ED 055 806

TITLE

INsTITuTION

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

SE 012 071

Nuclear Power and the Environment, Understanding theAtom Series.Atomic Energy Commission, Oak Ridge- Tenn. Div. ofTechnical Information.6936p.USAEC, P. O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830(Free)

MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29*Electricity; *Environment; *Environmental Educatio_;Instructional Me.erials; Natural Resources;*Pollution; *Radiation; Secondary School Science;Thermal Environment

ABSTRACTThis booklet is one of the booklets in the

"Understanding the Atom Series" published by the U. S. Atomic EnergyCommission for high school science teachers and their students.Discussion concentrates on the radiological and thermal aspects ofthe environmental effects of nuclear-power plants; on the proceduresfollowed by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to minimize the impactof nuclear plants on man and his environment; and on the researchconducted by the AEC and others to further expand our knowledge.Numerous photographs and-diagrams are utilized and a list ofsuggested references is included. (Author/PR)

1372

3

f"ZP"6-

1mno

r

.11uHl

.

Om

1;111r4

10

Zulemq r

..10x AO

im, mmul00

ri

HL

pCli'

1Oze:On cm

li°5:::4N;

'

-. 00..104

0;02:rdozlinH

z-

111-0,1

ii0741nr:::;:r51

T01

>T

1i1C

4.1

00-1 2-

c

rT

<-1 am°

'irir11-"M:1111

ml .(zo)R1

mOOm 0

Toz o; i2mi

10,011

'

c1.70n70

,N11,-,

1r,

r1011

171-1

'f$

TI

One of a series onUNDERSTANDING THE ATOM

UNITED STATESATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Dr. Glenn T Scab org, ChairmanJames T. RameyWilfrid E . JohnsonDr. Theos J. ThompsonDr. Clarence F. Larson

Nuclear energy is playing a vital role in the life of everyman, woman, and child in the United States today. In theyears ahead it will affect increasingly all the peoples of theearth. It is essential that all Americans gain an understand-ing of this vital force if they are to discharge thoughtfullytheir responsibilities as citizens and if they are to realize fullythe myriad benefits that nuclear energy offers them.

The United States Atomic Energy Commission providesthis booklet on nuclear power and the ..9nvironment to help youachieve such understanding.

EDWARD J. BRUNENKANT, DirectorDivision of Technical Informa ion

About the ova -

The Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachcommercial operation in 1961.

CCP1414%4."(TZ)41=1Ute

CONTENTS

Summary

Elec ric Power Growth

RadioactivityBasis for Release Lim

Thermal EffectsGovernment Sponsored Research__ _Utility Industry Sponsored ResearchBeneficial Uses__

AEC Operating Experien

Conclusion

Surrgested Refe nees___----

UN TED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSIONDivision of Technical Information

Library uf C u rasa talog Card Number : 71969

603016

1

5

11141723

24

28

30

For a1c by_ the SuperIntendent or Documents, .US Goiertucnt Fri-Washington, D.C. 20402

mg 0 c_

-=

L'Cred bridge in Montgomery, Vermont.

SUMi4ARY

Increasing concern is being expressed about the environ-mental effects of electrical generating plants, both conven-tional and nuclear. The AEC has prepared this report to dis-cuss for nuclear power plants those matters that appear tobe the basis for this concern, and, in the process, hopefullyo put them into better perspective.

This report concentrates on a discussion of the radiologi-cal and thermal aspects d the environmental effects of nu-clear power plants ; on the procedures followed by the AECto minimize the impact of nuclear plants on man and hisenvironment ; and on the research conducted by the AECand others to further expand our knowledge.

Electric power is vital to the health, comfort, and eco-nomic well-being of the American people. Although somemight consider it as just a convenience, power is essentialto our modern society. Electric power is used to heat andcool our homes ; to provide lighting; to run our industries ;and to assist us in performing a multitude of other tasks. Weare completely dependent upon electric power. Those whoexperienced the massive Northeast blackout of 1965 orother more recent power failures will bear witness to thisfact.

Electric power requirements in this country have beendoubling about every ten years. Future expansion is ex-pected to continue in much the same pattern. Steam electricpower plants, whether fossil fired or nuclear, must be reliedupon in the main to meet these ever increasing power needs.There are relatively few economical sites available for hy-droelectric plants. Efforts to develop acceptable alternatesystems for meeting our bulk power needs are unlikely toprove successful in the foreseeable future.

The use of steam electric power plants will inevitablyhave an impact on the environment. The fossil fuel plantsaccelerate the exhaustion of irreplaceable resources ; addheat to the air and water ; consume oxygen and add carbondioxide, sulfur dioxide, and other gaseous and particulatematter to the environment. Nuclear power reactors also addwaste heat to the air and water and, in addition, add lowlevels of radioactivity to the environment.

The development of nuclear reactor technology in theUnited States has been characterized by an overriding con-cern for the health and safety of the public and for theprotection of the environment. The safety record in com-parison to other industrial activities has been excellent. Nomember of the general public has received a radiation ex-posure in excess of prescribed standards as the result ofoperation of any type of civilian nuclear power plant in theUnited States. As a matter of fact, no accidents of any typeaffecting the general public have occurred in any civiliannuclear power plant in the United States.'

During operation, nuclear power plants are permitted torelease, under well controlled and carefully monitored con-ditions, low levels of radioactivity. Experience to date withlicensed operating power reactors shows that such levels ofradioactivity have been a small percentage of levels per-mitted to be released under AEC regulations. These AEClimits are based on guides developed by the Federal Radia-tion Council and approved by the President for the use ofFederal agencie.2. In evaluating the acceptable risk fromradiation exposures, the Council uses the best technical ex-peAise in the field, and takes into account the recommenda-tions of the National Council on Radiation Protection andMeasurement and the International Commission on Radio-logical Protection

We are all continu usly exposed to radiation from decay

Since the beginning of the atomic energy program in 1943, sevenU.S. workers have died in radiation-connected accidents. Of theseseven, three occurred in an AEC-owned experimental reactor (SL-1)at a remote testing station in Idaho, two were from criticality acci-dents in the weapons program, and two occurred in nuclear fuel proc-essing plants. This record compares most favorably with similardevelopment and industrial activities.

2

Sample3 of freshwater orgnsnas are gath red at the AEC's Hanfordacility as part of continuing environmental studies.

of radioactive isotopes normally found in our body tissuesand from natural earth and cosmic ray sources. This istermed background radiation,3 and all humans and otherspecies have been subjected to such radiations throughouthistory. Munitoring studies of radioactivity and radiationlevels in areas adjacent to operating power reactors showthat, in general, the annual additional radiation exposurecontributed by nuclear power plants is comparable to thenatural differences in radiation background commonly ob-served between geographic locations separated by severalmiles.

All steam electric generating plantswhether fossil fueledor nuclearmust release heat to the environment as an in-evitable consequence of producing useful electricity. The leastcostly and most widely 1-zsed method of disposing of this heatis to take large amounts of cooling water from nearby rivers,lakes, estuaries, or the ocean, circulate it through the power

A radioactive isotope or radioisotope) is an unstable form of anelement that decays or disintegrates spontaneously, emitting radiation.For definitions of these and other unfamiliar words, see NuclearTerms, A Brief Glossary, another booklet in this series.

See The Natural Radiation Environment another booklet in thisseries.

plant cooling system, and returr it to the source body ofwater. Thermal effects is a term used to describe the impactthat the heated water may have on the source body of water.The thermal effects may be detrimental, beneficial, or insig-nificant depending upon the specific site and measures takenin the design and operation of the plant.

The current generation of nuclear power plants producemore waste heat than modern fossil units of the same gener-ating capacity_ With the advanced reaaors now under devel-opment, however, this disparity between nuclear and fossilplants will be greatly reduced.

Considerable work on the problems associated with dis-posal of waste heat from power plants has been conducted.To a significant extent, the problems of thermal effects areunderstood and they are manageable. Continuing researchand development will bring further improvements in heatremoval systems and further increase our understanding ofthermal effects.

The AEC has been studying the effe ts of reactor heat

Banding of wild geese to study environm_ tal effects of radionuclideson wildlife.

added to the Columbia River since 1946. The AEC is alsosponsoring thermal effects research at its Pacific North-west Laboratories, at the Chesapeake Bay Institute-of JohnsHopkins University and at the University of Miami in Flor-ida. The AEC plans to increase this program significantlyin view of the large number of plants to be built in the corn-ing years.

Several other Federal agencies, notably the Federal Wa-ter Pollution Control Administration, are conducting exten-sive research on thermal effects. The electric utilities arealso sponsoring much workparticularly in connection withspecific power plant sites.

During the past 25 years, the AEC has gained consider-able knowledge and experience from the operation of nu-clear reactors at sites in Washington (Hanford) and SouthCarolina (Savannah River) . This experience can be ap-plied to evaluation of the environmental effects of commer-cial nuclear power stations. It is significant and encourag-ing that no adverse environmental effects have been detectedin these two instances.

ELECTRIC POWER GROWTHThe increasing demand for elec ric power c;-..n be attrib-

uted to a number of factors. The nnpulation growth, ofcourse, has been important but i is only part of the story.Electric power usage per person has been increasing at amuch faster rate than the population. industry usage hasgrown. Electricity has been used in many new areas suchas residential air conditioning and space heating.

Total consumption of electrical energy in the UnitedStates quadrupled between 1950 and 1968, while the popula-tion increased by one-third. The consumption per capitarose in that period from 2000 to 6500 kilowatt hours peryear. The estimated per capita consumption in 1980 is some11,500 kilowatt hours and about 25,000 kilowatt hours bythe year 2000.

The projected growth of generating capacity in the elevenNortheastern states 4 illustrates these mounting electric

4 Vermont, New Hampshire, Connectieut, Rhode Island, Massachu-setts, Dela*are, New Jersey, Ne* York, Pennsylvania, Maine andMaryland.

U.S. ELECTRIC UT1UTY POWER STATISTICS RELATING TO POPULATION AND CONSUMPTION

Est. for Inter. Proj.1950 1968 1980 for 2000

POPULATION (millions) 152 202 235 320

TOTAL POWER CAPACITY 85 290 600 1,352

(millions of kilowatts)

KW CAPACITY / PERSON 0.6 1.4 244 4.1/4

POWER CONSUMED PER PERSON 2,000 6,500 11 500 25,000PER YEAR jkilowatt-hoursj

TOTAL CONSUMPTION (kilowatt-hours) 325 billion 1.3 trillion 2.1 trillion 8 trillion

NUCLEAR POWER CAPACITY 0 1% 25% 69%% OF TOTAL

power demands. A recent report - to the Federal Power Com-mission indicates that between now and 1990 the power in-dustry in these eleven states must build about four timesas much electrical generating capacity as the industry haspi ovided thus far in its 80 year history. In other words,about four times the existing capacity must be built in one-fourth the time to meet the projected public needs. Based oncurrent prices, these tremendous undertakings will involvean investment of something like $50 billion for generation,transmission, and distribution facilities.

This same report concludes that nuclear power will ac-count for about 60 percent of the total generation in theNortheast by 1980 and more than 80 percent by 1990. Rea-sons forrn the choice of nuclear power, particularly in theNew England-New York areas, are the low fuel cost, thelow fuel transportation cost, and the virtual absence of at-mospheric pollutants from nuclear fuels.

uclear reactor, technology has been under developmentin the United States for more than 25 years. During thistime, the knowledge necessary o protect public health and

Electric Power in the Northeast 2970=1980, A Report to the Fed-eral Power Commission, prepared by the Northeast Regional AdvisoryCommittee December. 2 1968.

safety has advanced along with the technology itself. Pro-tection of public health and safety in the design, construc-tion and operation of reactors is a statutory responsibilityof the AEC under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and theCommission regards this as an overriding consideration inall its activities including the licensing and regulation ofnuclear power reactors. In carrythg out this responsibili y,the AEC devotes special attention to assuring that radio-active wastes produced at nuclear power reRetors and otherfacilities are carefully managed and that releases of radio-activity into the environment are within Governmentalregulations.

The management of radioactive waste material in thegrowing nuclear energy industry can be classified undertwo general categories. The first is the treatment and dis-posal of materials with low levels of radioactivity. Thesematerials are the low activity gaseous, liquid and solidwastes produced by reactors and other nuclear facilitiessuch as fuel fabrication plants. The second category involvesthe treatment and permanent storage of much smaller vol-umes of wastes with high levels of radioactivity. These highlevel wastes are by-products from the reprocessing of usedfuel elements from nuclear reactors. It is important to un-derstand the difference between the low level reactor wasteswith a low hazard potential and the high level fuel re-processing wastes with a higher hazard potential. Unfortu-nately, these two types of radioactive wastes are still con-sidered a single entity by many people.

Neither the reprocessing of used fuel nor the disposal ofhigh level wastes is conducted at the sites of the nuclearpower generating stations. After the used fuel is removedfrom the reactor, it is securely packaged and shipped to thereprocessing plant. After reprocessing, the high level wastesare concentrated and safely stored in tanks under controlledconditions at the site of the reprocessing plant. Only a fewreprocessing plants will be required within the next decadeto handle the used fuel from civilian nuclear power plants.As with the power reactors, the AEC carefully regulates theoperation of such plants.

More than 20 years of experience has shown that unde -ground tank storage is a safe and practical means of interim

-**

A plankton trap is placed in a river as part of a long-range studyradionuclide uptake by aquatic

handling of high level wastes. Tank storage, however, doesnot provide a long term solution to the problem. Accordingly,using technology developed by the AEC, these liquid wastesare to be further concentrated and changed into solid form.These solids will then be transferred to a Federal site, suchns an nhandn-marl gnit mIne, fnr fin-,1 Rtorpge. rithoqc. ..ltmines have a long history of geologic stability, are impervi-ous to water, and are not associated with usable groundwater resources. This procedure will provide assurance thatthese high level wastes are permanently isolated from man'senvironment.

Technology developed for the treatment and storage ofradioactive wastes produced at presently operating powerreactors is considered more than adequate for the expandingindustry during the next decade. These treatment systemsinclude short term storage of liquid wastes, evaporation, de-mineralization, filtration of liquids and gases, and compres-sion of solid wastes. They also include chemical treatmentsto concentrate radioactive materials, and immobilization ofradioactive solids and liquids in concrete or other materials.n

Operating experience in licensed power reactors showsthat levels of radioactivity in effluents have generally beenless than a few percent of authorized release limits. Envi-ronmental monitoring programs to measure radioactivityare carried out by licensees, some of the States, the Bureauof Radiological Health of the U.S. Public Health Service,and the AEC. The quantities a: radioactivity released areso small that it has been difficult to measure any increase inradioactivity above background levels in rivers and streamswhich can be attributed to effluents from nearby nuclearpower reactors.

for ReleaseAEC regulations on radiation protection are based prin-

cipally on the radiation protection guides recommended bythe Federal Radiation Council (FRC) and approved by thePresident for guidance of all Federal agencies. In 1959 Con-gress established the FRC to ". . advise the Presidentwith respect to radiation matters, directly or indirectly af-fecting health, including guidance for all Federal agencies

a For more information see Radioactive Wastes, another bookiet inthis series.

in the formulation of radiation protection standards and inthe establishment and execution of programs of cooperationwith States . ." After the recommendations of the FRCare approved by the President, they are published in theFederal Register for guidance of Federal agencies.

The recommendations of the FRC are developed with theassistance of appropriate Federal agencies, the NationalAcademy of Sciences and the National Council on RadiationProtection and Measurement (NCRP) . In addition to theirown expertise, the members of these groups seek the adviceof other highly qualified scientists and researchers withspecialized knowledge of the many factors tE t determinethe effects of radioactivity on man.7 The results of the exten-sive experimental programs on the behavior and effect ofradioactive material in the environment and in living tissueare also carefully considered in developing the FRC guide-lines. The standards set by the FRC are reviewed as new re-search information becomes available or as new problemsarise to determine whether changes in these guidelines areneeded.

AEC limits human exposure by establishing releaselimits. A concentration limit is set up for each radionuolldeor specific type of radioactive material. These are derivedsuch that an individual who consumes water at the concen-tration limit in his drinking (and cooking) water (about 2quarts per day) or inhales air at the concentration limit forhis lifetime is not likely to be exposed in excess of the doselimi

A few words about reconcentration of radioisotopes arein order since considerable misunderstanding has developedin this area. Recoucentration refers to the fact that aquaticand marine forms selectively remove certain elemer Its fromthe water or from their food. These elements (in variouschemical forms) may be incorporated into the body or bodyfluids of the organism. Consequently the organism may havea higher concentration of certain elements than the concen-tration found in water. If a radioisotope of one of these ele-ments is biologically available it may be taken up along with

stable form and likewise be concentrated in the organism.Reconcentration of radionuclides by aquatic and marineSee Your Body and Radiation and Genetic E cots of Radiati

other booklets in this series.

food organisms is taken into consideration in AEC regula-tions. These regulations provide that in addition to limits onconcentrations, the AEC may further limit quantities ofradioactivity released from a reactor if it appears that thedaily intake of radioactive materials from air, water orfood by a suitable sample of an exposed population groupfrom all sources, including multiple reactor sites, wouldotherwise exceed FRC radiation protection guides. In prac-tice, releases of radioactivity from nuclear power plantshave been so low that the AEC has not found it necessaryto implement this provision of the regulation. Operatingexperience to date has shown that exposures to the popula-tion in the vicinity of nuclear power plants from radio-activity in plant effluents are only a small fraction of radia-tion protection guides.

THERMAL EFFECTSAll steam-elec ric generating plants must release heat to

the environment as an inevitable consequence of producinguseful electricity. Heat from the combustion of fossil fuelin a boiler or from the fission of nuclear fuel in a reactoris used to produce high temperature and pressure steamwhich in turn drives a turbine connected to a generator.When the thermal energy in the steam has been convertedto mechanical energy in the turbine, the "spent" steam isconverted back into water in a condenser.

Condensation is accomplished by passing large amountsof cooling water through the condenser. In the least costlyand most widely used method, the cooling water is takendirectly from nearby rivers, lakes, estuaries, or the ocean.The cooling water is heated 10 to 30 degrees F.---depend-ing on plant design and operation and then usually re-turned to the same source. Thermal effects is a term whichis used to describe the impact that the heated water mayhave on the source body of water.

The thernial effects ma:7- be detrimental, beneficial or in-gnificant, depending on many factors such as the manner

in which the heated water is returned to the source water,the amount of source water available, the ecology of thesource water and its desired use. The addition of the heatedwater from the plant condenser to the source body A water

11

TU

RB

INE

MA

T

Cóo

ing

a 2,

c e

ar p

ower

pan

t.

WATER 01

WATER OUT

MR OUT

11101MME-A

.-,11111111111WINEIMU

=====

=r441111M====== Mnlin_AM

=4=111511=1

AIR IN1==>

COOLER SECPONA dry cooling tower system inwhich the fiow of air is pro-vided by mechanical means.

does raise its temperature and this increased temperaturecan affect fish and other aquatic life. However, these effectscan be localized or minimized.

In some situations, cooling methods other than the once-through method described above may he employed. A rtificialponds can be constructed to provide a source of water forcirculation through the condensers. Cooling towerseitherof the wet or dry type can be used in other instances. Com-binations of cooling methods can also be used effectivelyin many situations.

In wet cooling tower systems, the cooling water is broughtin direct contact with a flow of air and the heat is dissipatedprincipally by evaporation. The flow of air through the cool-ing tower can be provided by either mechanical means or

A wet cooling tower system inwhich the flow of air is pro-vided by mechanical means.

natural draft, and make-up water must be added to replaceevaporative losses.

In dry cooling tower systems the cooling water is carriedthrough pipes over which air is passed and the heat is dissi-pated by conduction and convection rather than by evapora-tion. Because of the larger surface area required for heattransfer and the larger volume of air that must be circulated,dry cooling towers are substantially more expensive thanwet coding towers and hence seldom used.

It is important to emphasize that although these alterna-tives may offer relief from a potential thermal effects prob-lem, their use can involve other environmental effects andeconomic penalties. Whatever method of cooling is chosen,the waste heatfrom both fossil and nuclear plantsstillmust eventually be dissipated into the environment.

The light water power reactors currently being marketedoperate at a lower efficiency and therefore reject more heatthan the most modern of today's fossil fuel plants of thesame generating capacity. For this reason and because about10 percent of the heat from fossil fuel plants is dischargeddirectly into the atmosphere through the stack, modern fos-sil fuel plants currently discharge approximately one-thirdless waste heat to cooling water than do nuclear plants. Withthe advanced reactors now under development, however, thedifference in the amounts of heat released to the coolingwater by nuclear and fossil plants will be greatly reduced.

Because so much of today's power comes from conven-tional fossil fuel plants, they are the major contributors ofwaste heat to the environment today. In 1968, nuclear powercontributed only about one percent of the waste heat. How-ever, at estimated rates of growth, 30 percent of the heatwasted by steam generating plants in 1980 will come fromnuclear plants. By 1995, the contributions from both sourcesare expected to be about equal.

Government Spon ared ResearchConsiderable thermal effects research has been conductecL

and more is under way or planned. As discussed in SectionV of this report, the AEC has been studying the effects ofreactor heat added to the Columbia River since 1946. InFiscal Year 1969, the AEC spent over $600,000 on the studyof thermal effects ; this was a substantial portion of the Fed-

eral effort in this area. In view of the large number of nu-clear power plants being built,8 the AEC plans to increasethe number of studies in coming years. Some idea of thescope of the AEC program is given by the following.

The AEC's Pacific Northwest Laboratory, operated byBattelle Memorial Institute, has completed a mathematicalsimulation of temperatures in the Illinois and DeerfieldRivers below the Dresden and Yankee nuclear power plantsin Illinois and Massachusetts respectively, and also in theUpper Mississippi River Basin. This research indicates thatlarge streams can accept and then reject considerablygreater quantities of heat without exceeding water quality

Shrimp raised in, warm waterat the Turkey Point researchfacility, operated by the Uni-versity of Miami.

standards tlian would be indicated b31i7 routine calculationsusing average river flows and plant cooling requirements.This mathematical simulation technkfue is now being usedto determine the impact of power grOwth, as predicted bythe Federal Power Commission, on major river systems.

The AEC is also supporting research at the ChesapeakeBay. Institute of Johns Hopkins University to determine thedistribution of added temperature from power plant dis-charges into coastal and estuarine waters. The ability to pre-dict temperature distributions is being developed throughmodel studies. These are to be followed by field investiga-tions in the summer of 1969 in the Potomac River estuaryadjacent to the Morgantown, Maryland conventional powerstation.

,e Nue lein this series.Planned in thepage 30.

Power Plants and Nuclear Reactors, other bookletsAlso see Nuclear Reactors Built, Being Built, orUnited States listed in the Suggested References on

15

It__

;t

Outdoor facility for shrimp and pompano consists of 16 ofincre e tanksof seawater. In the background is the Turkey Point nuclear reactorunder construction.

The AEC is supporting the University of Miami's ecologi-cal study of the South Biscayne Bay in the vicinity ofTurkey Point, Florida. The research is directed at determin-ing the effects of heated power plant effluents on marineorganisms, especially the changes in the ecological commu-nity structure that may occur in time and space as a resultof increased water temperatures.

Several Federal agencies other than the AEC are alsoconducting extensive research on thermal effects. Some ex-amples of their efforts are found in a recent Federal PowerCommission D report. In addition, the Smithsonian Institu-tion's Science Information Exchange lists 70 Federally sup-ported thermal effects research projects.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration(FWPCA) of the Department of Interior has established aNational Water Quality Laboratory near Duluth, Minne-sota. A current major effort of this Laboratory is the deter-nination of the effects of heated water on fish and aquatic

" Problems in Disposal of Waste I-16 from Steam-Electric Plants,Federal Power Commission, Bureau of P wer, 1969.16

life. The FWPCA has also instituted a national thermal ef-fects research program at its Pacific Northwest WaterLaboratory at Corvallis, Oregon. The objective of this pro-gram is to coordinate various thermal effects studies.

At the present time, the FWPCA, in cooperation with theTennessee Valley Authority, is planning a research projectat its Browns Ferry, Alabama, nuclear power plant. Pre-liminary planning involves the construction of eight identicalchannels, each 14 feet wide, 390 feet long, and varying indepth from one to four feet. The channels will contain flow-ing water at various temperatures. The purpose of the proj-ect will be to obtain information on the effects of elevatedtemperatures on reproduction and rate of growth of severalspecies of warm-water fish and of fish-food organisms_

The Sandy Hook Marine Laboratory (New Jersey) of theBureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Department ofInterior, is investigating the ability of various marine fishand invertebrates to adapt to temperature changes due tothermal discharges from power generating stations.

Utility Industry Sponsored ResearchThe electric utilities are also sponsoring thermal e ects

The Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Plant at Hacldam Neck,Connecticut

17

studies and research. Typical thermal effectp programs forpower plants being built or planned involve tidal, lake orriver current measurements ; hydraulic model studies ; pre-dictions of the temperature distributions due to discharge ofheated water ; pre-operational temperature measurements,using a variety of techniques ; and ecological studies, one ortwo years in duration, to obtain baseline data in the vicinityof the plant site. Furthermore, the plants will perform post-operational studies to determine what changes are occurringor have occurred in the aquatic environment.

The scope and depth of thermal effects research conductedfor individual nuclear power stations have increased con-siderably in recent years. A prime example of such researchis the comprehensive study of the fish life, ecology, and hy-drology of the lower Connecticut River in the vi.cinity of Con-necticut Yankee's nuclear power plant at Haddam Neck. Thestudy, being carried out by a group of independent scientiststhrough financing made available by Connecticut Yankee,was initiated in the fall of 1964. Research funds committedto date have totaled more than $750,000.

The study covers six major areas of investigation (1)hydrology, (2) studies of organisms on the river bottom,(3) fish studies, including both resident and migrating(shad) populations, (4) bacteriology, microbiology andalgae studies, (5) radiological surveys and (6) thermalstudies. The thermal study work has included temperaturedistribution predictions and measurements using a varietyof techniques such as fiow measurements and airborne in-frared temperature surveys.

The study is an excellent example of a cooperative pro-gram betweea industry, the academic and scientific com-munities, and state and Federal agencies. This cooperationis clearly evidenced with the work being done by the Con-necticut Board of Fisheries and Game, The Connecticut Wa-ter Resources Commission, The Connecticut State Depart-ment of Health, The Marine Research Laboratory of theUniversity of Connecticut and the United States Geologi-cal Survey as part of the study effort.

Broad guidance for the conduct of the study is providedby an Advisory Board, consisting of five marine biologists,all of whom are recognized authorities in their fields The

Advisory Board meets twice a year to evaluate the study'sprogress and to provide overall direction of the various as-pects as it moves forward.

The 567,000 kilowatt nuclear plant started up in July1967. It achieved initial full-power operation at 462,000 kilo-watts in January 1968. The plant obtained its present full-power level in March of 1969. The environmental study isplanned to continue at least until 1973.

The shad tagging program, now in its fourth year, hasshowm that the pattern of upstream migration is substan-tially the same as that before the plant went into operation.The radiological survey of river water, fish, shell fish, plank-ton, and bottom sediment has shown only a negligible in-crease in radioactivity since the plant has been in operation.The Connecticut River Study Staff and cooperating agenciesas yet have found no significant change the ecology ofthe Connecticut River resulting from the discharge of heat-ed water from the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Plantafter more than two and one half years of operation.

Commonwealth Edison Company, in cooperation withNorthwestern University and the Illinois State Departmentof Conservation, made studies of the effects of the dischargeof cooling water from a fossil fueled plant at Waukegan onLake Michigan. This plant was selected because it has beenoperating for 40 years and any possible long time deleteriouseffects of thermal discharge would be apparent. A similarstudy was made at the same time at an undisturbed site fourmiles north of the Waukegan Station near Zion, Illinois.Similarities in aquatic environments were observed at bothlocations. The bottom-living organisms important in foodchains of valuable fish have not been killed by the warmeffluent of the Waukegan plant. Plankton counts do not showany definite changes due to the plant's operation. The sportfish in the area have not suffered any ill effects either. Theextended period of higher temperature has had only a slighteffect on the chemistry of the lake water and has not sig-nificantly changed the dissolved oxygen concentration. Insummary, it appears that no significant effect on the totalnear shore environment can be attributed to the dischargeof cooling water from the Waukegan plant.3-°

" No Notable Change in Lake Due to Station Discharge, L. P. Baerand W. 0. Pipes, Electrical World .Peatures, February 10, 1963.

20

24

Detailed biological surveys have been made at all but oneof TVA's steam plants. No significant effects on aquatic lifehave been found except at the Paradise plant on the smallGreen River in Kentucky. Here, observed effects on fish-foodorganisms indicated more control of maximum stream tem-peratures to be desirable. Cooling towers have been built toalleviate the problem.11

At Consolidated Edison's Indian Point Nuclear PowerStation on the Hudson River where a 265,000 kw unit startedup in 1962, studies have detected no adverse effects upon theriver's plant and animal life. In fact, the studies indicatedthat perhaps there was a greater variety of animals presentin the effluent canal, possibly because the canal provides amore sheltered and varied environment than the mainstreamof the river. At Southern California Edison's Nuclear PowerPlant at San Onofre, where a 430,000 kw unit started up in1967, a detailed analysis of 18 surveys (July 1963 to Decem-ber 1968) gave no indication that the community structurein the San Onofre sand and cobble reef ecosystems had beenaltered by thermal discharges.

The following studies are being made for the PilgrimNuclear Power Station, a 625,000 kilowatt unit being builtfox: Boston Edison Company near Plymouth, Mass. (1) seacurrent measurements, (2) topographic scale model studies(by Alden Research Laboratories) , (3) hydraulic thermalmodel studies (by MIT) , (4) thermal discharge predictions(by Chesapeake Bay Institute) , (5) pre-operational temper-ature distribution measurements, (6) pre-operational stud-ies of fish distributions and commercial catches, and (7)prediction of the ecological effects of heated water discharge(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute) . In addition, theBoston Edison Co. has a 4 year survey contract with theCommonwealth of Massachusetts to monitor marine life andtemperature distributions.

The Edison Electric Institute, with the support of in-vestor owned utilities, recently compiled and published a listof environmental studies on water problems. The list con-tains 266 studies either completed or under way and 41 pro-

Heated Discharges on the Aquatic Envtronment: TheTVA Experience, M. A. Churchill and T. A. Wojtalik, Presented to theAmerican Power Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April 22-24, 1969.

.21

posed studies. With few exceptions these studies concernedthe characteristics of particular plant sites.

One notable exception is a study in progress by JohnsHopkins University for the Edison Electric Institute. Thisstudy, entitled "Cooling Water Studies," has been underway since 1962. The objectives in the first phase of this studywere : to summarize existing knowledge ; to apply thisknowledge in the development of useful analytical tech-niques ; to determine what additional information will beneeded ; and to suggest what the industry might undertaketo acquire needed information. Two papers, "Water Tem-perature and Aquatic Life" and "Heat Exchange in theEnvironment," were published as a part of Phase I. Thisresearch has shown among other things, that the ability of abody of water to cool is greater at low wind speeds than hadbeen anticipated.

Phase II of the study is now under way. Eleven sites havebeen selected, instrumented and are being observed duringa wide range of plant discharge conditions. The sites offera variety of hydrologic conditions. Four are located on riverstwo on deep stratified lakes, two on shallow lakes or cool-ing ponds, and three on tidal bodies.An experiment in Texas in which heated water (85'2 Fi) iB used toirrigate a cotton crop- The control crop is irrigated with unheatedwater (65°17).

1st

Beneficial UsesAlthough a considerable amount of thermal effects re-

search has been conducted, more attention should be givento beneficial uses of heated water. For example, it has beenproposed that heated water be used to irrigate crops andto warm the soil, thereby possibly extending the growingseason or protecting crops from freezing. Aquaculture alsois a distinct possibility since productivity of commercialspecies (such as catfish) can probably be greatly increased,particularly in winter months.

Use of byproduct heat to delay freezing and thereby toextend the shipping season in northern waterways has alsobeen suggested. Obviously, more can be done along theselines. Heated water is an energy source, which suggests thatingenuity can find beneficial uses for this energy.

Another alternative exists in the sea where water isplentiful and where the temperature structure in manyareas is especially promising for baveficial modification bythermal discharges_ Oceanographerii have asked if there issome way to use the excess energy from a steam power plantto induce upwelling in the ocean and thus enhance the bio-logical productivity. The ocean is relatively stable, withwarm, less dense water overlying cold denser water. Sepa-rating the two is a layer, usually at a depth of 300 to 2,200feet, where there is a sharp temperature change (the ther-mocline) . In the summer, particularly in mid latitudeswhere seasonal temperature variation is greatest, a thermo-cline develops much nearer the surface. Water below thisthermocline is not only colder than surface water, but alsomuch richer in nutrients.

Growing plants are sparse or absent in the deeper water,because there is insufficient light. Above the thermoclinelight is usually abundant, but nutrients such as nitrate andphosphate are in short supply. If the nutrients of the colder,deeper water could be transported upward into the warmerupper layers, biological productivity could be increased. Avastly more productive and valuable fishery might developin the vicinity of the nutrient-rich water.

On the other hand, changes in the temperature regime mayfavor growth of undesirable species, and organisms com-monly used by man may be crowded out. Perhaps both views

23

are correct, depending on geographical location. In our pres-ent knowledge of the probable response of marine ecosys-tems to artificially induced upwelling and limited heating,feasibility studies seem worth pursuing. A concerted attackon this problem will be needed if a productive solution is tobe found. The potential of the ocean to benefit from the in-telligent use of waste heat makes a concerted effort highlydesirable.12

AEC OPERATING EXPERIENCEDuring the last 25 years the AEC has gained considerable

knowledge from reactor operations at its Hanford (Washing-ton) and Savannah River (South Carolina) sites. In addi-tion, the AEC has had an Environmental Sciences Branch(ESB) for more than 12 years, supporting the work of manyof the Nation's leading ecologists. During this time, about$70 million has been expended in ESB programs with over$9 million included in the Fiscal Year 1969 budget and almost$10 million programmed for Fiscal Year 1970.

The Manhattan Projectthe Nation's effort during WorldWar II to develop the atomic bomb--included the construe-tion of the large Hanford reactor complex on the ColumbiaRiver near Richland, Washington. Unlike commercial powerreactors, the Hanford reactors were designed with a "singlepar3s" cooling system in which river water was passed di-rectly through the reactor and returned to the river. Further,since the Hanford reactors were for the production of plu-tonium rather than power, all of the heat from the reactorswas discharged to the environment. For these reasons, thesefirst Hanford reactors released more heat and radioactivityto the environment than the present commercial nuclearpower plants.

Even during the earlier days of the Manhattan Projecthe possibility of environmental effects of the radioactivityand heat was recognized, and in 1943 the Applied FisheriesLaboratory of the University, of Washington was broughtinto the plutonium project during construction of the Han-ford plant. Since that time the Laboratory with AEC sup-

t in this seri

port has been continuously studying effects of reactor ef-fluent on salmon, oysters, and other life fol-ms in the river.

The Columbia River is a large, cold, clean river whichsupports runs of salmon, steelhead, and shad. There weresix reactors operating during 1944 1955, and eight from1955 1964. In 1964, the river had nine nuclear reactors in ashort stretch through the Hanford reservation, but thc -lum-ber operating has since decreased to three as a result ofdeclining defense needs. It is worth noting how salmon,which require cold water, have responded to the reactorop2.ration.

A recent report summarizes some of the results of work 13which has been under way for about 20 years at the Hanfordsi e. During the period of the study, all but 44 miles of thesalmon spawning area on the Columbia has been inundatedby water backed up by a series of dams. The only spawningareas left are from Richland up to the Priest Rapids Dam.Much of this fast water lies in the Hanford Reservation inthe vicinity of the reactors. The heat discharged by the reac-tors has had no apparent effects upon salmon eggs or fry,probably because the salmon spawn while the natural rivertemperature is low (mid-October through November

The question of whether the heated water from the reac-tors interferes with the passage of fish is also being studiedto determine if the fish trying to migrate up to tributaries ofthe Columbia above Hanford will be prevented from passing.The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Battelle North-west scientists have been observing the movement of adultsalmon tagged with so' nic emitters. Results indicate the fishavoid the warmer water on the reactor side of the river, butthe important point is that their progress past the reactorsite is not impeded. The fish migrate along the same shore-line above the reactor discharge so factors such as currentvelocities may also be important in determining their path.

Perhaps the best evidence of the absence of any harmfuleffects from the reactors on Columbia River salmon is theincrease in nesting sites on the Hanford reservation.

13 Bwiogwal Effects Qf Hanford Heat on Co1umb.a River FishesAeview, R. Nakatani, Presented to the Isaac Walton League, Portland,

Oregon, February 17, 1968.

25

30"The numbers of salmon nests observed has increased

from about 300 prior to 1950 to a record number (sic.)of over 1,700 in 1965, 3,100 in 1966, and to a 21 yearrecord high of 3,300 in 1967. This increase (perhapsdue in part to the partial barrier created by the PriestRapids Dam just upstream) has occurred during a pe-riod of years when the runs of fall Chinook salmon toother parts of the river system (i.e., the Snake River)have declined-appreciably . . . The ultimate fate ofHanford stock of Chinooks and steelhead is . de-pendent upon the proposed construction of Ben Frank-lin Dam above Richland that would inundate and de-stroy the Hanford spawning area." 14

To summarize, the Columbia River system with its largereactor complex has been studied since the Hanford plantwas first being built in 1943. Scientists from Battelle North-west Laboratories, the University of Washington, the Bu-reau of Commercial Fisheries, the U.S. Geological Surveyand Oregon State University are presently engaged in this

Ibid.

Chinook salmon in the University of Washington's campus pond.Researchers are trying to discover why irradiated salmon return tospawn in greater numbers than do nonirradiated salmon.

A water sampler at a largepond fed by cooling water froma production reactor at theSavannah River facility.

research. There are hundreds of published reports on phasesof the work. A book incorporating many of the results isbeing funded by the AEC, and should lac ready for publica-tion in 1970.15 Monitoring of food organisms (salmon,whitefish, oysters, etc.) is being routinely carried out bystate health agencies of Oregon and Washington and byBattelle Northwest. No adverse effects have been detectedon salmon populations in the vicinity of the Hanford reser-vation as a result of the releases of radioactivity and heatinto the Columbia River.

Considerable experience has also been gained in the oper-ation of the AEC facilities at Savannah River, South Caro-lina. Par Pond, a small lake on the site, receives reactoreffluent wastes from the Savannah River reactors. Thebasic ecology of this lake has been studied intensively. Allof the components of the living system have been examined,and the lake appears no different from nearby lakes. Thenumber of species of aquatic organisms and the relativesizes of their populations are not different from these c)ther

Bioenvironmental Studies of the Columbia River Estuary and Ad-jacent Ocean Region, see Suggested References on page 30.

27

lakes, which indicates that the system is a healthy one. Thisis an important measurement in evaluating the health of anaquatic community of plants and animals. As these com-munities are probably more sensitive to environmentalchanges than are their individual components, the conclu-sion is that the Savannah River plant operations have notaffected the community adversely.

The Savannah River facility uses heavy water moderatedreactors. Neutron captures in heavy water can produce theradioisotope tritium. Also, reprocessing of fuel at the Savan-nah River facility leads to the emission of tritium. Thus,levels of tritium in the Savannah River are higher than inmost areas, averaging about 0.3 to 0.4 percent of the MPC.16Evidence here indicates there is little if any biological concentration of tritium. That is to say, the body water of ani-mals drinking Savannah River water had about the sameconcentration of tritium as did the river water.

The Hanford and Savannah River experience can be ap-plied to evaluation of the environmental effects of commer-cial nuclear power stations. It is very significant and en-couraging that the releases of heat and radioactivity at thetwo locations have not unduly disturbed the surroundingenvironment.

CONCLUSIONThe rapidly increasing demands for electrical power in

this country must be met on an economical and reliable basisin order to sustain economic growth and continue to raisethe American standard of living. The only practical meansof producing power in the large amounts required is to buildmore steam electric power plantsboth fossil fired and nu-clear. These plants will inevitably have an impact on the en-vironment. The challenge facing us is to minimize the effectsand to achievewithin prevailing economic and technologi-cal limitationsour twin goals of low cost, reliable powerand preservation of the quality of our environment

With its deep concern for both protection of the eirriron-rnent and meeting the Nation's massive energy needs, theCommission is convinced that nuclear power best meets

" Sources of Tritium and Its Behavior Upon Release to the Environ-ment, see Suggested References on page BO.

Technicians cruise the swain p.l.and bordering the Savannah Riverfacility to assure that the flow of warm water from the reactors doesnot exceed limitations. Fish populations in the area show no detrimen-tal effects as a result of facility operations.

these twin objectives. The Joint Congressional Committeeon Atomic Energy supported this conviction in its FiscalYear 1970 Authorization Report on AEC Appropriations

"The Committee is equally convinced that those mem-bers of the general public with genuine questions andconcerns will come to realize that, in terms of their rela-tive impact on the environment, nuclear plants in manyrespects are the least offensive of the various thermalgenerating units. Most importantly, these plants emitnone of the combustion products released to the at-mosphere each day by a fossil-fueled plant ; they can,thei.efore, contribute materially to the fight for cleanair. 77

This is not to suggest that problem, don't exist or thatthere are easy answers to meeting these twin goals. The is-

29

sues are not going to be resolved easily, and substantial un-derstanding on the part of all parties will be essential. Pro-vided that everyone seeks constructive solutions, there isindeed a basis for optimism that the many benefits of nu-clear power can be realized without unduly affecting ourenvironment.

SUGGESTED REFERENCESBoenvronmcntal Studies of the Columbia River Estuary and Adjacent

Ocean Region, Division of Technical Information, U.S. AtomicEnergy Commission, available in late 1970.The following books are available for $3.00 each from the Clearing-

house for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, 5285 PortRoyal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151 :Sources of Tritium and Its Behavior Upon Release to the Environ-

ment ( TID-24635) , D. G. Jacobs, Division of Technical Information,U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1968, 90 pp.

Meteorology and Atomic h_7nergy (TID-24190), David H. Slade (Ed.),Division of Technical Information, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,1968, 445 pp.

Plume Rise, G. A. Briggs, Division of Technical Information, U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, available in 1970.

Atmospheric Transport Processes, Part I: Energy Transfers andTransformations, E. R. Reiter, Division of Technical Information,U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, available in 1970.

Biological Implications of the Nuclear Age, Division of Technical In-formation, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, available in 1970.

Nuclear Reactors Built, Being Built, or Planned in the United States( TID-8200), U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, revised semiannually.The following reports are available from the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 :Major Activities in the Atomic Energy Programs, January-December,

issued annually, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, about 400 pp,$1.75.

The Nuclear Industry, revised annually, Division of Industrial Par-ticipation, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, price varies with eachissue.

Forecast of Growth of Nuclear Power (WASH-1084), Division ofOperations Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Atomic Energy Commis-sion, December 1967, 50 pp., $0.35.

Civilian Nuclear PowerThe 1967 Supplement to the 1962 Report tothe President, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, February 1967,56 pp., $0,40.

30 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1969 0 3 20

This booklet is one of the "Understanding the Atom Series.Comments are invited on this booklet and others in the series;please send them to the Division of Technical Information, U.S.Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. 20545.

Published as part of the AEC's educational assistance pro-gram, the series includes these titles :AcceleratorsAnimals in Ate ic ResearchAtomic FuelAtomic Power SafetyAtoms at the Science FairAtoms in AgricultureAtoms, Nature, and ManCareers in Atomic EnergyComputersControlled Nuclear FusionCryogenics, The Uncommon ColdDirect Conversion of EnergyFallout From Nuclear TestsFood Preservation by IrradiationGenetic Effects of RadiationIndex to the UAS SeriesLasersMicrostructure of MatterNeutron Activation AnalysisNondestructive TestingNuclear ClocksNuclear Energy for DesaltingNuclear Power and Merchant ShippingNuclear Power Plants

Nuclear Propulsion for SpaceNuclear ReactorsNuclear Terms, A. Brief GlossaOur Atomic WorldPlowsharePlutoniumPower from RadioisotopesPower Reactors in Small PackagesRadioactive WastesRadioisotopes and Life ProcessesRadioisotopes in IndustryRadioisotopes in MedicineRare EarthsReading Resources in Atomic EnergyResearch ReactorsSNAP, Nuclear Space ReactorsSources of Nuclear FuelSpace RadiationSynthetic Transuranium ElementsThe Atom and the OceanThe Chemistry of the Noble GasesThe First ReactorWhole Body CountersYour Body and Radiation

A single copy of any one booklet, or of no more than threedifferent booklets, may be obtained free by writing to:

USAEC, P.O. BOX 62, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 37830Complete sets of the series are available to school and public

librarians, and to teachers who can make tliem available for ref-erence or for use by groups. Requests should be made on schoolor library letterheads and indicate the proposed use.

Students and teachers who need other material on specific as-pects of nuclear science, or references to other reading material,may also write to the Oak Ridge address. Requests should statethe topic of interest exactly, and the use intended.

In all requests, include "Zip Code" in return address.

U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSIONDIVISION OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION