those ostimated in the dotermination of design objectivess (2) whether changos in land and wat'er usago and food pathways which would result in individual exposures greater than originally estimated have occurreds and (3) the content of radioactive iodine in foods involved in the changes, if they occur.; 7 v -

n

.i ( . ',g cf,&, , 's .h - u* ' . - .'N e,

g e st m e m a m m m m m andashes2M M M