From: Panel Registry

From: Virtue,Robyn-Lynne [CEAA] On Behalf Of DGR Review / Examen DFGP [CEAA] Sent: June 26, 2014 11:42 AM To: DGR Review / Examen DFGP [CEAA] Subject: Requested Reports

To: 'Stella Swanson' ; 'Gunter Muecke'; James Archibald Cc: Subject: Great Lakes Radionuclide Level Reports

Panel Members,

As per your request to CNSC for updated information on radionuclide levels in Lake Huron during the public hearing in the Fall of 2013, enclosed are three reports - Bruce Power. Environmental Monitoring Program Report. April 2012; IJC Nuclear Task Force. Inventory of Radionuclides for the Great Lakes. December 1997; and Ahier, Brian A. and Bliss L. Tracy. “Radionuclides in the Great Lakes Basin.” Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 103, Supplement 9 (December 1995) - for your information.

Thank you, Robyn

Robyn-Lynne Virtue DGR Joint Review Panel Secretariat C/O Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22nd floor Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3

file:///M|/My%20Documents/Registry/DGR/Untitled.htm[04/07/2014 3:58:50 PM]

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

B-REP-07000-00005 R000 April 2013

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 2 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14

B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 4 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

ABSTRACT OF PRESENT REVISION:

Executive Summary:

The purpose of this report is to fulfill regulatory requirements under Licence Condition 1.7 of Bruce Power’s Nuclear Power Reactor Operating Licence’s (PROL) 15:00/2014 and PROL 16:00/2014. This licence condition requires Bruce Power to submit an annual environmental monitoring report by April 30th of each year per Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) regulatory standard S-99 Section 6.4.5.

This report describes the effluent and environmental monitoring programs related to Bruce Power’s operations. The monitoring programs include both radiological and hazardous substances and quantify the effect on human and non-human biota.

The radiological emission from the Bruce Site is well within regulatory limits.

Furthermore, for the 21st consecutive year Bruce Power’s calculated dose to a member of the public is less than the 10 μSv/year value that is regarded as the lower threshold for significance (the de minimus). Dose to potential critical groups are calculated using IMPACT 5.4.0. The most recent site specific survey results (2011 Site Specific Survey), 2012 meteorological data, effluent and environmental monitoring data for Bruce site for year 2012 are all taken into account for the calculation. The highest dose estimated for year 2012 is 1.2 μSv, representing 0.1% of the regulatory dose limit of 1000 μSv/y. The critical group estimated for year 2012 is the “one year old infant” at the Bruce Mennonite Farmer 3 location.

2012 Critical Group Dose

Critical Group Committed Effective Dose Percentage of Legal Limit BMF3 Infant 1.17 μSv/y 0.12%

Bruce Power compliance with relevant environmental legislation, regulations, and other requirements. Bruce Power adopts applicable best industry standards as a framework for achieving continual improvement and sustainable performance excellence, while minimizing our environmental impact and preventing pollution. Bruce Power will continue towards the implementation of CSA N288.4-10, N288.5-11 and N288.6-12.

Bruce Power complies with the Environmental Compliance Approvals and Permits issued by the Ontario Ministry of Environment. Bruce Power continues to monitor site/offsite groundwater. Bruce Power complies with the Federal Regulations and programs which protect human health and the environment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 5 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table of Contents

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 10 1.1 Purpose...... 10 1.2 Regulatory Requirements ...... 11

2.0 BACKGROUND...... 12 2.1 Bruce Power Site ...... 12 2.2 Site Facilities...... 12

3.0 MONITORING PROGRAM METHODOLOGIES...... 13 3.1 Radiological Effluent Monitoring Program Methodologies ...... 13 3.2 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Methodologies...... 14 3.3 Conventional (Hazardous Substances) Monitoring Program Methodologies...... 23 3.4 Impacts and Biodiversity Monitoring Program Methodologies ...... 23

4.0 RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUENT MONITORING PROGRAM - BRUCE A, BRUCE B, CMLF, OPG, AECL ...... 23 4.1 2012 Radiological Effluent Results ...... 23 4.2 Historical Radiological Effluent Results...... 28 4.3 Opportunities for Improvement ...... 33

5.0 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM...... 34 5.1 External Gamma in Air...... 34 5.2 Tritium and Carbon-14 in Air...... 37 5.3 Tritium and Gross Beta in Precipitation ...... 43 5.4 Water Samples ...... 45 5.5 Milk Samples...... 52 5.6 Sediment Samples...... 55 5.7 Fish Samples ...... 59 5.8 Agricultural Products...... 72 5.9 Determination of Radiological Dose to Public...... 81 5.10 Radiological Dose Modelling...... 85 5.11 Radiological Quality Assurance Program ...... 87

6.0 CONVENTIONAL (HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES) MONITORING PROGRAM 2012 ...... 92 6.1 Hazardous Substances Effluent Monitoring Program ...... 93 6.2 Air...... 95 6.3 Environmental Compliance Approval...... 95 6.4 Water ...... 97 6.5 Groundwater ...... 98 6.6 Waste and Pollution Prevention...... 105

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 6 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

7.0 IMPACTS AND BIODIVERSITY MONITORING PROGRAM...... 106 7.1 Bass Nesting...... 106 7.2 Bass Creel ...... 114 7.3 Whitefish Gillnetting ...... 122 7.4 Fish Impingement ...... 137 7.5 Temperature Monitoring...... 139 7.6 Deer Interactions with Traffic ...... 140

8.0 CONCLUSION...... 143

9.0 REFERENCES ...... 143

APPENDIX A: SAMPLING SITES...... 148

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF BRUCE A AND BRUCE B MONITORING WELLS...... 175

List of Figures

Figure 1 Locations of Potential Critical Groups Considered in the 2011 Site Specific Survey (Source Base Map from Bruce County Map Factory) ...... 18 Figure 2 Framework for Radioactive Effluent Controls and Limits ...... 25 Figure 3 Historical Tritium Emissions in Air ...... 29 Figure 4 Historical Tritium Emission in Water...... 30 Figure 5 Historical 14C Emission in Air...... 31 Figure 6 Historical 14C Emission in Water ...... 32 Figure 7 Historical Iodine Emission in Air ...... 33 Figure 8 Annual Average External Gamma Dose Rates at Bruce Power Indicator Sites and Provincial Background Sites Over Time...... 37 Figure 9 Tritium Concentrations (Bq/m3) in Air from Active Samplers Near the Bruce Power Site As Compared to the Provincial Average on a Monthly Basis...... 39 Figure 10 Annual Average Tritium in Air Concentrations (Bq/m3) from Active Samplers at Bruce Power and Provincial Locations Over Time ...... 40 Figure 11 2012 14C Concentrations in Air from Passive Samplers Sampled Quarterly Near the Bruce Power Site as Compared to the Provincial Average ...... 42 Figure 12 Annual Average 14C in Air Concentrations at Bruce Power and Provincial Locations Over Time...... 43 Figure 13 Annual Average Tritium and Gross Beta Concentrations in Precipitation at the Bruce Power Site Over Time...... 45 Figure 14 Historic Lake Huron Tritium Activity ...... 50 Figure 15 Annual Average Tritium Concentrations (Bq/L) in Municipal Water Supply Plants Near the Bruce Power Site Over Time ...... 51 Figure 16 Annual Average Tritium Concentrations (Bq/L) in Lake Huron and Off-Site Wells Near Bruce Power Site Over Time ...... 52 Figure 17 Annual Average Tritium Concentrations (Bq/L) in Milk Samples Collected Near the Bruce Power Site and Provincial Locations Over Time...... 54 Figure 18 Annual Average 14C Concentrations (Bq/L) in Milk Samples Collected Near the Bruce Power Site and Provincial Locations Over Time...... 55

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 7 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 19 Annual Average Concentration of 40K (Bq/kg) in Sediment Samples (± Standard Error), 2007-2012 ...... 57 Figure 20 Annual Average Concentration of 137Cs (Bq/kg) in Sediment Samples (± Standard Error), 2007-2012...... 58 Figure 21 Annual Average Concentration of 60Co (Bq/kg) in Sediment Samples (± Standard Error), 2007-2012 ...... 59 Figure 22 Gillnetting Locations...... 60 Figure 23 Annual Average Tritium Oxide (Bq/L) in Pelagic Fish Tissue by Year (± Standard Error) ...... 65 Figure 24 Annual Average Tritium Oxide (Bq/L) in Benthic Fish Tissue by Year (± Standard Error) ...... 66 Figure 25 Annual Average 14C in Pelagic Fish Tissue (± Standard Error)...... 67 Figure 26 Annual Average 14C in Benthic Fish Tissue (± Standard Error)...... 68 Figure 27 Annual Average 137Cs in Pelagic Fish Tissue (± Standard Error)...... 69 Figure 28 Annual Average 137Cs in Benthic Fish Tissue (± Standard Error) ...... 70 Figure 29 Annual Average 40K in Pelagic Fish Tissue (± Standard Error)...... 71 Figure 30 Annual Average 40K in Benthic Fish Tissue (± Standard Error)...... 72 Figure 31 Annual Average Tritium in Vegetable Trend ...... 77 Figure 32 Annual Average 14C in Vegetation Trend ...... 78 Figure 33 Percentage of Ionizing Radiation Exposure for the Population ...... 81 Figure 34 Radiological Dose by Contaminant ...... 84 Figure 35 Historical Dose to Public Trend ...... 85 Figure 36 Historical Halocarbon Releases ...... 96 Figure 37 Average Tritium Concentrations in Multi-level Wells Installed in the Bedrock Around the Bruce A Station, 2007-2011...... 102 Figure 38 Average Tritium Concentrations in Multi-level Wells Installed in the Bedrock Around the Bruce B Station, 2007-2011...... 103 Figure 39 Historical Groundwater Wells in the Vicinity of Bruce Power ...... 104 Figure 40 Smallmouth Bass Nest Locations in the Bruce A Discharge Channel ...... 109 Figure 41 Smallmouth Bass Nest Locations in the Bruce B Discharge Channel ...... 110 Figure 42 Smallmouth Bass Nest Locations in Baié du Doré...... 111 Figure 43 2012 Number of Smallmouth Bass Nests (by Category) in Bruce A Discharge Channel...... 112 Figure 44 2012 Number of Smallmouth Bass Nests (by Category) in Bruce B Discharge Channel...... 113 Figure 45 2012 Number of Smallmouth Bass Nests (by category) in Baie du Dore...... 114 Figure 46 2011 Gillnetting Locations in the Vicinity of the Bruce Power Site ...... 123 Figure 47 CUE Per Km Of Gillnet For Lake Whitefish And Round Whitefish By Lift Date And Area, 2011 ...... 125 Figure 48 2011 Catch per Unit Effort (CUE, Based on Kilometres of Gillnet) of Lake Whitefish and Round Whitefish by Area...... 126 Figure 49 Spawning Condition Of Female And Male Round Whitefish (CUE/Km Gillnet) By Lift Date And Area, 2011...... 128 Figure 50 2007-2011 Catch per Unit Effort (CUE, Based on Kilometers of Gillnet) of Lake Whitefish and Round Whitefish by Area...... 130 Figure 51 Historical Catch-Per-Unit Effort of Whitefish From 2009 to 2010 ...... 131 Figure 52 Historic Gillnetting Results ...... 132 Figure 53 Stable Isotopes Values for Lake Whitefish Captured in the Bruce Power Area of Lake Huron During the 2010 Fall Breeding Season...... 136 Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 8 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 54 Number of Fish Impinged (bars) and Number of Sampling Events (lines) by Year for Bruce A and Bruce B...... 138 Figure 55 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Wildlife Management Unit 84 (WMU84) ...... 141 Figure 56 Total Harvest for All White-Tailed Deer (WMU-84) ...... 142 Figure 57 Number of Bruce Power White-tailed Deer Collisions and Collision Mortalities...... 142

List of Tables

Table 1 Previous Radiological Environmental Monitoring Reports ...... 10 Table 2 Identification of Potential Critical Groups ...... 17 Table 3 Percentage of Local Food Consumption for Each Potential Critical Group as Determined in the 2011 Site Specific Survey ...... 19 Table 4 Percentage of Water Usage for Each Potential Critical Group as Determined in the 2011 Site Specific Survey...... 21 Table 5 Intakes of Fish and Venison for Each Potential Critical Group as Determined in the 2011 Site Specific Survey...... 22 Table 6 Radionuclide Exposure Pathways...... 22 Table 7 Annual Airborne (Gaseous) Radioactive Effluent Results for 2012...... 26 Table 8 Annual Waterborne (Aqueous) Radioactive Effluent Results for 2012...... 27 Table 9 2012 Bruce Power Outage Schedule...... 28 Table 10 2012 Annual External Gamma Dose Rate Measurements ...... 35 Table 11 2012 Provincial Annual External Gamma Dose Rate Measurements...... 36 Table 12 2012 Annual Average Tritium in Air...... 38 Table 13 2012 Annual Average 14C in Air from Passive Samplers at Bruce Power and Provincial Locations ...... 41 Table 14 2012 Annual Average Precipitation Data ...... 44 Table 15 2012 Bruce Power Annual Average Tritium and Gross Beta Concentrations ...... 46 Table 16 2012 Tritium Concentrations (± 2 Standard Deviation) in Provincial Drinking Water Sampled Quarterly ...... 48 Table 17 2012 Provincial Beta Concentrations (± 2 Standard Deviation) in Provincial Drinking Water Sampled Quarterly...... 49 Table 18 2012 Annual Average Concentration 3H, 131I, 14C in Dairy Milk Samples ...... 53 Table 19 2012 Bruce Power Sediment Data ...... 56 Table 20 Fish Preparation and Methods ...... 61 Table 21 2012 Annual Bruce Power Fish Data ...... 62 Table 22 2012 Annual Provincial Fish Data ...... 64 Table 23 2012 Annual Radionuclide Concentration in Animal & Agricultural Products Sampled Near the Bruce Power Site (± Standard Error)...... 73 Table 24 2012 Annual Grains Data...... 73 Table 25 2012 Corn Mash Data ...... 74 Table 26 2012 Produce Data ...... 74 Table 27 2012 Soil Data...... 79 Table 28 2012 Critical Group Dose ...... 83 Table 29 2012 Radiological Dose by Containment for Critical Groups BMF3 Infant...... 84 Table 30 Characteristics of Adult Used in Dose Calculation for Year 2011 and 2012 ...... 84 Table 31 Summary of Missing Meteorological Records ...... 87 Table 32 2012 Sample Availability Data...... 88 Table 33 2012 Laboratory Analysis Summary ...... 89 Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 9 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 34 Summary of the QA/QC Program...... 90 Table 35 2012 Quality Control Data...... 91 Table 36 2012 Bruce Power Hazardous Substance Regulatory Reporting ...... 94 Table 37 2012 Semi-annual Groundwater Data...... 101 Table 38 Smallmouth Bass Nesting Survey Development Stage Codes ...... 107 Table 39 Number of Bass Nests by Location and Development Stage Over Time...... 108 Table 40 Creel Sample Size by Strata ...... 117 Table 41 Interview Sample Size by Strata ...... 117 Table 42 Angler Effort Summaries by Year and Season (All Species Combined) ...... 118 Table 43 Smallmouth Bass Estimated Angler Effort, Harvest, Catch and CPUE by Year and Season ...... 119 Table 44 Chi-square Goodness of Fit Tests Among Strata for Smallmouth Bass Harvested ...... 120 Table 45 Fork Length of Smallmouth Bass by Year...... 121 Table 46 Total Length of Smallmouth Bass by Year ...... 121 Table 47 Weight of Smallmouth Bass by Year...... 121 Table 48 2011 Effort and Number of Whitefish Captured by Area ...... 124 Table 49 Number Of Individuals Of Lake Whitefish Assessed For Spawning Condition By Area, 2011...... 127 Table 50 Number Of Individuals Of Round Whitefish Assessed For Spawning Condition By Area, 2011...... 128 Table 51 Historical Gillnetting Results from 2007 to 2010 ...... 129 Table 52 Number Of Individuals Of Marked Lake Whitefish And Round Whitefish That Were Recaptured, By Year ...... 133 Table 53 Incidental Catches of Non-whitefish Species by Site During the 2011 Whitefish Gill Netting Assessment at Bruce Power...... 134 Table 54 2012 Number of Individuals of Each Type of Fish Impinged, Including Species of Importance (Lake Whitefish, Round Whitefish, Gizzard Shad) ...... 139

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 10 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to fulfill regulatory requirements under Licence Condition 1.7 of Bruce Power’s Nuclear Power Reactor Operating Licence’s (PROL) 15:00/2014 and PROL 16:00/2014. This licence condition requires Bruce Power to submit an annual environmental monitoring report by April 30th of each year per Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) regulatory standard S-99 Section 6.4.5 [R-2].

Canadian Standards Association (CSA) N288. 4-10, Environmental monitoring programs at Class 1 nuclear facilities and uranium mines and mills [R-1], was published in 2010 and supersedes the first edition published in 1990 titled Guidelines for Radiological Monitoring of the Environment. The first edition of this standard (N288.4-M90) discussed the monitoring of radioactive contaminants in the environment in pathways leading to human exposure. The recent edition of CSA N288.4-10 expands to protection of the environment in alignment with the Nuclear Safety and Control Act and includes radiological and conventional contaminants, physical stressors, potential biological effects, and pathways for human and non-human biota.

While Bruce Power has implemented the first edition, work is underway to document, develop and implement the second edition. This report transforms its past appearance to and to meet the CNSC regulatory standard S-99 [R-2]. Beyond the current regulatory requirements, Bruce Power is adopting CSA N288.4-10 [R-1] as part of using applicable best industry standards as a framework for achieving continual improvement. Previous reports are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 Previous Radiological Environmental Monitoring Reports

B-REP-07000-00004 Annual Summary and Assessment of Environmental Radiological Data for 2011 B-REP-03419-00011 Annual Summary and Assessment of Environmental Radiological Data for 2010 B-REP-03419-00010 Annual Summary and Assessment of Environmental Radiological Data for 2009 B-REP-03419-00009 Annual Summary and Assessment of Environmental Radiological Data for 2008 B-REP-03419-00008 Annual Summary and Assessment of Environmental Radiological Data for 2007

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 11 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

1.2 Regulatory Requirements

1.2.1 Licence Requirements

To meet the CNSC Regulatory Standard, S-99, a licensee shall, by April 30 of each calendar, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Commission or a person authorized by the Commission, file with the designated CNSC contact, a report that contains information pertaining to environmental monitoring activities for the previous calendar year. The report shall include [R-2]:

• A summary of the results of the environmental monitoring program.

• An analysis of the significance, with respect to the health and safety of persons and the protection of the environment and the results of the environmental monitoring program.

• Calculations of the radiation doses to the critical group via environmental pathways associated with the operation of the nuclear power plant.

• A description of the domestic models used to calculate the radiation doses reported in the report.

• A description of the results of the quality assurance program that was implemented to assure the quality of the environmental monitoring.

• A description of any significant events or finding the respect of the conduct of, or results of the environmental monitoring program.

The name and address of the sender of the report, the date of completion of the report and the signature of the designated representative of the licensee.

1.2.2 Regulatory Permits and Other Requirements

Federal and provincial regulations require licencees to monitor and report on the characteristics of airborne and waterborne effluent. Licencees are required to comply with any statutes, regulations, licences, or permits that govern the operation of the nuclear facility or licenced activity. [R-4]

The Bruce Power Environmental Safety Programs oversees the planning, implementation and operation of activities, in addition minimizing the potential adverse impact of Bruce Power operations on the natural environment. This includes ensuring the Bruce Power Environmental Safety Program conforms to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 standard for Environmental Management Systems, environmental legislation (acts and regulations), and other requirements applicable to the activities at Bruce Power; documented in BP-PROG-00.02, Environmental Safety Management. Other requirements comprise of commitments to regulators and contractual agreements with Ontario Power Generation (OPG). Currently, other requirements to which Bruce Power subscribe include:

• Commitment to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and Ministry of Health (MOH) to maintain the average tritium level below ~ 100 Bq/L at treatment plants downstream of Bruce Power (i.e., the Southampton Water Treatment Plant). [R-10]

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 12 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

• Communication between Bruce Power and the MOE, the MOH and the CNSC.

• Providing an annual report on environmental performance and OPG.

• Fulfilling Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Exercise and Drill Program, to meet the requirements of Bruce Power Nuclear Emergency Plan.

2.0 BACKGROUND

2.1 Bruce Power Site

Bruce Power is located on the east shore of Lake Huron approximately 18 kilometres (km) north of Kincardine and 17 km southwest of Port Elgin. The site occupies an area of 932 hectares (2300 acres) within the Municipality of Kincardine, County of Bruce, Province of Ontario. Land use in the immediate vicinity is primarily agricultural, recreational and rural residential. Surrounding the Bruce Power site is a mixture of rural agricultural land, former gravel pits, fragmented woodlands, streams and wetlands. Recreational land use includes Inverhuron Park and cottages in the hamlet of Inverhuron (south of Bruce Power) and Baié du Doré/Scott Point area (north of Bruce Power) [R-3].

2.2 Site Facilities

Bruce Power utilizes a site specific survey to identify on-site facilities as well as neighbouring user groups within the area of concern. Bruce Power updates the facility’s site specific survey every five years. The most recent survey took place in 2011 and the updated information is provided in the report entitled “2011 Site Specific Survey Report for the Bruce Power Site” B-REP-03443-00009 [R-3]. This updated information has been integrated into the relevant sections of this report. Multiple companies occupy and operate the lands at the Bruce Site. The on site facilities are summarized below [R-3].

2.2.1 Bruce Power

Bruce Power operates the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station A (BNGS A) and Bruce Nuclear Generating Station B (BNGS B), which each house four CANDU® reactors. All eight of these units are currently operational with a production capacity of 6,300 megawatts of electricity for the Ontario grid. Two units at BNGS A restarted in late 2012. Several support facilities are located on the site such as the Bruce Steam Plant (BSP), a laundry facility, garages, warehouses, workshops, a sewage processing plant and various administrative buildings (collectively known as Centre of Site) [R-3].

2.2.2 Ontario Power Generation

The Western Waste Management Facility (WWMF) is owned and operated by Ontario Power Generation (OPG). It is located on-site, defined by the parcel of land designated for the management of OPG’s radioactive waste and licenced for such use by the CNSC. This 19-hectare area currently contains the Low and Intermediate Level Waste (L&ILW) storage area and the used fuel dry storage area. This area is situated inside the Bruce Power Site (formally known as the Bruce Nuclear Power Development).

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 13 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

The objectives of the WWMF are to provide safe material handling (receipt, transfers and retrieval), treatment, and storage of radioactive materials produced at nuclear generating stations and other facilities currently or previously operated by Ontario Power Generation, or its predecessor Ontario Hydro. This facility also provides safe storage of Bruce Power’s used fuel in Dry Storage Containers (DSC) until it can be transported to an alternative long term used fuel storage or disposal facility.

The L&ILW storage area consists of various structures such as the Amenities Building, Waste Volume Reduction Building (WVRB), Transportation Package Maintenance Building (TPMB), above ground low-level and intermediate-level waste storage buildings, quadricells, in ground containers, trenches, and tile holes. These structures are primarily used for storage and processing of the L&ILW from OPG’s Pickering and Darlington Nuclear Generating Stations as well as Bruce Power operations.

The used fuel dry storage area is a security-protected area located northeast of the L&ILW storage area, and consists of DSC processing and storage buildings. [R-3]

2.2.3 Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

The Douglas Point Waste Management Facility (DPWMF) is owned by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) and is located on the Bruce Power Site. The facility consists of a permanently shutdown, partially decommissioned prototype 200-megawatt CANDU® reactor and associated structures and ancillaries. This facility is presently in the long term “Storage with Surveillance” phase of a decommissioning program [R-3].

2.2.4 Hydro One

Hydro One owns and operates a number of assets within Bruce Power Site. These include, but are not limited to office and workshops for maintenance, switchyards at BNGS A/BNGS B, switching stations and transformer stations [R-3].

3.0 MONITORING PROGRAM METHODOLOGIES

3.1 Radiological Effluent Monitoring Program Methodologies

The radiological effluent monitoring program operated by Bruce Power is described in BP-PROC-00080. Bruce Power’s effluent monitoring program demonstrates

• Compliance with authorized release limits • Effectiveness of effluent control • Provide data to assist in refining modeling • Meet stakeholder commitment

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 14 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

3.2 Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Methodologies

The monitoring program operated by Bruce Power is described in BP-PROC-00076, Management of the Off Site Radiological Environmental Monitoring program. The data gathered from the monitoring program is summarized in this report on a calendar year basis along with site emissions data. OPG operates a background radiological monitoring program [R-5] and provides this data to Bruce Power. Assessments are made for the public dose levels resulting from radiological emissions from Bruce Power site based on the identified potential critical group and data gathered from the Bruce Power’s sampling sites. Section 5.9 provides specific details on the assessment.

Background Tritium (3H) and Carbon 14 (14C) concentrations due to historical atmospheric weapons testing, natural occurrence, or other non Bruce Power site sources, have been subtracted, where appropriate, to determine the net environmental concentrations due to the emissions from the facilities on the Bruce Power site [R-5] [R-6].

The contribution of noble gases, radioiodine and radioactive particulate emissions to public dose cannot be reliably distinguished from natural background by the radiological environmental monitoring program at the typical low level emission rates measured at the Bruce Power site. Model estimates are therefore made of these contributors to dose based on site radiological emissions data. Environmental monitoring is carried out in order to use actual analyzed media values where available, in place of generated modeling values.

The assessment of radiological dose to members of the public living near the Bruce Power site is based upon measured levels of radioactivity in the environment and calculated from reported emissions or containment transport modeling. Dose estimates are used because direct measurements of low radiation doses to a member of the public from all of Bruce Power’s site operations are below detection limits.

Doses are calculated for the thirteen potential critical groups from the Bruce Power site, and the Bruce Energy Centre Worker. A critical group, as defined by the CSA N288.1, Guidelines for Calculation Derived Release Limits for Radioactive material in Airborne and Liquid Effluents for Normal Operations of Nuclear Facilities [R-7], is “a fairly homogeneous group of people whose location, habitat, diet, etc., cause them to receive doses higher than the average received by typical people in all other groups in the expose population.” [R-1] [R-7]

The radiological dose to a human for a radionuclide is determined by the degree of exposure to that radionuclide in the exposure medium and the radionuclide specific and pathway specific Dose Conversion Factor (DCF). The degree of exposure is dependent on the specific activity of the radionuclide in the exposure medium and the attributes that define the degree of contact with the medium.

For example:

The radiological dose received by a human due to the ingestion of Tritium (HTO) in drinking water over a calendar year is calculated via the following equation:

E = A x Q

Where:

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 15 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

E = Exposure, the amount of tritiated water ingested.

A = the specific activity of HTO in the drinking water source (Bq/L).

And:

Q = the quantity of drinking water consumed in one calendar year (l/year).

The radiological dose (D) is then equal to the exposure (E) multiplied by the dose conversion factor (DCF).

D = E x DCF

= A x Q x DCF

This assumes the drinking water source containing HTO was the only source of drinking water for the entire year, which is highly conservative.

The doses for the different nuclides and pathways are similarly calculated and summed to give total dose from all nuclides and pathways.

3.2.1 Critical Group Discussion

The Potential Critical Groups (PCG) identified in the most recent site specific survey are listed in Table 2. The location of each PCG is illustrated in Figure 1. These groups are used as representatives of the general public for the purposes of dose assessment. For each group except Bruce Energy Centre (BEC) worker, three age classes are considered, that is, one year old infant, ten year old child and adult. The characteristics of each group, including the use of local water supplies and consumption of home grown produce, are based on the Bruce site specific survey [R-3]. Note that the absolute intake rates in different food categories are based on central dietary intake rates from CSA N288.1-08 [R-7] [R-18], except for fish and venison intakes which are based on site-specific survey [R-3]. For the dose assessment purpose, mean inhalation rates and water ingestion rates are used for each age class [R-19].

Since the 2007 Site Specific Survey, the significant changes identified in the survey are:

• Two distinct lifestyles in the farming community. • Location of nearest dairy farmer.

The results indicate that there are two distinct lifestyles in the farming community. The majority of the farming community purchase their food sources from the supermarket and only obtain a small portion (10% or less) of their food sources from their farms. The remainder of the farmers obtains all or most of their food sources from their farms. This latter group is a result of a new community that has recently been established between 5 km and 10 km south east of Bruce Power site.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 16 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Based on the lifestyle of this new community, this group of farmers was identified as a new PCG (known as Mennonite Farmer). Mennonite Farmer includes farms which produce raw cow's milk and milk products for their own consumption. This consumption is considered in the percentage local food consumption calculations. Farmer is defined as farms that are within 10 km of Bruce Power site and this farm group obtains the majority of their food sources from the supermarket. The 2007 survey identified a dairy farm located within 10 km of Bruce Power Site, and since the 2007 survey, this farm is no longer a dairy farm. The nearest commercial dairy farms are beyond 10 km from Bruce Power Site. One of these dairy farms is located at the intersection of Bruce Saugeen Townline and Highway 21 (BDF1), and the other (BDF9) at the intersection of Sideroad 15N and County Road 15 (See Figure 1).

As a result of the information accumulation during the survey, the four types of potential critical groups are:

1. Non-farm residential 2. Dairy farm resident 3. Mennonite farmer 4. Farm resident

Table 3 to Table 5 compare percentage of food intake obtained from local sources [R-3] [R-21].

Each critical group has dose calculations performed for an adult, 15 year old child, 10 year old child, 5 year old child, and one year old infant [R-7]. The group and age class which is assigned the highest calculated dose for the year is termed the critical group. Dose calculations are also performed for a worker employed at the Bruce Energy Centre. See Table A 2 to Table A 15 in Appendix A for dose calculations.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 17 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 2 Identification of Potential Critical Groups

Group Name General Characteristics and Location of Potential Critical Groups Non-farm resident, Lakeshore BR1 Scott Point, Located north of the Bruce Power site BR17 Non-farm resident, Inland, Located to the east of the Bruce Power site Non-farm resident, Inland BR25 Located to the southeast of the Bruce Power site Non-farm resident, Inland, Trailer Park BR27 Located to the south of the Bruce Power site Non-farm resident, Lakeshore BR32 Located to the south of Bruce Power site in Inverhuron Non-farm resident, Inland BR48 Located to the east of the Bruce Power site near Baie du Doré Agricultural, farm resident BF8 Located to the southeast of the Bruce Power site Agricultural, farm resident BF14 Located to the southeast of the Bruce Power site Agricultural, farm resident BF16 Located to the east of the Bruce Power site Agricultural, farm resident BMF2 Located to the southeast of the Bruce Power site Agricultural, farm resident BMF3 Located to the southeast of the Bruce Power site Agricultural, Dairy farm resident BDF9 Located to the southeast of the Bruce Power site Bruce Energy Worker in BEC (now known as Bruce Eco-Industrial Park) Centre (BEC) Located to the east of the Bruce Power site

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 18 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 1 Locations of Potential Critical Groups Considered in the 2011 Site Specific Survey (Source Base Map from Bruce County Map Factory)

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 19 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 3 Percentage of Local Food Consumption for Each Potential Critical Group as Determined in the 2011 Site Specific Survey

Potential Infant Child Adult Food Critical Group (0-5 yr) (6-15 yr) (17+ yr) Fruit 2.74 1.72 1.86 Above ground 2.65 3.07 3.67 Vegetables Grain 0.49 0.60 0.50 Root 1.07 1.28 1.22 Vegetables Beef 0.25 0.73 1.51 Non-Farm Residents Milk 0.68 0.60 0.47 Venison 0.00 0.33 0.48 Honey 0.01 0.04 0.07 Pork 0.04 0.18 0.39 Eggs 0.22 0.32 0.76 Poultry 0.06 0.14 0.24 Fish 1.49 6.14 3.84 Fruit 0.00 0.00 0.00 Above ground 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vegetables Grain 0.00 0.00 0.00 Root 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vegetables Beef 1.00 2.87 5.95 Dairy Farmer Milk1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Venison 0.00 0.00 0.00 Honey 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pork 0.00 0.00 0.00 Eggs 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poultry 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fish 0.00 0.00 0.00

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 20 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Potential Infant Child Adult Food Critical Group (0-5 yr) (6-15 yr) (17+ yr) Fruit 18.27 11.47 12.44 Above ground 19.98 23.14 27.63 Vegetables Grain 16.41 20.03 16.66 Root 11.44 13.71 13.07 Vegetables Beef 2.66 7.66 15.88 Mennonite Farmer Milk 92.83 81.96 63.49 Venison 0.13 0.00 0.06 Honey 0.08 0.25 0.44 Pork 0.77 3.15 6.90 Eggs 2.10 3.05 7.18 Poultry 1.05 2.42 4.31 Fish 21.05 0.00 1.66 Fruit 4.62 2.90 3.15 Above ground 5.78 6.70 7.99 Vegetables Grain 0.71 0.86 0.72 Root 11.44 13.71 13.07 Vegetables Beef 0.63 1.81 3.76 Farmer Milk 1.79 1.58 1.22 Venison 0.38 1.15 1.13 Honey 0.03 0.08 0.14 Pork 0.00 0.01 0.02 Eggs 0.89 1.29 3.04 Poultry 0.27 0.62 1.10 Fish 2.98 10.63 8.27

Note: Based on the survey data from a small sample of the most affected dairy farms, dairy farmers did not drink their own milk.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 21 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 4 Percentage of Water Usage for Each Potential Critical Group as Determined in the 2011 Site Specific Survey

Potential Critical Group Sources Drinking Bathing Irrigation Livestock Municipal Water 36.3 44.4 39.4 24.7 Private Well 32.9 48.5 41.4 41.8 Non-Farm Common Well 1.8 2.3 3.6 0.0 Residents Bottled Water 27.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 Lake 0.4 5.0 0.6 0.3 Pond 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Cistern 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 Municipal Water 0 0 0 0 Private Well 100 100 80 100 Mennonite Common Well 0 0 0 0 Group Bottled Water 0 0 0 0 Lake 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 Cistern 0 0 20 0 Municipal Water 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Private Well 90.0 96.3 93.8 84.3 Common Well 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Farmer Bottled Water 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pond 0.0 3.7 1.8 8.8 Cistern 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Municipal Water 0 0 0 0 Private Well 100 100 100 100 Common Well 0 0 0 0 Dairy Farmer Bottled Water 0 0 0 0 Lake 0 0 0 0 Pond 0 0 0 0 Cistern 0 0 0 0

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 22 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 5 Intakes of Fish and Venison for Each Potential Critical Group as Determined in the 2011 Site Specific Survey

Total consumption rate (Kg/person/year) Potential critical Category groups Infant Child Adult Non-Farm Residents 0.4 6.0 13.3 Mennonite Group 2.5 0.0 2.7 Fish Farmer 0.7 9.7 27.0 Dairy Farmer 0.0 0.0 34.7 Maximum 2.5 9.7 34.7 Non-Farm Residents 0.0 1.2 2.0 Mennonite Group 0.5 0.0 0.3 Venison Farmer 1.5 4.3 4.7 Dairy Farmer 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maximum 1.5 4.3 4.7

3.2.2 Radionuclides and Exposure Pathways

Doses are calculated for each of the potential critical groups due to the exposures to each of the following radionuclides via the pathways in Table 6. The results are then summed to produce the total dose.

Table 6 Radionuclide Exposure Pathways

Radionuclides Pathways Tritiated Water (HTO) Air Inhalation/Skin Absorption Nobles Gases Air Immersion (external exposure) Iodine (mfp) Water Ingestion Water Immersion (swimming/bathing), Particulates Sediment/Soil External Exposure (ground shine) Terrestrial Plant Ingestion, Terrestrial Animal Carbon-14 Ingestion, Aquatic Animal Ingestion (fish) Terrestrial Plant Ingestion Terrestrial Animal Ingestion Organically Bound Tritium Aquatic Plant Ingestion Aquatic Animal Ingestion (fish)

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 23 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

3.3 Conventional (Hazardous Substances) Monitoring Program Methodologies

The conventional monitoring program operated by Bruce Power is described in BP-PROC-00079 and BP-PROC-00099. These procedures provide requirements for effluent sampling, monitoring and compliance with limits in the Municipal and Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA): Effluent Monitoring and Effluent Limits - Electrical Power Generation Sector (Ontario Regulation 215/95, as amended by O. Reg 525/95 and O.Reg. 174/99), the General Air Pollution Regulation (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 346 as amended by O. Reg. 419/05), the Environmental Protection Act (R.S.O. 1990, c.E. 19), the Ontario Water Resources Act (R.S.O. 1990, c.O.40), ECA issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Permits to Take Water (PTTW) issued by the Ministry of the Environment and with Internal Administrative Limits.

3.4 Impacts and Biodiversity Monitoring Program Methodologies

Bruce Power currently does not have a detailed impact and biodiversity monitoring procedure. However, many activities are completed annually to assess the potential biological effects in the environment arising from the facility. As part of continuous improvement procedural details will be developed.

4.0 RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUENT MONITORING PROGRAM - BRUCE A, BRUCE B, CMLF, OPG, AECL

The radiological monitoring program is divided into two parts:

1. Effluent Monitoring 2. Environmental Monitoring

This section discusses the 2012 and historical results for the effluent monitoring program as well as identifies opportunities for improvement. Furthermore, discussion of short and long term trends are discussed throughout the report. Five year and 10 year moving averages have been calculated and are displayed in report figures as they relate to the regulatory limit.

Airborne radiological emissions monitoring occurs at Bruce A and Bruce B nuclear generating stations on the contaminated and non-contaminated stacks and on the contaminated stacks at the Central Maintenance and Laundry Facility (CMLF) in accordance with BP-PROC-00080, Monitoring of Radioactivity in Effluent. The OPG WWMF also monitor for airborne emissions in accordance with W-PROC-OM-0025, the Radiological Effluent Emission Monitoring Results.

4.1 2012 Radiological Effluent Results

In 2012, Bruce Power’s airborne and waterborne radiological emissions presented in Table 7 and Table 8 were well below regulatory limits and below internal annual targets. Figure 2 shows the radioactive effluent controls and limits. Figures showing historical effluent data is well below regulatory limits and exists in the normal operation range. The airborne radionuclides that are monitored are Tritium, Nobles Gases, Radioiodine (131I), Carbon-14 (14C), alpha, beta and gamma-emitters on particulate material. The results are presented in Table 7.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 24 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Bruce A, Bruce B, CMLF and the OPG WWMF also monitor for waterborne radioactive emissions. The monitored waterborne radionuclides (Tritium, 14C, Gross α, β, γ) data, and the subset of radionuclides contributing to the dose are listed in Table 8. Waterborne tritium emissions include active liquid waste, boiler discharges and foundation drainage.

Effluents can change depending on activities occurring in the nuclear facilities, such as planned/forced outages, surplus base load generation and refurbishment. The Bruce Power outage schedule for 2012 has been provided in Table 9.

The first edition of CSA N288.5, Effluent monitoring programs at Class 1 nuclear facilities and uranium mines and mills [R-4] was issued April 2011. This standard is part of a series of guidelines and standards on environmental management of nuclear facilities. Bruce Power recently adopted CSA N288.5, and is currently working towards the implementation of the standard as a “best practice” [R-4].

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 25 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Basis Measure 1000 μSv/y DRLs Bq/wk (air) For each radionuclide release group per Bq/mo (water) facility, plus “sum of fractions of DRL” rule over all radionuclides per facility to ensure the total dose remains below the limit. 20 μSv/mo ALc EEDs (μSv/mo) One combined dose Action Level for all radionuclide release groups from all Bruce Power per site. EEDs = Bruce Power emission effective dose. 2 μSv/wk (air) AL Bq/wk (air) For each radionuclide release group per 8 μSv/mo (water) Bq/mo (water) facility. IIL Bq/wk (air) For each radionuclide release group per Bq/mo (water) facility. IIL is at the high end of normal release rates, e.g., at 97.5th percentile. Single Pathway Thresholds. ↑ ↑

Normal releases may be characterized Normal Range Bq/wk (air) by 95% confidence interval and/or mean ALARA of Releases Bq/mo (water) (NOL). ↓ ↓

Derived Release Limit for individual radionuclide groups, which triggers reporting DRL = to CNSC. AL = Action Level for individual radionuclide groups, which triggers reporting to CNSC. Combined Dose Action Level for all radionuclides, which triggers reporting to ALc = CNSC. Internal Investigation Level, which triggers the internal Bruce Power SCR IIL = process. Normal Operating Level, i.e., mean of historic releases. For longer term trend NOL = analysis.

Figure 2 Framework for Radioactive Effluent Controls and Limits

The radiological effluents (Airborne and Waterborne) are reported quarterly to the CNSC. The annual summary of effluent data is presented in Table 7 and in Table 8.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 26 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Permanent stack monitoring for Unit 1 Non-Contamination (NC) stack has a target completion date Q2-2013. Portable monitors are in place and supplemented with calculated estimates where necessary. Unit 1 Contaminated (C) and Unit 2 C and NC are in service. The increase in Bruce A airborne emission effective dose in Q4 is largely due to 14C emissions. Gadolinium Nitrate was used for reactivity shim in Units 1 and 2 during this time. While using Gadolinium Nitrate, 14C can be produced in the Moderator and be released through a purge of the Moderator Cover Gas system.

In late December 2012 and early January 2013, Bruce A implemented the use of Boron in Unit 2 followed by Unit 1 for reactivity shim in place of Gadolinium Nitrate. The airborne 14C emissions have since returned to normal operating levels.

Bruce B Noble gas monitors have not been available since Q2-2009 however, calculated estimates have been used where necessary. The installation of the new monitors has been delayed due to technical issues with the functional capability of the new monitors. A new project, to acquire and install suitable monitors, is being expedited. The completion date has not been finalized.

Table 7 Annual Airborne (Gaseous) Radioactive Effluent Results for 2012

Emissions (Bq) Pathway - Bruce A Bruce B CMLF WWMF AECL Total Radionuclide (OPG) Air Tritium Oxide 4.50E+14 3.26E+14 1.03E+10 1.04E+13 1.74E+11 7.87E+14 Noble Gas 6.82E+13 3.64E+12 N/A N/A N/A 7.18E+13 131I 2.18E+08 4.13E+07 2.15E+05 6.06E+04 N/A 2.60E+08 Particulate - Gross Beta < 7.45E+06 1.80E+07 N/A N/A N/A 2.55E+07 Particulate - Gamma Scan N/A N/A 4.31E+05 1.26E+05 N/A 5.57E+05 Particulate - Gross Alpha < 6.40E+05 < 4.38E+05 3.92E+00 N/A N/A < 1.08E+06 14C 2.30E+12 1.16E+12 N/A 1.88E+09 1.31E+09 3.46E+12

Note: Bruce B’s ability to identify reporting < Minimum Detection Limit (MDL) was initiated in 2012. MDL is the minimum level that can be detected with a 95% false/negative confidence and a 5% false/positive confidence.

Note: N/A Not applicable

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 27 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 8 Annual Waterborne (Aqueous) Radioactive Effluent Results for 2012

Pathway - Emissions (Bq) Radionuclide Bruce A Bruce B CMLF WWMF AECL Total (OPG) Water Tritium Oxide 1.40E+14 1.14E+15 N/A 1.00E+11 4.49E+10 1.28E+15

C-14 5.37E+08 4.63E+09 N/A N/A < 3.11E+09 < 8.28E+09 Gross β/γ 5.79E+08 3.35E+09 N/A N/A 4.40E+07 3.97E+09 Gross β N/A N/A N/A 6.80E+07 N/A 6.80E+07 Gross α 1.60E+06 1.11E+06 N/A N/A N/A 2.71E+06 Am241 < MDL < MDL N/A N/A N/A < MDL As76 < MDL 1.78E+07 N/A N/A N/A ~1.78E+07 Co60 < MDL 9.72E+08 N/A N/A N/A ~9.72E+08 Cr51 < MDL 1.16E+07 N/A N/A N/A ~1.16E+07 Cs136 < MDL 1.61E+06 N/A N/A N/A ~1.61E+06 Cs137 3.77E+07 2.72E+07 N/A N/A N/A 6.49E+07 Fe59 < MDL < MDL N/A N/A N/A < MDL Hg203 < MDL 1.51E+07 N/A N/A N/A ~1.51E+07 Mn54 < MDL 3.37E+07 N/A N/A N/A ~3.37E+07 Nb95 < MDL 1.38E+08 N/A N/A N/A ~1.38E+08 Sb124 < MDL 1.33E+07 N/A N/A N/A ~1.33E+07 Sr90 3.30E+06 5.97E+06 N/A N/A N/A 9.27E+06 U235 < MDL 3.32E+07 N/A N/A N/A 3.32E+07 Zr95 < MDL 2.79E+07 N/A N/A N/A 2.79E+07

Note: N/A Not Applicable

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 28 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 9 2012 Bruce Power Outage Schedule

Station Unit Start Date End Date Bruce A Unit 1 28-Nov-12 28-Dec-12 29-Dec-12 30-Dec-12 9-Nov-12 13-Nov-12 14-Nov-12 14-Nov-12 Unit 3 6-Nov-11 15-Jun-12 15-Jul-12 21-Jul-12 17-Nov-12 21-Nov-12 Unit 4 2-Aug-12 31-Dec-12 Bruce B Unit 5 12-Apr-12 16-Apr-12 Unit 7 25-May-12 27-May-12 28-Aug-12 28-Aug-12 Unit 8 15-Jan-12 3-Feb-12 2-Mar-12 5-Mar-12 11-Mar-12 13-Mar-12 27-Apr-12 18-Jun-12

Note: Includes forced, planned.

4.2 Historical Radiological Effluent Results

Figure 3 details the historical trend in airborne tritium emissions. Airborne tritium is a principal radiological emission associated with dose to the public. Figure 4 details the historical trend in waterborne tritium emissions. Trending includes long term illustrated by the 10 year moving average line and short term illustrated by the 5 year moving average line.

Bruce B’s effluent emission reduction, with regard to tritium is the result of a subcommittee set up under ALARA1. Multi-disciplinary team efforts occurred including an OPEX2 study. Bruce B’s emission reductions with regard to 14C is due to an increased focus on moderator purification resin management.

1 As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) is a basic concept of radiation protection that specifies that the magnitude and likelihood of worker and public radiation dose and the number of individuals exposed, be kept as low as reasonably achievable, “economic and social factors being taken into account”. ALARA also applies to preventing or minimizing spread of radioactive contamination thereby minimizing the potential for internal exposure.

2 OPEX- Operating Experience Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 29 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Bruce A and Bruce B show similar long term trends with regard to tritium in air emissions. Both facilities showed past increasing trends with recent decreasing trends which can be attributed to maintenance and refurbishment initiatives (Figure 3).

Bruce A shows a long term stable trend with regard to tritium releases in water. Bruce B shows tritium releases in 2003, 2007 and 2012 associated with boiler tube leaks (Figure 4). These emissions remain well below the Derived Release Limit (DRL).

Figure 3 Historical Tritium Emissions in Air

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 30 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 4 Historical Tritium Emission in Water

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

14C emissions in air have been stable at Bruce A over the long term. Bruce B shows increasing 14C air emissions peaking in 2006 with a recent decreasing trend in recent years. This is a result of an increased focus on ion exchange resin (IX) management and reduction of cover gas purging (Figure 5, Figure 6). 14C water emissions have generally declined over time. Bruce A emissions are lower than Bruce B because of two unit operation at Bruce A versus 4 unit operation at Bruce B.

Figure 5 details the historical trend in 14C emissions in air and Figure 6 details the historical trend in 14C emissions in water. 14C in air and water is a radiological emission associated with dose to the public.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 31 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 5 Historical 14C Emission in Air

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 32 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 6 Historical 14C Emission in Water

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Figure 7 details the historical trend in Iodine emissions in air. Iodine in air is a radiological emission associated with dose to the public. Iodine emissions in 2012 are greater than previous years but remain well below all regulatory limits. The 2012 emissions are due to iodine not being captured by carbon filter beds. These filter beds have since been replaced.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 33 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 7 Historical Iodine Emission in Air

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Air and water emissions show variation over time. Bruce Power strives to keep emissions as low as reasonably achievable. All emissions’ contribution to an individual is well below the regulatory limit to an individual’s total exposure to radiation.

4.3 Opportunities for Improvement

Opportunities to reduce emissions and environmental impacts from tritium can be found in, “International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2010, Good Practices in Heavy Water Reactor Operation”. These include:

• Catalogue leaks and work down repairs.

• Improve dryer performance.

• Reduction of Tritium concentrations in Moderator and Heat Transport.

• Communication of recovery plans commitments and timeline to plant management team and employees. Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 34 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Opportunities to reduce emissions and environmental impacts from 14C can be found in, “Journal of NUCLEAR SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 41, No. 2, p. 235–246 (February 2004) Approaches for Reducing Carbon-14 Stack Emissions from Korean CANDU1 Nuclear Power Plant by Wook SOHN, Duk-Won KANG and Junhwa CHI.” These include:

• Restriction of the maximum in-service time of moderator ion exchange (IX) resin columns to 80 days.

• Discontinuation of the practice of re-using ‘used’ IX resin columns for removing the gadolinium nitrate at start-up.

• Reduction of the frequency and volume of the moderator cover gas purging through increased O2 additions to the cover gas.

5.0 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM

The following sections detail the results of the radiological environmental monitoring programs for both the Bruce Power site and the provincial monitoring program.

The Bruce Power radiological environmental monitoring program carries out sampling and analysis of the following environmental parameters:

• External Gamma Radiation in Air • Tritium and 14C in Air • Precipitation • Water • Aquatic Samples (including fish, sediment and sand) • Terrestrial samples (including animal products, vegetation and soils)

The external gamma dose rates and the provincial monitoring program samples were measured by the OPG Whitby Health Physics Laboratory [R-8].

The location of the potential Critical Groups are detailed in Section 3.2.1 and the sampling locations in the vicinity of Bruce Power are detailed in Figure A1 Appendix A.

5.1 External Gamma in Air

Environmental external gamma dose rates were measured using Harshaw EGM Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs). The dosimeters were exposed for three-month periods (quarterly) and the annual doses are the sum of the quarterly results. The accuracy of the dosimeters is estimated to be ± 15 percent. The accuracy is verified by the quality control program described in the Ontario Power Generation 2012 Results of Radiological Environmental Monitoring program [R-8]. Background dosimeters are also located at various locations around Ontario and are collected quarterly.

5.1.1 2012 External Gamma Results

The dosimeters location throughout the province show the range of background radiation levels experienced during the year. Bruce Power results are detailed in Table 10 and Provincial results are detailed in Table 11. Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 35 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

The Bruce Power indicator sites are B2, B3, and B4, and are located closest to the Bruce Power site. The average external gamma dose in air Bruce Power indicator sites B2, B3, and B4 was 53.7 ηGy/h.

Table 10 2012 Annual External Gamma Dose Rate Measurements

Bruce Power Site Total Total Measured Annual Annualized Location Exposure Dose in Air (μGy) Average Dose Exposure Time (days) Rate in Air (μGy) (ηGy/h) B2 (Indicator Site) 364 488 55.9 490 B3 (Indicator Site) 364 487 55.7 489 B4 (Indicator Site) 363 430 49.4 433 Average B2, B3, B4 468 53.7 470 B5 363 407 46.7 410 B7 364 416 47.6 417 B8 364 397 45.4 398 B9 364 401 45.9 402 B10 365 551 62.9 551 B11 364 491 56.2 493 Average 444 50.8 445 B6 (Control) 364 405 46.4 406

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 36 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Provincial background sites measure ambient external gamma radiation in air. The average of the provincial background sites was 59.1 ηGy/h. The average of the provincial background sites is slightly higher than the Bruce Power indicator sites.

Table 11 2012 Provincial Annual External Gamma Dose Rate Measurements

Provincial Location Total Total Annual Average Annualized Exposure Time Measured Dose Rate in Air Exposure (days) Dose in Air (ηGy/h) (μGy) (μGy) Bancroft 364 571 65.4 573 Barrie 367 527 59.8 524 Belleville 363 582 66.8 586 Lakefield 364 561 64.2 563 Niagara Falls 352 397 47.0 412 North Bay 378 542 59.7 524 Ottawa 364 450 51.5 452 Parry Sound 369 480 54.2 475 Sudbury 256 425 69.2 606 Thunder Bay 368 523 59.2 519 Windsor 346 442 53.2 467 Average 500 59.1 518

The average of the provincial background sites was 59.1 ηGy/h. TLD measurements alone cannot resolve the very low gamma doses in air associated with station emissions or those observed provincially. As a result, a conservative modeling method of estimating noble gas activity in the environment using emission data and atmospheric dilution factors is used in the dose estimates.

5.1.2 Historical External Gamma in Air Results

The external gamma rate trend Figure 8, shows that the Bruce Power external gamma values have remained relatively constant over the past five years. This is primarily due to stabilization in atmospheric radiation levels from historical aboveground weapons testing fallout.

The slight increase in Bruce Power gamma in the past 5 years may be attributed to the return to service of Unit 3 and 4 and more recently Unit 1 & Unit 2. Bruce Power’s levels have remained below provincial background for more than 10 years. It is unclear as to the reason for the Provincial increase occurring around 2006. However, it should be noted that both Bruce Power and Provincial trends show similar trends.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 37 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 8 Annual Average External Gamma Dose Rates at Bruce Power Indicator Sites and Provincial Background Sites Over Time

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

5.2 Tritium and Carbon-14 in Air

5.2.1 Tritium

Tritium in air can be collected using active or passive samples. Bruce Power discontinued the use of passive samplers after Q2 2011 and is currently using active samplers for all dose calculations [R-9]. For the case of tritium this improves sample collection results.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 38 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

5.2.1.1 Active Sampling

Water vapor is collected by passing air at a continuous rate through an absorbent material (molecular sieve). The water is extracted and analyzed monthly for tritium and results are obtained by multiplying the specific activity of tritium in the extracted water by the average absolute humidity measured for the sampling period. The average absolute humidity is determined by dividing the mass of water collected on the molecular sieve by the volume of air sampled as measured by an integrating flow meter. Samples from the active samplers are collected and analyzed monthly. Monthly samples are averaged by location per year.

5.2.1.2 2012 Tritium in Air Sampling Results

The 2012 results of the active tritium air sampling are detailed in Table 12 and graphically in Table 13. Locations of active samplers are depicted in Figure A 1 in Appendix A.

Although the airborne concentration of tritium is low across all sites, the results of measurements throughout 2012 show higher than Provincial average airborne tritium near the Bruce Power site.

The April 2012, tritium in air at site B4 (as shown in Figure 9) can be associated with Bruce A Unit 3 and a Bruce B Unit 7 maintenance outages as noted in Table 9.

Table 12 2012 Annual Average Tritium in Air

Site Active Sampling1 (Bq/m3) Bruce Power Site B2 (Indicator Site) 1.77 B3 (Indicator Site) 1.28 B4 (Indicator Site) 2.10 B5 1.02 B6 (Control) 0.17 B7 1.41 B8 0.24 B9 0.21 B10 1.02 B11 0.65 Provincial Location Nanticoke 0.06

Note: 1Tritium result is based on the arithmetic mean of the activity of two replicate samples.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 39 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 9 Tritium Concentrations (Bq/m3) in Air from Active Samplers Near the Bruce Power Site As Compared to the Provincial Average on a Monthly Basis

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

5.2.1.3 Historical Tritium in Air Sampling Results

Figure 10 shows the historical trend of tritium in air (obtained by averaging results from all Bruce Power locations by air) surrounding the Bruce Power site. Tritium in air emissions increased after Unit 3 and 4 were restarted. However, there is a recent decreasing trend of tritium in air, which is attributed to the reduction of tritium in air emissions (Figure 3). All tritium in air contribution to an individual is well below the regulatory limit to an individual’s total exposure to radiation.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 40 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 10 Annual Average Tritium in Air Concentrations (Bq/m3) from Active Samplers at Bruce Power and Provincial Locations Over Time

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

5.2.2 Carbon-14 In Air Results

Passive sampling of air occurs for 14C. The 14C passive samplers consist of mixed hydroxide pellets to absorb CO2 from air at a controlled rate. The CO2 is released from the pellets, in the laboratory by titration with acid, collected and analyzed by liquid scintillations counting for 14C content. The passive sampler samples are collected and analyzed quarterly. The sampling locations in the vicinity of Bruce Power are also detailed on Figure A 1 in Appendix A.

5.2.2.1 2012 Carbon-14 Air Sampling Results

The 2012 results of the passive 14C in air sampling are detailed in Table 13. The 2012 results of the quarterly 14C in air sampling are depicted graphically in Figure 11. Bruce Power locations show slightly higher levels than provincial locations. All 14C in air contribution to an individual is well below the regulatory limit to an individual’s total exposure to radiation. Bruce Power 2012 results are stable along with provincial background as noted in Figure 11.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 41 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 13 2012 Annual Average 14C in Air from Passive Samplers at Bruce Power and Provincial Locations

Passive Site Sampling 14C (Bq14C/kgC) Bruce Power Sites: B-Site3 256.50 B-Site 5 #1 262.50 B-Site 5 #2 261.25 B-Site 11 260.50 BR1 268.50 BR11 271.75 BDF11 249.75 BF1 257.25 BF14 250.50 Average 259.83 Provincial Locations: Bancroft 250.98 Barrie 243.06 Belleville 256.08 Lakefield 237.67 Lambton 223.60 Picton 244.98 Average 242.73

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 42 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 11 2012 14C Concentrations in Air from Passive Samplers Sampled Quarterly Near the Bruce Power Site as Compared to the Provincial Average

5.2.2.2 Historical 14C Air Sampling Results

The historical 14C in air sampling results are detailed graphically in Figure 12.

Although Bruce Power is above the Provincial average with regard to 14C, both Bruce Power and the Province remain stable.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 43 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 12 Annual Average 14C in Air Concentrations at Bruce Power and Provincial Locations Over Time

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

5.3 Tritium and Gross Beta in Precipitation

Precipitation (dry and wet fallout) is collected and analyzed monthly. Samples are analyzed for tritium by liquid scintillation counting and for gross beta by proportional counting. Liquid is not always present in the samples during dry months, thus monthly tritium results and annual tritium averages are generally a representation of wetter months.

Dose calculations do not use dry and wet fallout monitoring data; however, the data does give a gross indication of levels of tritium and gross beta activity in other environmental media.

In the 1950's and 1960's, atmospheric nuclear weapons testing significantly increase the tritium concentration in rain water throughout the world [R-5]. Monitoring in the Ottawa Valley for tritium in precipitation started in the late 1950's. The tritium concentration in precipitation peaked in 1963 at approximately 350 Bq/L and has declined in an exponential fashion to less than 3 Bq/L [R-5].

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 44 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

5.3.1 2012 Tritium/Gross Beta Precipitation Results

The 2012 monthly results, averaged over the year are presented in Table 14.

Provincial data is not available because it is not collected or analyzed.

Table 14 2012 Annual Average Precipitation Data

Average Tritium Activity in Average Gross Beta Precipitation Deposition Rate Site (Bq/L) (Bq/m2/month) Bruce Power Sites: B2 (Indicator) 126.6 18.5 B3 (Indicator) 104.2 16.2 B4 (Indicator) 137.0 16.5 B5 86.6 15.6 B6 (Control) 9.0 15.4 B7 141.4 17.4 B8 13.4 14.8 B9 13.1 15.7 B10 62.8 17.3 B11 41.0 13.1

5.3.1.1 Historical Tritium/Gross Beta Precipitation Results

The historical precipitation at Bruce Power Indicator sites (B2, B3 and B4) are shown graphically in Figure 13. Precipitation will invariably become surface water, ground water and potentially a source of drinking water via shallow wells. Refer to Section 6 for more details.

Figure 13 shows a reduction from 2010 to 2012. The reduction of in tritium in precipitation can be attributed to the reduction of tritium air emissions as seen in Figure 3. As seen in Figure 13 gross Beta (β) values remain stable.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 45 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 13 Annual Average Tritium and Gross Beta Concentrations in Precipitation at the Bruce Power Site Over Time

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

5.4 Water Samples

Municipal drinking water samples are collected from two Water Supply Plants (WSP) on Lake Huron near the Bruce Power site. Southampton Water Supply Plant is 22 km NE of Bruce A. Kincardine Water Supply Plant is 15 km SSW of Bruce B.

The water supply plants are sampled twice per day during regular operation. In addition to the WSP, municipal drinking water well samples are also collected and analyzed. Weekly composite samples are analyzed for tritium by liquid scintillation counting and monthly composite samples are analyzed for gross beta by proportional counting. Water samples are also collected from local wells, streams, and Lake Huron within the vicinity of the Bruce Power site, shown in Table 15. Locations can be viewed in Figure A-1, Appendix A. The shallow wells are sampled bi-monthly based on availability with occupancy. The Lake Huron and streams sites are sampled bi-monthly when free of ice. Deep wells are sampled semi-annually.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 46 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

5.4.1 2012 Water Sample Results

Water from local wells and Lake Huron are sampled and analyzed for tritium with results shown in Table 15. The source of tritium can be attributed to tritium emission from the Bruce Power site related to precipitation washout migrating into the shallow wells. Tritium concentrations in the deep wells continue to be negligible. Deep well BR37, which is in close proximity to BM10, appears to be one well under the influence of Lake Huron. A graphical representation of 2012 average concentration tritium in Lake Huron and in well water is shown in Figure 16. The shallow wells continue to have elevated tritium concentrations relative to provincial background levels. Location of sample sites can be found in Figure A-1 of Appendix A. Although there are no regulatory standards which apply to specifically to these wells the numbers are well below Ontario Drinking Water Standard of 7000 Bq/L.

Table 15 2012 Bruce Power Annual Average Tritium and Gross Beta Concentrations

Water Source Tritium Average (Bq/L) Gross Beta (Bq/L) Water Supply Plants: Kincardine 9.79* 0.06 Southampton 14.41* 0.07 BM12 All values less than 5.8 N/A BM13 All values less than 5.8 N/A BM3 All values less than 5.8 N/A BM6 All values less than 5.8 N/A Deep Wells BR1 All values less than 5.8 N/A BR8 All values less than 5.8 N/A BR25 All values less than 5.8 N/A BR37 18.72** N/A BF1 All values less than 5.8 N/A BF14 All values less than 5.8 N/A BDF11 All values less than 5.8 N/A BM2 All values less than 5.8 Shallow Wells BR2 77.8 < Ld BR3 82.8 N/A BR4 65.9 N/A BR32 21.3 0.31 BR41 25.1 N/A BR42 25.8 N/A BF6 28.2 N/A

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 47 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Water Source Tritium Average (Bq/L) Gross Beta (Bq/L) Lakes and Streams BC1 36.92 0.13 BC2 82.72 0.10 BC3 30.67 0.19 BC4 54.85 0.14 BM4 81.28 0.06 BM4 duplicate 82.72 0.07 BM10 13.82 0.04 BM20 57.98 0.05 Note: *For calculation of local averages where analyses were less than detection, 100% of the detection value was used.

Note: **BR37 does not exhibit characteristics similar to a deep well and appears to be under the influence of Lake Huron.

Note: N/A is not applicable

Note: Lake water at locations BR2 and BR39 have been renamed to BM20 and BM10 respectively because the samples from these locations are lake water samples rather than residential samples.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 48 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

The provincial background samples are collected from locations throughout the province on a quarterly basis for Tritium and Gross Beta are presented in Table 16 and Table 17 respectively [R-8].

Table 16 2012 Tritium Concentrations (± 2 Standard Deviation) in Provincial Drinking Water Sampled Quarterly

Location Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Bq/L ± 2σ Bq/L ± 2σ Bq/L ± 2σ Bq/L ± 2σ Bancroft (Clark Lake) < MDL < MDL < MDL No Sample Belleville (Bay of Quinte) 3.79 2.39 < MDL 3.52 2.20 No Sample Cobourg (Lake Ontario) 4.80 2.40 < MDL 5.44 2.313 No Sample Brockville (WSP) < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL Burlington (WSP) < MDL 4.48 2.51 4.74 2.273 3.89 2.43 Goderich (WSP) < MDL < MDL 5.754 2.33 < MDL Kingston (WSP) < MDL < MDL 4.23 2.24 < MDL London (WSP) < MDL 5.34 2.58 3.84 2.22 < MDL Niagara Falls (WSP) < MDL < MDL 4.15 2.24 < MDL North Bay < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL Orangeville < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL Parry Sound < MDL < MDL 3.87 2.22 3.85 2.43 Sarnia < MDL 5.29 2.56 3.44 2.20 < MDL St. Catharines < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL Sudbury < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL Thunder Bay < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL Windsor < MDL 4.08 2.50 < MDL < MDL Minimum Detection Level 3.68 3.89 3.43 3.80

Note: WSP - Water Supply Plant No Sample - No Samples due to frozen lake.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 49 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 17 2012 Provincial Beta Concentrations (± 2 Standard Deviation) in Provincial Drinking Water Sampled Quarterly

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Location Bq/L ± 2σ Bq/L ± 2σ Bq/L ± 2σ Bq/L ± 2σ Bancroft (Clark Lake) < MDL < MDL < MDL No Sample Belleville (Bay of Quinte) 3.78 2.39 < MDL 3.52 2.20 No Sample Cobourg (Lake Ontario) 4.81 2.40 < MDL 5.44 2.31 No Sample Brockville (WSP) < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL Burlington (WSP) < MDL 4.48 2.51 4.74 2.27 3.89 2.43 Goderich (WSP) < MDL < MDL 5.75 2.33 < MDL Kingston (WSP) < MDL < MDL 4.23 2.24 < MDL London (WSP) < MDL 5.34 2.58 3.84 2.22 < MDL Niagara Falls (WSP) < MDL < MDL 4.15 2.24 < MDL North Bay < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL Orangeville < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL Parry Sound < MDL < MDL 3.87 2.22 3.85 2.43 Sarnia < MDL 5.29 2.56 3.44 2.20 < MDL St. Catharines < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL Sudbury < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL Thunder Bay < MDL < MDL < MDL < MDL Windsor < MDL 4.08 2.50 < MDL < MDL Minimum Detection Level 3.68 3.89 3.43 3.80

Note: WSP - Water Supply Plant No Sample - No Samples due to frozen lake.

5.4.2 Historical Water Sample Results

Background levels of tritium are a combination of natural cosmogenic sources and residual fallout from historical nuclear weapons testing. Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) developed a mathematical model for estimating background Lake Huron tritium activity from cosmogenic sources and fallout from nuclear weapons testing sources [R-6]. A graphical

representation of this is shown in Figure 14. A recent project with CANDU Owners Group reviewed the Great lakes tritium concentration-time model that was developed by Klukas, and

updated with CANDU emission data [R-6] [R-11]. The model was found to have accurately reflect the recent Great Lakes tritium concentration by the incorporated CANDU data.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 50 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

The impact of site emissions on the local water supply plants varies and is dependent on the distance from the stations, lake current direction, and general dispersion conditions. In order to minimize the impact of emissions, Bruce Power has a long-standing stakeholder commitment to keep the municipal water supply plants annual average tritium levels below 100 Bq/L. As shown in Figure 15, the annual average tritium concentrations at all local water supply plants have remained relatively constant for the past years. Concentrations are well below 100 Bq/L and remain a small fraction of the provincial drinking water limit of 7,000 Bq/L [R-10].

Figure 16 shows tritium concentrations in water samples at multiple locations over time. Elevated average tritium levels in 2008 at BM4 are corresponding with a Bruce B boiler tube leak in Q4 2007. Elevated routine water discharges at both Bruce A and Bruce B in Q4 2011 corresponding to in BM20 showing elevated tritium levels in 2011. Tritium concentrations continue to remain well below provincial drinking water limits.

Figure 14 Historic Lake Huron Tritium Activity

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 51 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 15 Annual Average Tritium Concentrations (Bq/L) in Municipal Water Supply Plants Near the Bruce Power Site Over Time

Note: Bruce Power’s commitment is 100 Bq/L at the Municipal Water Supply Plant (monthly and annual) Ontario Drinking Water Standard is 7000 Bq/L at the Municipal Water Supply Plant (annual).

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 52 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 16 Annual Average Tritium Concentrations (Bq/L) in Lake Huron and Off-Site Wells Near Bruce Power Site Over Time

5.5 Milk Samples

Milk samples are collected weekly from dairy farmers near the Bruce Power site. The milk samples are analyzed monthly for tritium and 14C and weekly for 131I. The milk received is analyzed by gamma spectrometry. Tritium concentrations in milk are due to animal ingestion of feed and water, and inhalation of air.

5.5.1 2012 Milk Sample Results

Milk analysis was suspended April 2012 while awaiting documentation from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario. The 2012 milk analysis is presented in Table 18. Notably the suspension of the milk sampling in Q1-2012 prevented the capture of any variances associated with fresh forage feeds.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 53 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 18 2012 Annual Average Concentration 3H, 131I, 14C in Dairy Milk Samples

Tritiumi 131Iii 14Ciii Farm (Bq/L) (Bq/L) (Bq/kg-C) Bruce Power Sites: BDF1 7.75* 233 all values < 0.16 BDF9 8.08* 239 Provincial Sites: Belleville all values < 3.69** all values < 0.055 258 London all values < 3.69** 243

Note: i Tritium result is based on the arithmetic mean of the activity of two replicate samples of a monthly composite sample.

Note: ii. 131I result is based on a single sample, weekly composite of all locations, counted once.

Note: iii 14C result is based on the arithmetic mean of two counts of a monthly composite sample.

Note: *where monthly analytical values were less than limit of detection, limit of detection values were used to create averages.

Note: **where monthly analytical values were less than limit detection, ½ limit of detection values were used to create averages.

Note: BDF11 ceased production of milk in mid-2006.

5.5.2 Historical Milk Sample Results

The average tritium concentration in milk in the vicinity of the Bruce Power site has increased since 2004 while the provincial background concentration remained relatively constant as indicated in Figure 17. This increase from 2004 parallels the increase in tritium emission in air. The reduction of tritium in milk since 2010 follows the reduction of tritium in air emissions as noted in Figure 3, Figure 9, and Figure 13. Provincial levels of tritium in milk have remained stable. These samples are from specific farms within 20 km. Milk is collected on a route with multiple farms outside 20 km route prior to arriving at processing plants.

The average 14C concentrations in milk are illustrated in Figure 18. Both Bruce Power and Provincial 14C levels have remained historically stable. All 3H, 131I, 14C in milk contribution to an individual is well below the regulatory limit to an individual’s total exposure to radiation.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 54 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 17 Annual Average Tritium Concentrations (Bq/L) in Milk Samples Collected Near the Bruce Power Site and Provincial Locations Over Time

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 55 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 18 Annual Average 14C Concentrations (Bq/L) in Milk Samples Collected Near the Bruce Power Site and Provincial Locations Over Time

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

5.6 Sediment Samples

5.6.1 2012 Sediment Results

Samples of sediment are collected annually from various locations in the vicinity of the Bruce Power site and further afield along the shore of Lake Huron. The samples are dried, sieved, packaged, and undergo gamma spectrometry. The results of the individual analyses are detailed in Table 19.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 56 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 19 2012 Bruce Power Sediment Data

40K 60Co 134Cs 137Cs (Bq/kg) (Bq/kg) (Bq/kg) Location (Bq/kg) (dry (dry (dry (dry weight) weight) ± 2σ weight) ± 2σ weight) ± 2σ Bruce Power Bruce A Discharge Composite #1 320.3 8.5 < 0.22 < 0.21 0.59 0.06 Bruce A Discharge Composite #2 297 24 < 0.20 < 0.22 0.64 0.21 Bruce B Discharge Composite #1 221 18 0.36 0.08 < 0.22 0.79 0.09 Bruce B Discharge Composite #2 248.7 6.8 0.35 0.07 < 0.22 0.86 0.07 Baié du Doré Spar #5 - #1 378.4 9.7 < 0.22 < 0.23 1.12 0.11 Baié du Doré Spar #5 - #2 373 31 < 0.20 < 0.23 1.11 0.14 Baié du Doré Spar #5 - #3 392 10 < 0.24 < 0.23 1.18 0.22 Baié du Doré Spar #5 - #4 354 29 < 0.20 < 0.21 1.05 0.11 Baié du Doré Spar #6 - #1 326.7 8.6 < 0.23 < 0.24 1.71 0.1 Baié du Doré Spar #6 - #2 305 25 < 0.19 < 0.21 1.49 0.16 Baié du Doré Spar #6 - #3 322.5 8.5 < 0.23 < 0.24 1.48 0.24 Baié du Doré Spar #6 - #4 302 25 < 0.19 < 0.21 1.58 0.15 Baié du Doré Spar #103 - #1 341.5 8.9 < 0.23 < 0.23 1.58 0.24 Baié du Doré Spar #103 - #2 296 24 < 0.18 < 0.20 1.57 0.25 Baié du Doré Spar #103 - #3 352.6 9.2 < 0.23 < 0.24 1.57 0.24 Baié du Doré Spar #103 - #4 297 24 < 0.18 < 0.21 1.46 0.16 Scott Point #1 359.4 9.4 < 0.24 < 0.25 0.80 0.11 Scott Point #2 532 43 < 0.26 < 0.32 < 0.27 Scott Point #3 480 12 < 0.28 < 0.30 0.95 0.09 Scott Point #4 340.0 2.8 < 0.20 < 0.24 1.37 0.14 Southampton #1 236.8 6.5 < 0.19 < 0.19 0.22 0.05 Southampton #2 256.0 21.0 < 0.17 < 0.19 0.21 0.04 Southampton #3 274.2 7.4 < 0.20 < 0.20 0.21 0.09 Southampton #4 258.0 21.0 < 0.16 < 0.19 0.25 0.05 Sauble Beach #1 390.0 10.0 < 0.21 < 0.21 0.83 0.10 Sauble Beach #2 346.0 28.0 < 0.18 0.19 0.83 0.20

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 57 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

40K 60Co 134Cs 137Cs (Bq/kg) (Bq/kg) (Bq/kg) Location (Bq/kg) (dry (dry (dry (dry weight) weight) ± 2σ weight) ± 2σ weight) ± 2σ Sauble Beach #3 380.8 9.8 < 0.22 < 0.22 0.71 0.10 Sauble Beach #4 352.0 29.0 < 0.18 < 0.19 0.74 0.11 Inverhuron - R32 246.6 6.7 < 0.20 < 0.21 0.76 0.19 Inverhuron - R32 226 19 < 0.17 < 0.20 0.74 0.26 Inverhuron - R32 249.8 6.8 < 0.20 < 0.21 0.70 0.07 Inverhuron - R32 220 18 < 0.16 < 0.18 0.70 0.10

Note: Bruce A Discharge Composite #1 is due to insufficient sample material. The four individual samples from this location were combined to compose two composite samples.

Note: Bruce B is also composited to two samples.

5.6.2 Historical Sediment Results

Analysis of the samples indicates that the primary radionuclide present in the sediment samples is Potassium-40 (40K) (see Figure 19), which is naturally occurring. 40K concentrations have remained stable on all sites over time.

Figure 19 Annual Average Concentration of 40K (Bq/kg) in Sediment Samples (± Standard Error), 2007-2012

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 58 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Cesium-134 (134Cs) was below detection limits in all sediment samples at the Bruce Power site in 2012. Cesium-137 (137Cs) (see Figure 19) is a fission product resulting from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing and from activities at the Bruce Power site. 137Cs concentrations have decreased at locations near the Bruce Power site over time. They have remained stable at further afield locations over the past 5 years.

Figure 20 Annual Average Concentration of 137Cs (Bq/kg) in Sediment Samples (± Standard Error), 2007-2012

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 59 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Cobolt-60 (60Co) (see Figure 21) is not naturally occurring and results from Bruce Power site effluent emissions. Values in 2012 were near or below the limit of detection at all sites.

Figure 21 Annual Average Concentration of 60Co (Bq/kg) in Sediment Samples (± Standard Error), 2007-2012

5.7 Fish Samples

Samples of fish are collected locally near the Bruce Power site (suckers in Baié du Doré and whitefish as depicted in Figure 22 targeting Areas 4, 5 and 6) and further afield along the western shore of Lake Huron.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 60 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 22 Gillnetting Locations3

The target fish species are:

• White Sucker (Castostomus commersoni) represents a benthic forager (bottom feeder). Brown Bullhead (lcataluras nebulosus) is the alternate species. Collection is conducted in the spring when adults are nearshore to spawn.

• Lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) represents a predominantly pelagic forager, which feeds on a wide variety of organisms from invertebrates to small fish to plankton. Round Whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) is the alternate species. Collection is conducted in the fall when adults are nearshore to spawn.

The fish flesh ventral to the lateral line is included in the samples prepared for analysis. Samples are analyzed for 40K, 60Co, 134Cs, 137Cs, 14C, tritium oxide and organically bound tritium (OBT) following the preparation and methods in Table 20.

3 Annual Follow-up Monitoring Program Report, 2011, Golder Associates, September 2012 Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 61 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 20 Fish Preparation and Methods

Analyte Sample Preparation Method 40K Individual fish Skinned, filleted and Gamma spectrometry flesh sliced 60Co Individual fish Skinned, filleted and Gamma spectrometry flesh sliced 134Cs Individual fish Skinned, filleted and Gamma spectrometry flesh sliced 137Cs Individual fish Skinned, filleted and Gamma spectrometry flesh sliced 14C Two counts of a Freeze-dried flesh Liquid scintillation single sample combusted counting per individual fish Tritium oxide Average of two Water from freeze dried Liquid scintillation samples per flesh counting individual fish Organically Bound Single Solid residue (washed Liquid scintillation Tritium (OBT) composite by to remove free tritium counting fish type oxide) combusted

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 62 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

5.7.1 2012 Fish Sample Results

The results of the fish analysis are detailed in Table 21 for Bruce Power data and Table 22 for provincial data. Tritium oxide, 14C, 40K and 137Cs values are generally above the limit of detection whereas 60Co and 134Cs are generally below the level of detection. OBT was not compared to data from previous years due to differences in methodology for OBT. A standardized approach to OBT methodology is required to consistently compare data over time.

Table 21 2012 Annual Bruce Power Fish Data

14 40 60 134 137 Sample Type/ Tritium C OBT K Co Cs Cs Fish Type Location Bq/L ± 2σ Bq/kg ± 2σ Bq(3H)/kg(H) ± 2σ Bq/kg ± 2σ Bq/kg Bq/kg Bq/kg ± 2σ Bruce Power Near-Field Sucker #1 12.1 3.3 262 28 137 12 < 0.26 < 0.30 0.36 0.15 Sucker #2 < Ld 262 28 128 11 < 0.22 < 0.25 0.20 0.10 Sucker #3 7.6 3.0 255 28 139 12 < 0.19 < 0.21 0.31 0.10 Baié du Dore Sucker #4 13.6 3.3 249 28 133 11 < 0.22 < 0.24 0.28 0.10 55 34 Benthic Sucker #5 8.3 3.1 258 28 136 12 < 0.22 < 0.24 0.27 0.10 Sucker #6 10.9 3.2 240 27 140 12 < 0.27 < 0.30 0.21 0.09 Sucker #7 8.9 3.1 263 28 130 11 < 0.21 < 0.23 0.26 0.09 Sucker #8 6.9 3.0 258 28 136 12 < 0.22 < 0.26 0.25 0.10 Average 8.9 255.9 55 134.9 0.3 Whitefish #1 12.9 3.1 268 29 124 11 < 0.21 < 0.22 0.52 0.11 Whitefish #2 7.5 2.9 259 28 120 10 < 0.19 < 0.21 0.83 0.13 Whitefish #3 8.4 2.9 257 28 125 11 < 0.19 < 0.20 0.61 0.11 Baié du Dore Whitefish #4 14.3 3.2 249 29 123 10 < 0.17 < 0.19 0.65 0.11 30 29 Pelagic Whitefish #5 13.2 3.1 249 28 119 10 < 0.18 < 0.21 0.74 0.13 Whitefish #6 14.6 3.2 239 28 112 10 < 0.16 < 0.18 0.55 0.10 Whitefish #7 12.9 3.1 250 28 126 11 < 0.21 < 0.22 0.65 0.12 Whitefish #8 7.1 2.8 242 27 107 9 < 0.16 < 0.18 0.40 0.10 Average 11.4 251.6 30 119.5 0.6

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 63 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Bruce Power Far-Field Tritium 14C OBT 40K 60Co 134Cs 137Cs Sample Type/ Fish type Bq(H-3) Location Bq/L ± 2σ Bq/kg ± 2σ ± 2σ Bq/kg ± 2σ Bq/kg Bq/kg Bq/kg ± 2σ /kg(H) White Sucker #1 < Ld 248 28 117 10 < 0.20 < 0.23 0.20 0.09 White Sucker #2 5.8 2.7 241 28 112.0 9.7 < 0.23 < 0.24 < 0.15 White Sucker #3 < Ld 246 28 113.1 9.8 < 0.21 < 0.24 < 0.22

Lake Huron White Sucker #4 < Ld 224 26 109.5 9.4 < 0.20 < 0.22 0.16 0.08 46 31 Benthic White Sucker #5 5.9 2.7 237 27 98.9 8.5 < 0.18 < 0.19 < 0.16 White Sucker #6 < Ld 244 28 109.4 9.5 < 0.21 < 0.23 0.17 0.09 White Sucker #7 7.4 2.8 239 28 107.6 9.3 < 0.19 < 0.20 0.18 0.09 White Sucker #8 7.5 2.8 240 27 104.0 8.9 < 0.16 < 0.19 0.16 0.07 Average 5.6 239.9 46 108.9 0.2 Whitefish #1 < Ld 270 28 116.2 9.9 < 0.18 < 0.20 0.23 0.09 Whitefish #2 < Ld 257 28 129 11 < 0.19 < 0.22 0.37 0.11 Whitefish #3 < Ld 262 28 120 10 < 0.20 < 0.20 0.78 0.13

Lake Huron Whitefish #4 < Ld 270 29 123 10 < 0.18 < 0.19 0.56 0.10 34 31 Pelagic Whitefish #5 < Ld 235 27 119 10 < 0.18 < 0.19 0.65 0.11 Whitefish #6 7.9 2.8 273 29 112.3 9.5 < 0.16 < 0.18 0.47 0.10 Whitefish #7 < Ld 250 28 114.9 9.8 < 0.18 < 0.19 0.63 0.11 Whitefish #8 < Ld 269 30 119 10 < 0.17 < 0.18 0.74 0.11 Average 4.8 260.8 34 119.2 0.6

Note: Ld is 6.2 Bq/L for the Bruce Power sucker.

Note: Ld is 5.8 Bq/L for the Bruce Power Control

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 64 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 22 2012 Annual Provincial Fish Data

Provincial Data Far-Field 14 40 60 134 137 Sample Type/ Tritium C OBT K Co Cs Cs Fish type Location Bq/L ± 2σ Bq(14C)/kgC ± 2σ Bq/L ± 2σ Bq/kg ± 2σ Bq/kg Bq/kg Bq/kg ± 2σ White Sucker A < Ld 224.47 20.47 125.08 3.00 < 0.079 < 0.10 0.24 0.07 White Sucker B < Ld 238.46 22.06 127.01 2.91 < 0.09 < 0.091 0.20 0.06 White Sucker C 4.44 2.14 219.18 20.59 118.56 3.12 < 0.10 < 0.09 0.16 0.070

Lake Huron White Sucker D 3.75 2.11 262.67 22.29 114.64 3.48 < 0.10 < 0.13 < 0.12 8.41 2.23 (US) Benthic White Sucker E 3.78 2.11 224.25 20.91 119.13 3.17 < 0.11 < 0.11 0.20 0.09 White Sucker F < Ld 235.70 21.471 123.13 2.81 < 0.09 < 0.09 0.20 0.07 White Sucker G 4.12 2.13 245.99 21.87 124.55 2.79 < 0.056 < 0.09 0.18 0.06 White Sucker H < Ld 236.67 21.60 123.37 2.79 < 0.07 < 0.09 0.20 0.08 Average 3.2 235.9 8.4 121.9 0.2 Round White A < Ld 247.92 20.76 125.23 3.67 < 0.10 < 0.13 1.02 0.12 Round White B 4.88 2.25 235.86 20.39 126.74 3.30 < 0.07 < 0.12 0.52 0.12 Round White C < Ld 237.67 20.94 121.43 3.23 < 0.11 < 0.06 0.51 0.10

Lake Huron Round White D < Ld 247.23 19.92 113.19 3.52 < 0.08 < 0.05 0.41 0.10 13.15 2.35 (US) Pelagic Round White E 3.41 2.16 241.48 19.85 131.28 2.86 < 0.08 < 0.11 0.67 0.09 Round White F < Ld 248.83 20.011 118.42 3.15 < 0.04 < 0.10 0.43 0.10 Round White G 4.24 2.21 263.41 20.52 117.66 2.77 < 0.08 < 0.09 0.82 0.11 Round White H < Ld 243.37 20.11 120.19 3.21 < 0.09 < 0.07 0.58 0.11 Average 3.3 245.7 13.2 121.8 0.6

Note: Limit of detection (Ld) = 3.37 Bq/L for white suckers and 3.36 Bq/L for round whitefish

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 65 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

5.7.2 Historical Fish Sample Results

The annual average concentrations of tritium, 14C, 137Cs and 40K in fish over time are shown graphically below. Pelagic fish are shown separately from Benthic fish, which is a change from previous reports which combine these two groups.

Tritium oxide in pelagic fish tissue continues to decline, but remains greater than provincial results (Figure 23). A similar trend is seen for benthic fish tissue and levels remain consistent between the two feeding groups (Figure 24).

Figure 23 Annual Average Tritium Oxide (Bq/L) in Pelagic Fish Tissue by Year (± Standard Error)

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 66 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 24 Annual Average Tritium Oxide (Bq/L) in Benthic Fish Tissue by Year (± Standard Error)

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 67 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

14C levels have remained steady for the five years in pelagic fish tissue and are nearing the provincial values (Figure 25). A similar trend is shown in benthic fish tissue (Figure 26).

Figure 25 Annual Average 14C in Pelagic Fish Tissue (± Standard Error)

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 68 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 26 Annual Average 14C in Benthic Fish Tissue (± Standard Error)

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Cesium-137 values at the Bruce Power locations continue to remain near the provincial levels for both pelagic and benthic fish (Figure 27 and Figure 28).

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 69 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 27 Annual Average 137Cs in Pelagic Fish Tissue (± Standard Error)

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 70 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 28 Annual Average 137Cs in Benthic Fish Tissue (± Standard Error)

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 71 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

40K results also continue to remain near the provincial average values for both pelagic and benthic fish (Figure 29 and Figure 30). 40K is a naturally occurring radioisotope and there are no human-made sources of 40K in emissions from the Bruce Power site.

Figure 29 Annual Average 40K in Pelagic Fish Tissue (± Standard Error)

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 72 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 30 Annual Average 40K in Benthic Fish Tissue (± Standard Error)

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

5.8 Agricultural Products

Bruce Power routinely samples a variety of terrestrial sources and these samples are analyzed for tritium and 14C by liquid scintillation counting and some samples undergo gamma spectrometry of 40K, 134Cs, 137Cs, and 60Co. In general, gamma spectrometry results represents a single count of a single sample, tritium results are an average of two subsamples and 14C results are an average of two counts of a single sample.

5.8.1 2012 Agricultural Products Results

Local farm BF14 supplied Bruce Power with samples of various animals raised on the farm and samples of animal feed for analysis. Bruce Power also collects and analyzes samples resulting from wild animal fatalities due to vehicular collisions. The results of these analyses are detailed in Table 23.

Local farms supply Bruce Power with samples of various grains produced on lands in the vicinity of the Bruce Power site for analysis (locations depicted in Figure A 1, Appendix A). The results of these analyses are detailed in Table 24. The commercial Alcohol Plant at the Bruce Energy Centre (BEC) also provides Bruce Power with samples of corn mash for analysis as detailed in Table 25.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 73 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 23 2012 Annual Radionuclide Concentration in Animal & Agricultural Products Sampled Near the Bruce Power Site (± Standard Error)

14 40 60 134 137 Sample Sample C Tritium K Co Cs Cs Location Type Bq14C/kgC ± 2σ Bq/L ± 2σ Bq/kgC ± 2σ Bq/kg Bq/kg Bq/kg ± 2σ Bruce Deer 337 32 166.8 7.0 112.3 4 < 0.17 < 0.14 1.71 0.12 Power Meat #1 Chicken BF14 248 27 Meat Lamb BF14 255 28 Meat BF14 Hay 262 29 Chicken BF14 Eggs 253 27 (Spring) Chicken BF14 Eggs 225 27 (Fall) BR29 Honey No honey available

Table 24 2012 Annual Grains Data

Tritium 14C Sample Location Sample Type Bq/L ± 2σ BqC14/kgC ± 2σ Range Road, Lot 24 Corn 14.6 3.3 237 28 Concession 7, Lot F Soybean 68.4 5.3 248 29 Concession 5, Lot D Soybean 47.8 4.6 236 28 Concession 3, Lot H Soybean 26.2 3.8 229 28 Concession 1, Lot D Soybean 28.9 3.9 218 27 Concession 1, Lot 3 Soybean 22.9 3.7 237 28

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 74 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 25 2012 Corn Mash Data

Tritium (Free Sample Type Water) Sample Date Composites Bq/L ± 2σ Q1 Corn Mash 28.2 3.8 Q2 Corn Mash 22.6 3.5 Q3 Corn Mash 22.0 3.2 Q4 Corn Mash 28.3 3.7

Note: LdQ1 = 6.0 Bq/L, LdQ2 = 5.7 Bq/L, LdQ3 = 5.1 Bq/L, LdQ4 = 5.8 Bq/L.

5.8.1.1 2012 Fruits and Vegetables Produce Results

Samples of fruit and vegetables are collected in the vicinity of the Bruce Power site and at provincial background locations. These samples are analyzed for tritium and 14C and the results are shown in Table 26. Where multiple sample types are found at the same location, the samples were combined into composite samples for analysis. Fruit samples traditionally apples were a challenge to obtain in the 2012 sample year due to the warm weather in February and March led to early blossoms that were, in April, burned by frost.

Table 26 2012 Produce Data

Tritium (Free Water) 14C Sample Location Sample Type Bq/L ± 2σ (BqC14/kg-C ) ± 2σ Bruce Power BG1 Apples no sample BG3 Apples 36.9 3.9 245 28 BG4 Apples 25.4 3.5 251 27 BG7 Apples 36.9 3.9 257 29 BG8 Apples 37.4 3.9 241 27 BG10 Apples no sample BG11 Apples 58.8 4.6 256 28 BG13 Apples 41.2 4.1 243 28 BG14 Apples no sample BG16 Apples 47.0 4.3 244 27 BG17 Apples no sample Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 75 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Tritium (Free Water) 14C Sample Location Sample Type Bq/L ± 2σ (BqC14/kg-C ) ± 2σ Bruce Power BG18 Apples no sample BG19 Pears 50.7 4.4 243 28 BG20 Apples 91.1 5.5 270 29 BG21 Apples no sample B6 Apples 9.1 2.8 241 28 BF14 Apples no sample BR-46 Above Ground 24.3 3.5 235 29 BR-47 Leafy 23.8 3.5 235 29 BR-46 Below Ground 13.7 4.4 227 29 BF1 Above Ground no sample BR15 Above Ground 46.5 4.3 227 27 BR17 Leafy 48.8 4.4 213 27 BR17 Below Ground no sample Alt BF8 Above Ground 18.1 3.3 221 29 Alt BF8 Leafy 14.3 3.1 225 29 Alt BF8 Below Ground 14.0 3.1 242 29 BF15 Above Ground 33.5 3.9 242 28 BF15 Leafy 35.0 3.9 240 29 BF15 Below Ground 34.8 3.9 221 28 BF14 Above Ground 52.1 4.5 230 29 BF14 Leafy 61.3 4.8 244 28 BF14 Below Ground 66.5 4.9 240 28 BR44 Leafy 30.1 3.8 242 28 BR44 Below Ground 37.0 4.0 234 28 Average 38.01 238.81

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 76 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Tritium (Free Water) 14C Sample Location Sample Type Bq/L ± 2σ (BqC14/kg-C ) ± 2σ Provincial Bancroft Vegetable Composite

Note: No sample available is due to uncharacteristic growing season (early warm spell followed by a cold weather which frosted off blossoms).

Note: *The limit of detection (Ld) = 3.57

5.8.1.2 Historical Agricultural Produce, Fruits and Vegetables Results

Historical Agricultural Products will be discussed in future reports.

The annual average trend of Tritium in vegetation can be seen graphically in Figure 31. The data point for 2009 coincides to tritium emissions from vacuum building/unit outages occurring at the same time as the annual produce sampling. The annual average trend of 14C is shown graphically in Figure 32. The decrease in both Tritium and 14C in the 2012 vegetation coincides with the reduction of Tritium and 14C effluent emissions.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 77 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 31 Annual Average Tritium in Vegetable Trend

Note: Bruce A Units in Lay-up 2000-2004, Bruce A Units 3 & 4 in Operation 2004-present, Bruce A Units All in operation 2012 to present.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 78 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 32 Annual Average 14C in Vegetation Trend

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 79 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

5.8.2 2012 Soil Samples

Samples of soil and sand are collected in the vicinity of the Bruce Power site and at provincial background locations. These single samples are analyzed once for gamma emitters (40K, 134Cs and 60Co) and the results are shown in Table 27.

Table 27 2012 Soil Data

40K 60Co 134Cs 137Cs Location Sample Type (Bq/kg) (Bq/kg) (Bq/kg) (Bq/kg) (dry (dry (dry (dry weight) ± 2σ weight) ± 2σ weight) ± 2σ weight) ± 2σ Bruce Power Amberley #1 (0 - 6") Inland Soil 500 41 < 0.29 < 0.36 4.14 0.36 Amberley #2 (6 - 12") Inland Soil 640 52 < 0.32 < 0.39 0.60 0.10 BR2 Garden Soil 457 13 < 0.32 < 0.35 7.50 0.23 BR5 Garden Soil There is no longer a garden at BR5 BF14 Garden Soil 569 47 < 0.33 < 0.39 4.65 0.43 BM4 Baie du Dore Beach Lakeshore Soil 433 35 < 0.23 < 0.26 0.83 0.13 BM10 Inverhuron Beach #1 Lakeshore Soil 431 11 < 0.23 < 0.23 0.75 0.12 BM10 Inverhuron Beach #2 Lakeshore Soil 415 11 < 0.24 < 0.24 0.65 0.10 BR-4 Lakeshore Soil 316 8.40 < 0.23 < 0.25 2.16 0.26

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 80 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

40K 60Co 134Cs 134Cs 95Zr 152Eu 95Nb 131I Sample (Bq/kg) (Bq/kg) (Bq/kg) (Bq/kg) Location Type (dry (dry (Bq/kg) (Bq/kg) (dry (dry (Bq/kg) (Bq/kg) weight) ± 2σ weight) ± 2σ (dry weight) ± 2σ (dry weight) ± 2σ weight) ± 2σ weight) ± 2σ (dry weight) ± 2σ (dry weight) ± 2σ

Provincial Cobourg - A Soil 620.23 8.005 < 0.19464 < 0.2957 3.3328 < 0.6587 < 0.924 < 0.57644 < 10.158 Cobourg - B Soil 638.74 7.14 < 0.1727 < 0.22858 3.5262 < 0.52432 < 0.829 < 0.55687 < 12.554 Goderich - A Soil 302.53 5.793 < 0.191 < 0.197 < 0.15163 < 0.56922 < 0.689 < 0.51483 < 13.87 Goderich - B Soil 327.3 4.52 < 0.13748 < 0.13415 0.48786 < 0.23537 < 0.56 < 0.38887 < 6.8079 Lakefield - A Soil 749.02 7.511 < 0.12792 < 0.22653 5.8852 < 0.41301 < 1 < 0.55947 < 16.14 Lakefield - B Soil 706.17 9.45 < 0.10988 < 0.38288 5.9 < 0.41072 < 1.19 < 0.67243 < 28.557

5.8.3 Historical Soil Samples

Historical Soil Samples will be discussed in future reports.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 81 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

5.9 Determination of Radiological Dose to Public

International agreements have developed a world wide network of radiation monitors and detection equipment as part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and non-proliferation initiatives. Health Canada, as part of routine operations, monitors radiation levels across Canada continuously through a network of station monitors, which measure radioactivity in air, water and other environmental samples [R-12].

As previously discussed in the 2011 report, Bruce Power’s detection of trace amounts of radiation reflects the extreme sensitivity of the radiation detectors rather than the potential health consequences from the radiation. Background radiation including Fukushima is subtracted from local measurements. Additional information regarding Fukushima and environmental monitoring can be found in two fact sheets by the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture which discuss Japan’s food safety program along with answers to questions pertaining to Nuclear Emergency Response for Food and Agriculture [R-13] [R-14]. Currently, there is no evidence that radioactivity from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has contaminated food produced in any other country [R-14].

It is noted in National Council Radiation Protection Report No. 160, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States [R-15] that the effective dose per individual in the United States population is 6200 μSv/year. Natural background dose is estimated at 3100 μSv/year, medical exposure 2976 μSv/year, consumer products 124 μSv/year, and approximately 6.2 μSv/year from occupational/industrial exposures. This breakdown of exposure is depicted in Figure 33. Furthermore, for the 21st consecutive year Bruce Power’s calculated dose to a member of the public is less than the 10 μSv/year value that is regarded as the lower threshold for significance (the de minimus) [R-16].

Figure 33 Percentage of Ionizing Radiation Exposure for the Population

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 82 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

5.9.1 2012 Radiological Dose to Public Results

The data from the tritium active samplers only (Section 5.2), are being used for the calculations of dose to Public [R-9]. The 2012 assessment demonstrates that the maximum dose received by a member of public due to Bruce Power site operations continues to be very small percentage of the annual legal limit of 1000 μSv/year.

Bruce Power retained a consultant called AMEC NSS to complete the 2012 calculation and independent evaluation of radiation doses to the potential critical groups for Bruce Power. The findings from the AMEC NSS report are included throughout this section.

AMEC NSS compared 2012 methodology with previous Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) results. Due to the recent changes in the pathway analysis model and an updated site specific survey, there were anticipated differences between 2011 dose assessment results and 2012 dose assessment results. The reasons for these difference are discussed below.

Doses to each Potential Critical Group (PCG) were calculated using the IMPACT code, based on the monitoring data presented in Appendix A. The detailed pathway-based doses to each potential critical group are provided in Table A 1 through Table A 15 in Appendix A.

As shown in Table A 13, the highest dose is about 1.17 µSv/y and the critical group is the one year old infant at the BMF3 location Table 28, Table 29 and Table A 17 indicate the major dose contributors to be Iodine, Tritiated water and OBT, which account for about 90% of the total dose received by the one year old infant. The other important radionuclides are noble gas and 14C which contribute 4.5% and 4.0% of the total dose, respectively. The dose breakdown by comparison by radionuclide is presented in Figure 34.

By comparison year 2011, the highest annual dose estimated was 1.53 μSv/y and the critical group was adult at F14 [R-17]. For year 2012, dose to the same group is estimated to be 0.63 μSv/y, which is about 40% of 2011 value. Both of these values remain well below 1000 μSv/y.

The major reasons for the difference observed are as follows:

• Different measurement results.

The major dose contributors in 2011 were 14C, HTO and Noble gas and the major pathways are consumption of garden produce and agricultural products, inhalation and exposure to air. The measurement of higher air concentration and radionuclides in food occurred in 2011 although it is not always seen in terms of emissions.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 83 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

• Different characteristics of potential critical groups, including consumption of local agricultural products and garden produce.

The 2011 dose calculation was based on the characteristics of potential critical groups identified during 2007 site specific survey. The 2012 dose calculation was based on the site specific survey conducted in 2011. As shown in Table 30, the local food fractions used in 2011 dose calculation are higher than those in 2012 except for poultry. Also the inhalation rates and the consumption rates of terrestrial plant and animals used in 2011 dose calculation are upper percentile rates which are normally used for Derived Release Limit (DRL) calculations [R-18] while the corresponding data sets used for 2012 dose calculation are mean values. The use of mean values allows for a more realistic assessment of the dose to the potential critical group.

• Different methods of using monitoring results.

The method of using the monitoring results for year 2012 is different from that used in previous years. Specifically, for year 2012, radionuclide concentrations in air are based on modeling taking into account any applicable monitoring results, rather than using the dilution factor described in [R-19]. In addition, radionuclide concentrations in fruit and vegetable are also appropriately scaled based on the monitoring data where appropriate rather than using the monitoring values directly.

This BMF3 is a new potential critical group identified during the 2011 site specific survey, which consumes much more local produce than those at BF14, especially local produced milk. Consequently, it is the main reason that the critical group changed from year 2011.

Table 28 2012 Critical Group Dose

Critical Group Committed Effective Dose Percentage of Legal Limit BMF3 Infant 1.17 µSv/y 0.12%

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 84 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 29 2012 Radiological Dose by Containment for Critical Groups BMF3 Infant

BMF3 Infant_1y C-14 Co-60 Cs-134 Cs-137 HTO I(mfp)* Noble Gases OBT Total Dose (µSv/y) 4.72E-02 4.35E-03 2.02E-03 9.09E-03 2.57E-01 7.29E-01 5.28E-02 7.04E-02 1.17E+00 Percentage 4.0% 0.4% 0.2% 0.8% 21.9% 62.2% 4.5% 6.0% 100%

Note: * I(mfp) = radioiodines

Figure 34 Radiological Dose by Contaminant

Table 30 Characteristics of Adult Used in Dose Calculation for Year 2011 and 2012

Characteristic for Adult Unit 2011 2012 Ratio Inhalation rate m3/a 8103 5950 1.4 Terrestrial plant ingestion rate kg/a 746 464.6 1.6 Terrestrial animal ingestion rate kg/a 417 260.5 1.6 Local food fraction used in IMPACT Fruit % 5.1 3.2 1.6 Vegetable % 11.9 8 1.5 Beef % 9 3.8 2.4 Egg % 3.6 3 1.2 Poultry % 0.7 1.1 0.6

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 85 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

5.9.1.1 Gross Alpha

Gross alpha emission data are not used for dose calculation. The gross alpha emission rate in 2012 is 1.08 E+06 Bq. The dose due to gross alpha emission at this rate is considered to be negligible [R-17] [R-21].

Direct measures of gross alpha in both liquid and atmospheric emissions are currently reported in Bruce Power Quarterly Operational Reports. The gross alpha measurements are also available for the CMLF, but the reported release for 2012 is many orders of magnitude smaller than the releases from Bruce A and Bruce B. The gross alpha released to air from Bruce A is reported as less than the Limit of Detection.

5.9.2 Historical Radiological Dose to Public Results

The historical dose to public trend is shown in Figure 35. The data point for 2009 shows an increased dose to public value due to tritium emissions from vacuum building/unit outages occurring at the same time as the annual produce sampling. Bruce Power chose to report this most conservative value in 2009. Methods remain consistent with industry best practice and will now represent closer realistic values to members of the public.

Figure 35 Historical Dose to Public Trend

5.10 Radiological Dose Modelling

Radiological Dose Modelling to PCG is calculated using IMPACT computer code model.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 86 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

5.10.1 IMPACT

The IMPACT code was used for the calculation of doses to potential critical groups presented in this report. IMPACT is a customizable tool that allows the user to assess the transport and fate of contaminants through a user-specified environment. It also enables the quantification of the human exposure to those environmental contaminants for nuclear facilities (power generating stations, research reactors, waste management facilities). It covers all of the potential exposure and release scenarios, including atmospheric and aquatic pathways that are in the CSA N288.1-08 standard [R-7]. IMPACT version 5.4.0 was released in 2009 and is the latest version of the code. This version fully implements the models of the CSA N288.1-08 standard and its recommended parameter values.

5.10.2 IMPACT scenarios

IMPACT scenarios for dose calculation were based on those developed for pathways analyses for the Bruce nuclear facility [R-21]. The scenarios were modified to take into account the 2012 meteorological data and 2012 effluent and environmental monitoring data.

5.10.3 Meteorological Data

Wind speed and direction are measured continuously at two locations. A 50 m tower located on the Bruce Power site measures wind speed and direction at both the 10 m and 50 m levels. A 10 m tower located on the 4th Concession to the east of the Bruce Power Visitor’s Centre also records wind speed and direction.

The tendency of the atmosphere to resist or engage in vertical motion (turbulence) is termed stability. Stability is related to both the change of temperature with height (the lapse rate) driven by the boundary layer energy budget, and the wind speed together with surface characteristics (roughness).

A neutral atmosphere neither enhances nor inhibits mechanical turbulence. An unstable atmosphere enhances turbulence, whereas a stable atmosphere inhibits mechanical turbulence. The turbulence of the atmosphere is by far the most important parameter affecting dilution of a pollutant. The more unstable the atmosphere, the greater the dilution factor [R-22]

Meteorological data collected at Bruce Power site during year 2012 were processed to calculate Triple Joint Frequency (TJF) [R-23]. The TJF data at 10 m elevation from the on-site 50 m meteorological tower are used as inputs to the IMPACT scenarios. The TJF data used in this work are presented in Table A 1 in Appendix A. Note that only annual TJF data are used as input to IMPACT scenario for dose calculation. It is considered sufficient as radionuclide concentrations in food which are significant pathways are based on measurement rather than modeling.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 87 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

The unrecoverable data accounts for a loss of approximately 6% of data for each tower. Table 31 provides a summary of missing records for both meteorological towers. Note that there are various methods for substituting the unrecoverable data. However, substitution is not required here due to the number of missing entries being small compared to the number of available records. Furthermore, duration of the gaps exceeds 1 day and there is substantial variation in data between the two towers, which would have introduced a large error if substitution were attempted.

Table 31 Summary of Missing Meteorological Records

Data Source Number of Records Number of Records % of Records Available for Year (hours) for Year 2012 Missing 2012 if All Available 10 m Meteorological Tower 8217 8784 6.5 50 m Meteorological Tower 8239 8784 6.2

Note: 50 m on-site tower: Day 185 - day 195 and day 293 - day 305 10 m off-site tower: Day 293 - day 317

5.11 Radiological Quality Assurance Program

5.11.1 Sample Availability

The Bruce Power Health Physics Lab collected and analyzed 857 samples against a target of 941 for an overall sample availability of 97%. Sample unavailable is due to several factors, notably seasonal conditions (such as variations in agricultural yields) or due to the nature of seasonal residences, which are closed for certain months of the year making the wells unavailable for sampling. Details of the sample availability for this year are presented in Table 32 below.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 88 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 32 2012 Sample Availability Data

Bruce Power Sample Types Collection Frequency Planned Actual Availability Atmospheric Monthly (3H) 120 120 100% Air Effluents Quarterly (3H,14C) 36 36 100% Environmental Gamma Quarterly (GS[1]) 44 44 100% Precipitation/Particulate * Monthly (3H, GB[2]) 120 119 99% Water Weekly Composite (3H) 96 96 100% Water Supply Plants Monthly Composite (GB) 24 24 100% Domestic Water Weekly Composite (3H) 104 104 100% Bi-Monthly (3H, GB) 78 55 71% Resident Well & Lake Water* Semi-Annually (3H, GB, GS) 32 32 100% Bi-Monthly (3H) 24 24 100% Local Streams* Semi-Annually (GB) 8 8 100% Site Ground Water Semi-Annually (3H) 52 52 100% Aquatic Fish Annually (3H,14C, GS, OBT) 32 32 100% Sediment Annually (GS) 36 36 100% Terrestrial Weekly Composite (GS) 52 17 33% Milk Monthly Composite (3H,14C) 24 8 33% Fruits & Vegetables Annually (3H,14C) 34 26 76% Honey Annually 1 0 0% Eggs Semi-Annually 2 2 100% Annually (3H,14C) 6 6 100% Grains Quarterly (3H) 4 4 100% Animal Meat & Feed Annually (3H,14C, GS) 4 4 100% Soil & Sand Annually (GS) 8 8 100% Overall Site Sample Availability 941 857 91% Note: [1] Gamma Scan [2] Gross Beta Note: *Samples may have been unavailable because of seasonal conditions (e.g., freezing of water samples and seasonal residences that are closed for certain months of the year).

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 89 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

5.11.2 Laboratory Analysis Summary

A total of 1113 laboratory analyses were conducted in support of the Bruce Power REMP this year. The analyses included tritium, gross beta, 14C, 131I, TLD Gamma (under contract to OPG), gamma spectrometry and organically bound tritium (OBT). Table 33 provides a summary of the number of samples analyzed for each analysis method.

Table 33 2012 Laboratory Analysis Summary

Laboratory Analysis Number of Analyses 3H 669 Gross Beta 178 14C 114 131I 17 TLD Gamma* * Gamma Spectrometry - 134Cs, 137Cs, 40K, 60Co 131 Organically Bound Tritium (OBT) 4 Total 1113

Note: * 44 TLD Gamma Analysis Completed by OPG Whitby Laboratory

5.11.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance and Quality Control

The OPG Whitby Laboratory performed the TLD Gamma analyses and most of the provincial sample analyses. Details regarding the OPG Quality Assurance (QA) program are described in the OPG report “2012 Results of Radiological Environmental Monitoring Programs” [R-8].

The Bruce Power Health Physics Lab operates a comprehensive QA program in accordance with ISO 17025 [R-24], which includes quality control samples, blank/background samples, process control samples and externally generated proficiency testing samples.

The purpose of inter laboratory proficiency testing is to provide independent assurance to Bruce Power, the CNSC and external stakeholders that the laboratory’s analytical performance is adequate and the accuracy of the measurements meets required standards [R-24] [R-25]. Table 34 presents a summary of the Bruce Power REMP QA/QC program.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 90 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 34 Summary of the QA/QC Program

Analyses Tritium Gross Beta 14C Gamma Spec

Medium OBT Water Air Water Produce Water Sediment Soil

Historical X X X X X X X

Relative X X X X X X Reality Check Reality Check

Eckert & Eckert & Eckert & Eckert & Eckert & Inter-lab Ziegler Ziegler Ziegler Ziegler Ziegler Comparison Analytics Analytics Analytics Analytics Analytics External Benchmarks

QC Sample Bias QC Sample Mixed Gamma QC Sample QC Sample (Sawdust) (Cs137)

QC Sample QC Sample Precision QC Sample Mixed Gamma QC Sample (Cs137) (Sawdust)

Background Low Tritium Water Blank Blank Blank Internal Quality Control Process Contamination Contamination Contamination Controls (de-min water) (Coal)

5.11.4 Laboratory Quality Control

Various Quality Control (QC) samples are utilized to estimate the precision and accuracy of analytical results and to indicate errors introduced by laboratory practices. There are two types of quality control samples used to accompany the analyses of the environmental samples collected for the REMP, process control samples and quality control samples.

5.11.4.1 Process Control Samples

Process Control samples are low analyte samples that are treated as real samples and go through the same handling process. These are intended to detect contamination and specific sources of error. The following main process control samples are used for REMP samples:

• Low tritium “dead” water samples kept open to the air during sample handling to detect if tritium contamination is picked up.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 91 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

• Coal (low 14C) samples to detect anomalies with 14C analyses.

• Demineralized water samples run as low gross beta samples to detect contamination.

• Blank TLDs to detect radiation exposure during shipping to and from the OPG Whitby laboratory.

5.11.4.2 Quality Control Samples

Quality control samples are samples which contain known values of the analyte (usually derived from traceable standards), which are included for analysis. For general environmental samples, results are considered valid when the values for the accompanying quality control samples are within ± 10 percent of the known or expected values. Tritium in air and 14C in air collected by molecular sieve are considered valid analyses if the observed values of the corresponding quality control samples are within ± 19 percent of the expected value. Analyses of 14C in air collected by passive samplers are considered valid if the observed values of the corresponding quality control samples are within ± 15 percent of the expected value.

Table 35 summarizes the results of the quality control samples for tritium and 14C analyses performed by the Bruce Power Health Physics Laboratory. These results are considered acceptable and provide confidence in the quality of data for the REMP program and the consistency of the laboratory measurements.

Table 35 2012 Quality Control Data

Sample Type Tritium(%) 14C (%)

Low High Low High Air 94 106 94 102 Drinking Water 95 104 N/A N/A Precipitation 93 104 N/A N/A Milk 94 107 93 101

5.11.5 External Laboratory Comparisons

The main purpose of inter-laboratory comparison programs is to provide independent assurance to Bruce Power, the CNSC and external stakeholders that the laboratory’s analytical proficiency is adequate and the accuracy of the measurements meets required standards. The comparison program forms a crucial part of the overall laboratory QA program and demonstrates that the laboratory is performing within acceptable limits as measured against external unbiased standards.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 92 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

The inter-comparison program relevant to REMP is one for radionuclides in environmental matrices operated by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia. On a quarterly basis Eckert & Ziegler Analytics provides a number of samples containing known quantities of radionuclides to the Bruce Power Health Physics Laboratory. These samples include:

• Tritium in water • Beta emitters in water • Iodine in milk • Gamma emitters in water • Gamma emitters in soil • Iodine-131 in iodine cartridge (annually) • Gamma emitters on particulate filter (annually)

The proficiency testing service is operated by Eckert & Ziegler Analytics Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia. On a quarterly basis Eckert & Ziegler Analytics provides samples containing known quantities of radionuclides to the Bruce Power Health Physics Laboratory. The samples are environmental matrices which are analogous to the samples collected for the REMP.

Upon completion of analysis, the Bruce Power analytical values are submitted to Eckert & Ziegler Analytics, which subsequently provides a final report for Bruce Power detailing the expected values and the ratio of the laboratory value to the expected value.

The internally imposed test limits are as follows:

(VL + 1σL)/VT ≥ 0.75

AND

(VL 1σL)/VT ≤ 1.2

Where σ is the standard deviation, and VL and VT refer to the Bruce Power Health Physics Laboratory value and the Eckert & Ziegler Analytics Target value respectively. The results for the proficiency testing are presented in Table A 18 to Table A 24 in Appendix A. All results are acceptable.

6.0 CONVENTIONAL (HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES) MONITORING PROGRAM 2012

In addition to the radiological environment and effluent monitoring programs, Bruce Power has extensive hazardous substances monitoring programs. These programs include effluent monitoring for air and water, ground water monitoring, waste and pollution prevention monitoring, and impact/biodiversity monitoring. This section briefly statuses the main ongoing initiatives for each of these conventional monitoring programs.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 93 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

6.1 Hazardous Substances Effluent Monitoring Program

Bruce Power monitors the effluent emission streams for a variety of conventional hazardous substance parameters. This monitoring is performed to meet the regulatory obligations of several Federal and Provincial regulatory agencies including the CNSC. The results for these monitoring events are submitted to the lead environmental agencies at various times throughout the year. Table 37 provides a summary of the hazardous substance monitoring reports that Bruce Power submits throughout the year as well as identifying the time of submission and the lead regulatory agency. The following sections describe the regulatory context for each report.

Data from Ontario Power Generation (Bruce Site) and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (Bruce Site) were not available for inclusion at time of print.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 94 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 36 2012 Bruce Power Hazardous Substance Regulatory Reporting

Hazardous Report Title Regulatory Submission Substance (Document Control Number) Agency Date (Section (Frequency) Reference) Air - ECA (See Written Summary for Reporting Year Ministry of 15Jun2012 s6.1.1.1) 2012(B-CORR-00541-00245) Environment (Annual) Air-Noise Noise Study 2012 (B-CORR-00541-00231) Ministry of As Required (See s6.1.1.2) Environment

Air - Halocarbon Halocarbon Release Report Pursuant To The Environment 24Aug2012 (See s6.1.1.3) Federal Halocarbon Regulations (SOR Canada (Semi-annual) 2003-289) Section 33 January To June 2012 (B-CORR-00521-00110) Halocarbon Release Report Pursuant To The Environment 13Feb2013 Federal Halocarbon Regulations Canada (Semi-annual) (SOR/2003-289), Section 33 - July - December 2012 (B-CORR-00521-00111) Air - 2012 Federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting Environment 01Jun2013 Greenhouse (B-CORR-00521-00119) Canada (annual) Gas (See 2012 Provincial Greenhouse Gas Reporting Ministry of 01Jun2013 s6.1.1.4) (B-CORR-00541-00244) Environment (annual) Air - NPRI (See 2012 National Pollutant Release Inventory For Environment 01Jun2013 s6.1.1.5) Bruce Power NPRI Id #7041 Canada (annual) (B-CORR-00521-00121) Water - MISA 2012 Annual Municipal/Industrial Strategy For Ministry of 01Jun2013 (See s6.1.2.1) Abatement (MISA) Report Environment (Annual) (B-CORR-00541-00242) Water - CofA 2012 Certificate Of Approval (Water) Annual Ministry of 31Mar2013 (See s6.1.2.2) Compliance Report For Bruce Energy Centre Environment (Annual) (BEC) Sewage Treatment Works (B-CORR-00541-00229) 2012 Certificate Of Approval (Water) Annual Ministry of 01Jun2013 Compliance Report for Bruce A Environment (Annual) (NK21-CORR-00541-00432) Bruce B - 2012 Certificate Of Approval Ministry of 01Jun2013 (Water) Annual Report Environment (Annual) (NK29-CORR-00541-00276) 2012 Certificate Of Approval (Water) Annual Ministry of 01Mar2013 Compliance Report For Centre Of Site Environment (Annual) (NK37-CORR-00541-00476)

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 95 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Hazardous Report Title Regulatory Submission Substance (Document Control Number) Agency Date (Section (Frequency) Reference) Groundwater Bruce Power Groundwater Monitoring Internal 30June 2013 (See s6.1.3) Program Report 2012 (B-REP-07010-00022) Report (Annual) Bruce Power Groundwater Monitoring Internal 30June2012 Program Report 2011 (B-REP-07010-00021) Report (Annual) Waste & Federal PCB Regulations Bruce Power 2012 Environment 31March2013 Prevention Annual Report Declaration Canada (Annual) Pollution - PCB (B-CORR-00521-00118) (See s6.1.4.2) Waste & 2012 Annual Bruce A Polychlorinated Ministry of 31January2013 Prevention Biphenyl (PCB) Waste Storage Report For Environment (Annual) Pollution - PCB Storage Facility #10400A003 (See s6.1.4.3) (NK21-CORR-00541-00420) 2012 Annual WCTF Polychlorinated Biphenyl Ministry of 31January2013 (PCB) Waste Storage Report For Facility Environment (Annual) #10402A001 (NK37-CORR-00541-00470)

6.2 Air

6.3 Environmental Compliance Approval

Bruce Power obtained an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) [R-56] for Air on December 29th 2011, which incorporates all air emission sources on site. Specific contaminants emitted from every air emission source on site must be identified in the Emission Summary and Dispersion Modeling (ESDM) Report that reflects the actual operation of the facility. The following are the requirements for the ESDM report [R-26].

• Bruce Power must at all times have an up-to-date ESDM Report that reflects current operations. Prior to making any modifications, the ESDM Report must be updated to document that the facility, after the proposed modification has been conducted, will continue to be in compliance. Proposed Modifications must be well documented and linked to the ESDM with the required Modification Log. The ESDM Report must show that:

• The nature of the operations of the facility continues to be consistent with the description section of the ECA.

• The production at the facility continues to be below the Facility Production Limit specified on the ECA.

• The performance limits are met.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 96 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

6.3.1 Noise

The Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for air required that Bruce Power is within the noise limits of NPC-205, NPC-207, and NPC-232. The on site firing range proposed changes so an updated study was required. A Noise Study - to demonstrate compliance with new ECA and noise standards has been completed.

6.3.2 Halocarbon

In Canada, the federal, provincial and territorial governments have legislation in place for the protection of the ozone layer and management of ozone-depleting substances and their halocarbon alternatives. The use and handling of these substances are regulated by the provinces and territories in their respective jurisdictions, and through the Federal Halocarbon Regulations, 2003 (FHR 2003) [R-27] for refrigeration, air-conditioning, fire extinguishing, and solvent systems under federal jurisdiction. Bruce Power is governed by both the provincial and federal regulation. Historical halocarbon releases is shown in Figure 36.

Figure 36 Historical Halocarbon Releases

6.3.3 Greenhouse Gas

Accurate tracking of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is an important part of assessing Canada’s overall environmental performance. In March 2004, the Government of Canada announced the introduction of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Program (GHGRP) [R-28]. Bruce Power files Provincial and Federal Greenhouse gas reports as required by reporting thresholds.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 97 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

6.3.4 National Pollutant Release Inventory

The National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) is Canada’s legislated, publicly accessible inventory of pollutant releases, disposals and recycling. Sections 46–53 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999) [R-29] [R-46] contain information-gathering provisions that allow the Minister of the Environment to require reporting of information on substances. The provisions also require the Minister to establish and publish a national inventory of releases and transfers of pollutants.

NPRI information is a major starting point for identifying and monitoring sources of pollution in Canada, and in developing indicators for the quality of air, land and water. The NPRI provides Canadians with annual information on industrial, institutional, commercial and other releases and transfers in Canadian communities [R-29].

6.4 Water

Bruce Power complies and operates as per, The Ontario Water Resources Act (Act) [R-47], which is designed to conserve, protect and manage Ontario's water resources for efficient and sustainable use. The act focuses on both groundwater and surface water throughout the province. The Act regulates sewage disposal and "sewage works" and prohibits the discharge of polluting materials that may impair water quality. It was designed, also in part, to protect the Province's water resources from industrial and commercial users who might draw more water out of provincial aquifers than they can reasonably sustain. Bruce Power currently has 3 ECAs for water and 3 Permit To Take Water (PTTW).

6.4.1 Municipal Industrial Strategy of Abatement

The Municipal Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA) [R-48] program was the Ontario provincial response for addressing levels of persistent toxic substances in industry directly discharging into Ontario's waterways.

The MISA program, covers nine industrial sectors. The nine sectors are petroleum, pulp and paper, metal mining, industrial minerals, metal casting, organic chemical manufacturing, inorganic chemical, iron and steel, and electric power generation. The industrial sectoral regulations were promulgated between 1993 and 1995.

Main Features of the MISA Industrial Regulations include monitoring and reporting requirements [R-30].

6.4.2 Environmental Compliance Approval

The Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) Application for ECA (previously referenced as CofA) Thermal amendment at Bruce A has been submitted and is under review by the MOE approvals branch. Progress on the review will be monitored to ensure timely response is provided by the regulator.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 98 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

6.4.3 Permit to Take Water

In Ontario, anyone who takes more than 50,000 litres of water a day from a lake, river, stream or groundwater source, must obtain a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) from the Ontario Ministry of Environment (with a few exceptions). These permits help to ensure the conservation, protection, management and sustainable use of Ontario’s water. Ontario’s Water Taking Regulation (O. Reg. 387/04) [R-49] helps to ensure fair sharing of our water resources and prevent interferences among water users. Permits are not issued to assign rights to water or to establish priorities on water use. O. Reg. 387/04 sets out criteria that the ministry must consider when assessing an application for a PTTW. A permit will not be issued if the Ministry determines that the proposed water taking will adversely impact existing users or the environment [R-31].

Bruce Power has a PTTW for Bruce A, Bruce B, and Centre of Site (COS). The Permit to Take Water expired in November 2011. Renewals for COS, Bruce A and Bruce B were provided by the Ministry of the Environment and expires in February 2022.

6.5 Groundwater

The CNSC and MOE administer groundwater management at nuclear facilities through the application of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act [R-50] and the Brownfield’s Act [R-51], respectively. Bruce Power, since 2001 and OPG prior to that, has monitored the groundwater quality since the mid-1990’s.

Bruce Power has a comprehensive groundwater monitoring program in place which was developed from studies that took place in the 1990’s. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) began a program to voluntarily perform environmental site assessments at all OPG (then Ontario Hydro) owned facilities in 1995. In 1997 MOE issued a Directors Order requiring Site Assessment Plans (ESA) to be developed to investigate specific sites within specified timelines. In 1998, Ontario Hydro Nuclear (OHN) instituted an Integrated Improvement Plan to address the “assessment” of OHN contaminated lands. Locations were ranked by a third party consultant as having a high potential for Environmental Impact which were covered under the Director’s Order. As an outcome of this assessment, a plan was made and implemented to address any impact from past activities. Additionally, areas were identified which required long term monitoring. This formed the basis of Bruce Power’s current groundwater monitoring program. Since the birth of the groundwater monitoring program, fourteen subject sites are actively monitored based on their risk of environmental impact.

The following documents were used to develop an understanding of the previous investigations, groundwater sampling, and monitoring that have occurred at the Bruce Power site:

• Kinectrics Inc.: Bruce Nuclear Environmental Site Assessment: Phase II (Port 1, September 22, 2000.

• Kinectrics Inc.: 8010-004-RA-001-R00, Addendum to the Bruce Nuclear Environmental Site Assessment Phase II (Port 1), March 8, 2001.

• CH2M HILL: Phase ii (Port 2) Environmental Site Assessment of Eight Sites, Bruce Nuclear Power Development, August 9, 2002.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 99 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

• CH2M HILL: Phase Il Environmental Site Assessment at Six Sites, Bruce Nuclear Power Development, April 2005.

• CH2M HILL, Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling Program for the Existing Monitoring Wells at 9 Sites (2003 and 2004), February 2005.

• Kinectrics Report, Bruce Power Groundwater Monitoring Program: 2009, Volume 1: Main Report and Appendixes A-C, March 2010.

• CH2M HILL, characterization of Fire Training Held & Remediation Phase I Ground cleanup, March 2010.

• CH2M HILL, Additional Environmental Site Assessment and Characterization of Subsurface Conditions, Bruce B Emergency Power Generators Area (BBEG, Site #47), December 2011.

• CH2M HILL, 2010 Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling Program far Bruce Power, January 2012.

• CH2M HILL 2011 Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling Program for Bruce Power, September 2012.

• CH2M HILL 2012 Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling Program for Bruce Power, draft.

The main objective of the Bruce Power Groundwater Monitoring Program is to evaluate the groundwater quality and conditions at the above mentioned subject sites based on monitoring and sampling of the existing monitoring wells. As mentioned, these existing monitoring wells were installed during previous ESA’s and investigations at the sites. Additional wells were installed in 2012 to help further evaluate the groundwater quality at specific subject sites. Based on year to year evaluation, wells that are ineffective or are no longer representative of groundwater quality are decommissioned as per the respective regulations under the Ontario Water Resources Act [R-47].

The reports listed in Table 36 summarize the latest sampling methodology analysis, interpretation of data, Quality Assurance/Quality Control, conclusions and recommendations for the current status of the Bruce Power Groundwater Monitoring Program (14 site locations) on Bruce Power leased lands. Groundwater quality is monitored for both radiological and conventional parameters as described in the following sections.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 100 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

6.5.1 Radiological Parameters

Monitoring the groundwater around the Bruce A and Bruce B generating stations was initiated as a result of the Reconnaissance Level Groundwater Quality monitoring Program Study Bruce Nuclear Power Development Generating Stations Bruce 1 4 and Bruce 5 8 [R-32]. The purpose of the study was to assess the influence of the operations of the stations on groundwater tritium activities with subsurface pathways that may discharge to offsite receptors. The study concluded that the groundwater flow system in the vicinity of Bruce A and Bruce B are hydraulically isolated from properties east of the Bruce Power site boundary. Evidence presented in the report strongly suggests that the tritium found in the groundwater around the station is the consequence of the station airborne emissions and tritiated precipitation infiltrating into the carbonate aquifer.

Groundwater samples from ten multi-level wells installed into the bedrock around the Bruce A and Bruce B stations are collected for semi-annual sampling. The 2011 sampling results are provided in Table 37 and shown graphically in Figure 37 and Figure 38. The screening depths and stratigraphy type for the ten multi-level wells can be found in Appendix B.

Figure 38 indicates that the 2011 tritium concentration observed in Bruce B well 4-3 is above the Upper Level Boundary and therefore meets the threshold for the Tier 2 Action Level [R-32]. This elevated concentration can be attributed to the historical Ontario Hydro spill referenced by NK29 SER B91 013, Heavy Water Spill From a Tanker In The Ancillary Service Building [R-35]. Similarly, the 2011 tritium concentration observed Bruce B 5-3 and Bruce B 3-3 appear to be influence by its proximity to site 4-3.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 101 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 37 2012 Semi-annual Groundwater Data

Sampling Date Well Elevation to Top of Station Number - Zone S1 S2 Level ft (above sea level) Tritium (Bq/L) ±2σ Tritium (Bq/L) ±2σ 1-1 547.7 87.20 5.8 61.7 4.7 1-2 559.2 248.40 9.1 170.0 7.2 2-1 536.08 < Ld < Ld 2-2 550.58 < Ld < Ld 2-3 566.08 522 13.0 438 11

Bruce 3-1 536.3 < Ld < Ld A 3-2 550.8 < Ld < Ld 3-3 560.3 395 11.0 276.4 8.9 4-1 552.9 < Ld < Ld 4-2 567.4 374 11.0 273.5 8.9 5-1 536.21 < Ld < Ld 5-2 548.71 < Ld < Ld 1-1 538.82 18.90 3.6 16.8 3.2 1-2 553.32 320.00 10.0 255.4 8.6 1-3 569.82 431.00 12.0 272.5 8.9 2-1 552.04 289.50 9.8 345.9 9.9 2-2 571.54 651.00 14.0 639.0 13.0 3-1 536 < Ld < Ld

Bruce 3-2 552.5 58.5 5.0 133.5 6.4 B 3-3 573 684 15 652.0 13.0 4-1 539.9 41.10 4.4 41.0 4.1 4-2 558.4 689 15 654.0 13.0 4-3 572.9 2949 30 2611.0 27.0 5-1 535.95 291.9 9.8 260.1 8.7 5-2 553.45 617 14 596.0 13.0 5-3 572.95 690 15 636.0 13.0

Note: Ld for S1 = 6.4Bq/L Ld for S2 = 5.7 Bq/L Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 102 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 37 Average Tritium Concentrations in Multi-level Wells Installed in the Bedrock Around the Bruce A Station, 2007-2011

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 103 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 38 Average Tritium Concentrations in Multi-level Wells Installed in the Bedrock Around the Bruce B Station, 2007-2011

A graphical depiction of historical groundwater wells in the vicinity of Bruce Power is shown in Figure 39. The monitoring indicates that tritium levels have remained stable.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 104 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 39 Historical Groundwater Wells in the Vicinity of Bruce Power

6.5.2 Conventional Parameters

Development of effects based numeric values at contaminated sites began in the early 80’s. In Ontario, the discharge of contaminants into the environment, contamination of sites/facilities, and management of wastes are governed by the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) [R-52], Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) [R-47], Pesticides Act [R-53], and various regulations, guidelines, and objectives issued by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) under these acts. The MOE is the main regulatory agency with a mandate to develop, legislate, and enforce environmental legislation and regulations in Ontario. Other regulators include Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA).

The Bruce Power groundwater monitoring program interfaces with the buried piping program. This interface will help in development of a more efficient monitoring program that will act as a detection monitoring network (“sentry wells”) for long term assessment and monitoring of groundwater conditions and quality for the entire Bruce Power Site (Station). This would be a more proactive approach on a long term basis to monitor the environmental quality and impacts based on proposed groundwater data. Some additional monitoring wells will be considered at strategic locations for effective monitoring and evaluation in the vicinity of sites with higher risks for Petroleum Hydrocarbon impacts, leaks etc. (fuel oil storage tanks, systems, piping) as identified by the Buried Piping Program.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 105 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

The following paragraphs further describe two areas currently undergoing environmental investigations.

Fire Training Field Area (FTFA)

Key requirements to manage, decommission, install, operate, maintain, repair, and inspect above grounds storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (UST) used to store fuel oil and diesel fuel for backup generators/boilers are currently set out in the O. Reg. 213/01. This Regulation was established in law by the TSS Act and is enforced by the TSSA.

Prior to 1997, the stored fuel at the FTFA was a gas/diesel (60/40) mix that was subsequently replaced with a fuel (Tekflame™). Until recently, the fuel was stored in the 38,000 litre above ground storage tank (AST) enclosed in a concrete vault for secondary containment. The FTFA has been out of service since 2007 when a suspected leak from the underground fuel lines was identified. Consequently, the FTFA is undergoing remediation and the facility is being upgraded to align with current codes and standards. All buried piping, above ground storage tanks and structures with the exception of the smokehouse have been removed in preparations for upgrading.

Bruce B

In late 2011, a diesel fuel leak from the underground fuel lines of the Bruce B Emergency Power Generators (EPG) was identified. The delineation of the environmental impact is complete. Bruce Power has received a final investigation report containing recommended remedial options from an environmental consultant. Bruce Power submitted a progress letter to the Ministry of Environment (MOE). Groundwater monitoring and sampling results have been provided in 2012 and will continue in 2013 to the MOE related to this event

A reportable spill in December 2012 occurred as result of a failed buried pipe. A diesel fuel leak from the underground fuel lines of the Bruce B Standby Generator #8 was identified. Groundwater monitoring and sampling results have been provided in 2012 and will continue in 2013 to the MOE related to this event

6.6 Waste and Pollution Prevention

6.6.1 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) Containing Equipment Removal Project

Federal regulation SOR/2008 273 - PCB Regulations [R-54], required Bruce Power to remove from service all PCB containing equipment containing concentrations of PCBs greater than 500 ppm by December 31, 2009. On a case by case basis, Bruce Power received approval from Environment Canada for an End Of Use (EOU) Deadline Extension up to December 31, 2014 [R-34].

As of December 31, 2012, all PCB containing equipment; as identified for an End of Use (EOU) deadline, was removed from service at Bruce Power.

6.6.2 Federal Reporting

Bruce Power submits the online declaration by March 31 of the following year as required under Section 33(1) (2) (3) and Section 37 of SOR/2008 273 “PCB Regulations”[R-54].

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 106 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

6.6.3 Provincial Reporting

A PCB waste storage report is submitted annually to the MOE for the Bruce A storage facility #10400A003 and at the Waste Chemical Transfer Facility #10402A001.

7.0 IMPACTS AND BIODIVERSITY MONITORING PROGRAM

Bruce Power has a conventional impacts and biodiversity program. The overall goal of this program is to avoid, mitigate, monitor or offset adverse environmental effects of operations in order to protect and maintain local and regional ecological assets. Additionally, the Power Reactor Operating Licence (PROL) for Bruce A requires an environmental assessment follow-up monitoring program for the Bruce A refurbishment project, which has been accepted by CNSC staff.

7.1 Bass Nesting

Smallmouth bass nesting data results were not able to undergo QA/QC prior to this publication, thus results are subject to change.

Smallmouth bass continued to nest in the Bruce A and Bruce B discharge channels and in Baié du Doré in 2012. Temperature loggers were placed at each location. Nesting began in late April to mid May and nests were monitored throughout the season to observe nest development and success. Observations were made by running transects in a small boat (5 m) and stopping to observe any nesting sites with a translucent viewing box (aquarium) which minimized glare and allowed for a clear view of the nest.

The location of each nest was recorded via Global Positioning System (GPS) and the development stage documented during each of six surveys. The coding method followed a standardized protocol that was developed during historic monitoring studies and is shown below in Table 38. A nest was considered ‘successful’ if it had reached development stage 6 (risen fry), ‘unsuccessful’ if it was abandoned, and ‘remained active’ if it had reached development stage 1-5 during the extent of the survey, which continued until bass season opened on the last Saturday in June. The percentage of ‘successful’ nests at the end of the season includes those coded as stage 6-8 as these fry are likely to still disperse following the opening of bass season.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 107 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 38 Smallmouth Bass Nesting Survey Development Stage Codes

Code Field Indicators Code Description 0 Pairing A pair of adult smallmouth bass with no nest observed 1 Cleared Nest A cleared nest with no guarding males was observed Cleared Nest; A cleared nest with a guarding bass was observed, but no eggs or fry 2 Bass Guarding were visible 3 Eggs A cleared nest was present and eggs were observed in the nest Yolk-sac Transparent yolk-sac fry that had not risen off the bottom were observed 4 Larvae in the nest Fry Risen; Tight Fry, located at or very near the bottom, were observed 5 to Bottom Fry < 2 cm Fry <~2 cm total length, swimming suspended in the water column, were 6 Risen; observed Suspended Fry > 2 cm Fry >~2 cm total length, swimming suspended in the water column and 7 Risen; starting to disperse, were observed Dispersed Fry with a green colouration, which occurs at approximately 1.5 cm total 8 Green Fry length, observed in proximity of nest. May or may not be associated with that nest location Nest was observed to be abandoned by male adult smallmouth bass or an abrupt absence of eggs, fry and adults was observed. This code includes A Abandoned nests that are abandoned as the result of natural physical destruction (e.g., nest silted up)

Nesting began in late April in the Bruce A and Bruce B discharges, and in early May in Baié du Doré, and continued through the end of June. Nests are consistently located in similar geographic areas from one year to the next, which may be due to site fidelity. Males are known to return to the same location year after year, with the majority returning to within 140 m of prior nesting sites [R-36]. In the Bruce A discharge (Figure 40), bass nests continued to be located in the north eastern section which is an area sheltered by the Bruce A dock. In the Bruce B discharge (Figure 41), the majority of the nests were located on the north side of the channel. Southern areas of Baié du Doré continued to be highly utilized for bass nesting in 2012 (Figure 42).

Table 39 shows the number of bass nests over time. In 2012, there continued to be a high number of successful bass nests in the Bruce B discharge channel and the total number of nests in this location has remained consistent with previous years. Baié du Doré continued to see an increase in the number of nests in 2012, but the number of unsuccessful nests remained consistent with the previous year. The number of nests in the Bruce A discharge declined in 2012 compared to 2011, however numbers are similar to those observed in 2010.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 108 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 39 Number of Bass Nests by Location and Development Stage Over Time

Location Category 2009 2010 2011 2012 Successfula 8 22 47 16 Bruce A Activeb 0 1 1 6 Discharge c Channel Unsuccessful 6 2 3 5 Total 14 25 51 27 Successfula 35 37 43 49 Bruce B Activeb 1 4 0 1 Discharge c Channel Unsuccessful 6 2 3 4 Total 42 43 46 54 Successfula - 42 45 70 b Baie du Active - 0 3 10 Dore Unsuccessfulc - 3 33 27 Total - 45 81 107

Note: a A successful nest refers to a nest location that was recorded as Development Stage Code 6-8 (Risen Fry).

Note: b Active refers to a nest location that was recorded as Development Stage Code 0-5 during the last survey event.

Note: c An unsuccessful nest refers to a nest location that was recorded as Development Stage Code A (Abandoned) during the course of monitoring.

The number of nests and fry development continued over time at all locations as shown in Figure 43, Figure 44 and Figure 45 below. All nests were monitored on successive survey days and any new nests were recorded. The number of active, successful and abandoned nests is cumulative over time. Bruce A had a lower number of nests compared to the other two sites which is consistent with historic observations [R-37].

Smallmouth bass nesting surveys were completed annually in the Bruce A discharge channel between 1973 and 1990 [R-38]. Historically, the number of active smallmouth bass nests present in the Bruce A discharge channel (with 4 units in operation) has ranged between 2 and 24 [R-38]. During smallmouth bass nesting surveys in 2004 there were approximately 10 adult smallmouth bass recorded between May 19 and June 30, 2004, and only one nest (near the docking facility) was observed. Observations from smallmouth bass nesting assessments conducted between April 24 and June 10, 2007 found two active smallmouth bass nests in the Bruce A discharge channel [R-39]. While acknowledging survey methods have varied, relative to the nesting surveys completed in 2004 and 2007, recent nesting activity in the Bruce A discharge channel has increased.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 109 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 40 Smallmouth Bass Nest Locations in the Bruce A Discharge Channel

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 110 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 41 Smallmouth Bass Nest Locations in the Bruce B Discharge Channel

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 111 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 42 Smallmouth Bass Nest Locations in Baié du Doré

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 112 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 43 2012 Number of Smallmouth Bass Nests (by Category) in Bruce A Discharge Channel

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 113 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 44 2012 Number of Smallmouth Bass Nests (by Category) in Bruce B Discharge Channel

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 114 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 45 2012 Number of Smallmouth Bass Nests (by category) in Baie du Dore

7.2 Bass Creel

The Bruce Power site utilizes once through cooling which results in warmer waters being discharged into Lake Huron. This thermal effluent may attract warm-water fish species such as walleye and rainbow trout which are targeted species in the recreational fishery. Anglers may specifically fish in the area of the Bruce Power site and therefore surveys have been conducted to understand the extent of local angling pressure during the refurbishment phase of Bruce A (2 units in operation). This data will then be compared to data collected during the operations phase (4 units in operation) to determine if there is increased angling pressure associated with the restart of all Bruce A units. The focus of this study is on Smallmouth Bass as it has a localized distribution compared to other species (i.e., walleye and rainbow trout) which have a lake-wide distribution. Smallmouth Bass successfully utilize the Bruce A and Bruce B discharge channels for nesting and recruitment. The purpose of this work is to compare angler effort, harvest and biological information (age, length, weight) between the Refurbishment Phase and the Operations Phase to confirm the Environmental Assessment (EA) prediction of no significant adverse effects to the local Smallmouth Bass population as a result of increased angling. This is an interim summary of the three Access Creel Surveys that occurred from June to October in 2009, 2010 and 2011. These three years all occurred during the Refurbishment Phase of the Project. Conclusions will not be able to be drawn until the refurbishment phase can be compared with the operations phase.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 115 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

7.2.1 Creel Survey Protocol

An angler creel survey is used to collect data on angler harvest, effort and catch characteristics. The Access Creel Survey was conducted from the opening of bass season, the last Saturday in June, until October 31 at two locations: Inverhuron Provincial Park and Baié du Doré boat launches. Note that the Park closes after the Thanksgiving weekend.

Creel survey times were selected randomly to occur during 2 weekend days and 4 weekdays per week until Labour Day, and then the number of survey days changed to 1 weekend day and 2 weekdays per week until the end of the survey (October 31). The decrease in the number of survey days during September and October is due to historical decreases in angler utilization in this area, and recommendations from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR). All statutory holidays were considered as weekend days (Canada Day, August Civic Holiday, Labour Day, Thanksgiving).

Surveys were conducted for 7 hours from either 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (morning shift) or 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (or ½ hour after sunset; afternoon shift), which was also evenly stratified by location and day type. In the event of inclement weather, surveys were conducted for a minimum of 3 hours. Following the initial 3 hours, the weather forecast was checked, and if the weather was forecast to remain inclement then the survey was terminated. If the weather was forecast to improve then the survey shift was conducted for the complete 7 hours. The two creel survey locations, Inverhuron Provincial Park or Baié du Doré, were randomly selected but were evenly stratified by day type (weekend or weekday) and period (morning or afternoon shift).

Creel surveys are traditionally stratified into seasons by month, however in this case since there were fewer observations in September and October these two months were combined. Based on this stratification, the creel survey data was analyzed using three seasons:

• Season 1 - June 25 to July 31; • Season 2 - August 1 to August 31; and • Season 3 - September 1 to October 31.

The spatial and temporal strata for the Access Creel Survey are summarized below:

• Location (2 levels): Inverhuron Provincial Park, Baié du Doré; • Day type (2 levels): weekend, weekday • Period (2 levels): 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (morning), 3:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. (afternoon); • Season (3 levels): June 25 to July 31, August 1 to August 31, September 1 to October 31

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 116 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

This survey was conducted in collaboration with the OMNR and followed the standard OMNR protocol [R-41]. Also, an annual letter of approval was received from Inverhuron Provincial Park superintendent to conduct research in a provincial park in 2010 and 2011. This policy was not in place in 2009. Interviews and sampling of specimens was conducted for all species of fish, however the main species of interest to the Unit 1&2 Refurbishment Environmental Assessment was Smallmouth Bass (identified as a Valued Ecosystem Component) and thus the following results will discuss only this species. Additional survey questions were asked if Smallmouth Bass were harvested to determine the harvest location (Bruce A, Bruce B, Baié du Doré or elsewhere). Interview data was analyzed by year by MNR staff using the software program Fishnet 2.0L.

Scale samples for aging were collected but have not yet been analyzed. Scale samples will not be analyzed until after all surveys are complete and all samples will be processed by the same laboratory for consistency. Creel surveys will be conducted in the Operations Phase to allow comparisons with the Refurbishment Phase. Operations Phase monitoring will commence between one to three years following the refurbishment phase monitoring.

7.2.2 Creel Survey Results and Analysis

A summary of the three years of the Refurbishment Phase of the Access Creel Survey is provided in the bullets below. Detailed sample size information by stratification is in Table 40 and Table 41.

• Number of creel surveys conducted: 246

• Inverhuron Provincial Park surveys: 133 • Baié du Doré surveys: 113

• Number of anglers counted: 748

• Number of interviews conducted: 375

• Inverhuron Provincial Park interviews: 117 • Baie du Doré interviews: 258

• Number of fish sampled: 409

• Smallmouth Bass: 192 • Walleye: 77 • Chinook Salmon: 67 • Pink Salmon: 6 • Coho Salmon: 5 • Lake Trout: 39 • Rainbow Trout: 16 • Brown Trout: 3 • Freshwater Drum: 3 • Pike: 1

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 117 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 40 Creel Sample Size by Strata

Logs N Both Locations N Baie du Dore N Inverhuron 2009- 2009- 2009- Variable Strata 2009 2010 2011 2011 2009 2010 2011 2011 2009 2010 2011 2011 1 (Jun/Jul) 29 29 30 88 17 16 16 49 12 13 14 39 2 (Aug) 23 23 23 69 10 12 11 33 13 11 12 36 Season 3 (Sept/Oct) 30 30 29 89 14 19 18 51 16 11 11 38 subtotal 82 82 82 246 41 47 45 133 41 35 37 113 Morning 40 42 41 123 21 25 21 67 19 17 20 56 Period Afternoon 42 40 41 123 20 22 24 66 22 18 17 57 Day Weekday 58 58 58 174 31 34 32 97 27 24 26 77 type Weekend 24 24 24 72 10 13 13 36 14 11 11 36

Table 41 Interview Sample Size by Strata

Interviews N Total N Baie du Dore N Inverhuron 2009- 2009- 2009- Variable Strata 2009 2010 2011 2011 2009 2010 2011 2011 2009 2010 2011 2011 1 (June/July) 86 52 41 179 73 36 26 135 13 16 15 44 2 (August) 42 53 49 144 18 39 31 88 24 14 18 56 Season 3 (Sept/Oct) 27 7 18 52 15 6 14 35 12 1 4 17 subtotal 155 112 108 375 106 81 71 258 49 31 37 117 Morning 91 67 76 234 68 46 47 161 23 21 29 73 Period Afternoon 64 45 32 141 38 35 24 97 26 10 8 44 Weekday 110 83 66 259 77 61 37 175 33 22 29 84 Day type Weekend 45 29 42 116 29 20 34 83 16 9 8 33

7.2.3 Effort and Harvest Summary

Table 42 summarizes total estimated angler effort by year and season as well as the percent relative standard errors associated with these estimates. The high relative standard errors associated with season effort estimates is a reflection of high variability in effort within each season. The number of creel surveys completed each year was 82 and was consistently stratified by season. The first year saw the highest number of interviews. Most interviews (86%) were conducted in Season 1 and Season 2.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 118 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 42 Angler Effort Summaries by Year and Season (All Species Combined)

Estimated Effort Number Rod % of Number of Year Season Hours RSE Surveys Interviews 1 - June/July 4071 23 29 86 2 - August 2414 35 23 42 2009 3 - September/October 2170 33 30 27 Overall 8656 17 82 155 1 - June/July 1889 22 29 52 2 - August 2584 22 23 53 2010 3 - September/October 523 61 30 7 Overall 4996 16 82 112 1 - June/July 1888 22 30 41 2 - August 3441 33 23 49 2011 3 - September/October 1258 33 29 18 Overall 6555 22 82 108

Table 43 summarizes effort expended by those anglers targeting Smallmouth Bass. The values are all estimates based on the length of time spent fishing, number of rods used, number of anglers and species sought. Most anglers (94%) who caught bass were targeting this species. Only 30% of the Smallmouth Bass caught were retained. A total of 192 Smallmouth Bass were sampled at access points during the three survey years. The estimated catch-per-unit-effort for anglers seeking smallmouth bass was 1.37 fish per rod hour Table 43.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 119 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 43 Smallmouth Bass Estimated Angler Effort, Harvest, Catch and CPUE by Year and Season

Estimated Effort Harvest Estimate Catch Estimate Estimated CPUE Rod % # of % # of % % % Year Season Hours RSE individuals RSE individuals RSE Targeted Kept All Targeted 1 - June/July 644 29 277 34 610 34 95 45 0.15 0.9 2 - August 201 36 113 64 287 44 100 40 0.119 0.143 2009 3 - Sept/Oct 134 39 98 58 255 49 77 38 0.118 1.467 Overall 978 21 488 27 1152 24 92 42 0.133 1.086 1 - June/July 841 25 146 33 765 38 98 16 0.453 0.889 2 - August 511 31 40 75 187 47 100 21 0.108 0.489 2010 3 - Sept/Oct 477 64 380 54 1322 61 100 31 3.354 3.805 Overall 1828 22 566 38 2274 38 99 23 0.596 1.437 1 - June/July 373 46 19 89 157 62 94 12 0.105 0.428 2 - August 534 55 108 64 1386 77 100 20 0.587 2.593 2011 3 - Sept/Oct 321 79 202 47 503 47 85 43 0.428 1.579 Overall 1380 39 390 41 2182 52 95 27 0.439 1.630

7.2.4 Harvest Comparisons By Strata

Chi-squared tests were used to determine if there is a significant difference (α = 0.05) in the total counts of Smallmouth Bass harvested by strata (season, location, harvest area, period and day type). Expected values were equally weighted with the exception of season (weighted by number of days per season (37, 31 and 61 days respectively)) and day type (weighted by weekday (5/7) and weekend (2/7)). The majority of Smallmouth Bass were harvested from the vicinity of Bruce Power with only 2 individuals harvested in Baié du Doré and two individuals harvested outside of Bruce A, Bruce B and Baié du Doré. Some anglers caught bass at Bruce A and Bruce B, which were not kept separate, and thus the location of these individuals is designated AB and can not be attributed to a single discharge channel.

Smallmouth Bass were harvested in greater than expected numbers in Seasons 1 and 2. Most of the anglers harvesting Smallmouth Bass used the Baié du Doré access point (82%) as compared to the Inverhuron Provincial Park access point. Smallmouth Bass were mostly harvested from the vicinity of Bruce A and Bruce B. Anglers did not keep individual fish separate depending on if they were harvested at Bruce A or Bruce B (the Bruce A/B category) and so it cannot clearly be stated that more Smallmouth Bass were harvested from Bruce A. The majority of Smallmouth Bass were harvested during the morning shift (68%) and day type was not significant (Table 44). Thus the significant majority of Smallmouth Bass were harvested in mornings from the Baie du Doré access point in the vicinity of Bruce A and Bruce B.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 120 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 44 Chi-square Goodness of Fit Tests Among Strata for Smallmouth Bass Harvested

Variable Strata Observed Expected Chi-sq P-value Significant 1 (June/July) 73 55.68 Season 2 (August) 53 46.08 12.94 0.002 Yes 3 (Sept/Oct) 66 90.24 Baie du Dore 158 96 Location 80.08 < 0.0001 Yes Inverhuron 34 96 Bruce A 95 32 Bruce B 30 32 Harvest Area Bruce A/B 63 32 242.35 < 0.0001 Yes Elsewhere 2 48 Baie du Dore 2 48 Morning 130 96 Period 24.08 < 0.0001 Yes Afternoon 62 96 Weekday 127 136.62 Day type 2.20 0.138 No Weekend 65 55.68

N=192; significance level of 0.05

7.2.5 Biological Data

Aging information permits enhanced interpretation of measurements as variability can be determined by age. However, the current data is presented below which shows a wide range of variation as it is not categorized by age (Table 42). The total sample size was 180 Smallmouth Bass, as 12 fish were filleted before returning to shore. Information from the scale envelopes for the Smallmouth Bass harvested is located in Table 45. Mean fork length and total length of all measured Smallmouth Bass per year is greater than 300 mm (Table 45, Table 46). Mean weights are also all greater than 600 g (Table 47) One-way Analysis Of Variation (ANOVAs) determined that there is no difference (p = 0.05) in the fork length, total length or weight of Smallmouth Bass by year.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 121 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 45 Fork Length of Smallmouth Bass by Year

# Fork Length (mm) Year individuals Mean St. Err. St. dev. Minimum Maximum 2009 85 322.71 5.55 51.13 240 472 2010 45 327.62 8.24 55.27 248 470 2011 50 311.56 7.61 53.82 221 429

Table 46 Total Length of Smallmouth Bass by Year

# Total Length (mm) Year individuals Mean St. Err. St. dev. Minimum Maximum 2009 85 337.42 5.86 54.02 250 497 2010 45 344.49 8.47 56.83 258 494 2011 50 326.14 7.95 56.21 230 451

Table 47 Weight of Smallmouth Bass by Year

# Weight (g) Year individuals Mean St. Err. St. dev. Minimum Maximum 2009 85 648.15 43.32 397.00 200 2600 2010 45 670.09 56.76 380.75 200 2000 2011 50 618.70 54.14 382.80 150 1805

The fraction of the harvest of large individuals (> 300 mm) is 68% for this three year time period with large individuals constituting more than 60% of the harvests in 2009 (69%), 2010 (69%) and 2011 (64%). This is almost double that of the 36% of individuals observed in this size class in the late 1980’s.

Most anglers surveyed were targeting Chinook Salmon, Rainbow Trout and Walleye as shown by the overall FishNet results. Many walleye anglers left the dock around sunset and fished during the night and thus were not captured in the creel surveys (documented on survey forms).

7.2.6 Next Steps

The Creel Survey demonstrated that the majority of Smallmouth Bass were being harvested in mornings in the vicinity of Bruce Power with anglers launching from Baié du Doré. Creel surveys have been conducted during the Refurbishment Phase which was completed in October 2012. The data is highly variable and thus the maximum effort has been expended during successive years of the refurbishment phase to optimize the sample size in order to increase the probability of detecting a significant difference between the Refurbishment and Operation Phases. The current threshold to determine if there is an effect is a 75% increase in the total harvest of Smallmouth Bass. To date, the number of Smallmouth Bass harvested for 2009, 2010 and 2011 is 192 individuals. Conclusions can not be drawn until the Operations Phase data collected is complete. Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 122 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

7.3 Whitefish Gillnetting

Spawning aggregations of adult whitefish near the Bruce Power site have been monitored over time. The primary objective of this work in 2011 was to continue monitoring and assessing the relative abundance of spawning condition whitefish near the Bruce Power site using catch-per-unit-effort (CUE) of adult whitefish and comparing these results to past gillnetting data (2007 to 2011). Whitefish data collected will assist in determining the significance of potential effects with respect to impingement, entrainment and thermal effluents. Also, a University of Regina study of lake whitefish genetics and thermal stress was initiated in 2011. Bruce Power is sponsoring additional whitefish work and these results may be reported in the future as appropriate to the scope of this report.

7.3.1 Description of the Monitoring Program

Lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis) spawn in the late fall at depths between 2 and 8 m [Scott and Crossman 1998]. Eggs are deposited and fertilized over substrates with sufficient interstitial spaces (e.g., boulders, cobble) to provide protection to developing embryos from ice, currents, waves and predators [R-42]. Round Whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) also utilize habitat with these characteristics to spawn [R-42] and for the purpose of this study, it is assumed that both species utilize the same potential spawning locations.

Monitoring involved continuing to monitor whitefish spawning habitat utilization within the vicinity of the Bruce Power site. Gillnetting was used to document the presence, relative abundance and reproductive condition of lake and round whitefish during the spawning season. As shown on Figure 46, and consistent with monitoring in 2009 and 2010, the 2011 study area was divided into eight sampling areas. The boundaries of these eight areas were defined using topographic features (i.e., substrate and depth) and the modelled extent of the thermal plume.

Gillnetting in the vicinity of the Bruce Power site (Figure 46) was conducted using a 14 m vessel and two gangs of nets (200 yards of 2¼″ mesh, 300 yards of 4½″ mesh). Temperature loggers were attached to each gillnet. Setting of nets required a minimum water depth of 4.5 m. Nets were set parallel to shore for approximately 24 hours. Gillnetting began in late October (e.g., October 26th 2011) and continued until early to mid December (e.g., December 13th 2011) at weather conditions deteriorate at this time of year and the spawning season is completed. All captured whitefish were counted. Otoliths, scales, fin clips, gonadal condition and flesh for genetics were collected from all whitefish (183 lake whitefish & 175 round whitefish were sampled in 2011).

Presented here are the results of the 2011 monitoring program. Results from prior programs were communicated to stakeholders.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 123 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

7.3.2 Results and Discussion of the Whitefish Monitoring Program in the Vicinity of the Bruce Power Site

7.3.2.1 2011 Gillnetting Results

Gillnets were set across the eight sampling areas (Figure 46) in the vicinity of the Bruce Power site, for a total effort of 20.9 km of gillnet and 950.9 hours of soak time (“soak time” refers to the length of time that a gillnet is deployed). Equal effort was directed over the entire study area with two areas set at a time until whitefish reached spawning condition and then four areas were set at a time. Total effort was similar to 2010 (22.80 km of gillnet and 1053.5 hrs of soak time).

A total of 183 lake whitefish and 175 round whitefish were captured during netting efforts. Relative abundance, as measured by CUE, was highest at Scougall Bank (Area 1) and lowest at MacPherson Bay (Area 5) for both lake whitefish and round whitefish (Table 48, Figure 46). Total CUE for lake whitefish was higher compared to the total CUE for round whitefish, however there was much variability between sites with half of the sites having a greater or equal CUE for lake whitefish compared to round whitefish (Table 48, Figure 50).

Figure 46 2011 Gillnetting Locations in the Vicinity of the Bruce Power Site

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 124 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 48 2011 Effort and Number of Whitefish Captured by Area

Number of CUE Lake CUE Round Area Effort Whitefish Whitefish Whitefish Km of Hrs of Per No. Name Lake Round Per Hr Per Km Per Hr Gillnet Soak Km Scougall 1 2.375 104.1 58 40 Bank 24.42 0.56 16.84 0.38 2 Welsh Bank 2.850 124.1 18 14 6.32 0.15 4.91 0.11 3 Scott Point 2.375 101.6 19 23 8.00 0.19 9.68 0.23 Loscombe 4 2.850 132.8 25 13 Bank 8.77 0.19 4.56 0.11 MacPherson 5 2.375 105.6 4 8 Bay 1.68 0.04 3.37 0.08 6 Gunn Point 2.850 132.1 16 16 5.61 0.12 5.61 0.12 Inverhuron 7 2.375 116.6 8 20 Bay 3.37 0.07 8.42 0.17 8 McRae Point 2.850 134.0 35 41 12.28 0.26 14.39 0.31 Total 20.900 950.9 183 175 8.76 0.19 8.37 0.18

At the onset of gillnetting the CUE for round whitefish was greater than the CUE for lake whitefish (Figure 47) and all of the individuals captured were not ripe (i.e., not ready to spawn). Water temperatures at this point were approximately 12.3°C. Average water temperatures per set are plotted on the secondary axis of Figure 47. The number of lake whitefish and the proportion of ripe lake whitefish captured increased during successive sampling and therefore it is likely that gillnetting commenced prior to the onset of spawning activity.

Higher CUE values for lake whitefish at each site corresponded with water temperature decreasing below 10oC in mid to late November. Scougall Bank demonstrated the highest lake whitefish CUE on November 22nd 2011 when 31 lake whitefish were caught. As shown on Figure 47, relative to other areas the lake whitefish CUE at Area 5 (MacPherson Bay) was generally lower throughout the season. Round whitefish CUE values do not exhibit a relationship with water temperature. Round whitefish CUE tended to peak prior to lake whitefish CUE at all areas, with Areas 1 to 3 showing more variability over time. The decrease in CUE in early November may have been related to the abundance of Gizzard Shad found throughout the study area at this time.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 125 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 47 CUE Per Km Of Gillnet For Lake Whitefish And Round Whitefish By Lift Date And Area, 2011

All of the 183 lake whitefish that were collected during 2011 gillnetting efforts were measured for physical characteristics. Male lake whitefish consistently outnumbered females, with a sex ratio of 2.5:1 (130 males and 53 females). Ripe female lake whitefish were only found at half of the spawning areas and in very low abundance (see Table 49, only 5 fish were found in this state, ~10% of all female lake whitefish in 2011). Ripe male lake whitefish were found at all areas and in greater abundance at the either end of the geographic range sampled. The majority of the male lake whitefish, 75%, were ripe (Table 49) in 2011. Spent female lake whitefish were found in low abundance at all areas with the exception of Area 6 (Gunn Point) where none were found. Spent male lake whitefish were also found in low abundance at all areas with the exception of Area 2 (Welsh Bank) where none were found. Male ripe lake whitefish began to peak in late November with the highest CUE (due to 21 individuals) on November 22, 2011 at Area 1 (Scougall Bank) (Figure 48). The abundance of ripe and spent female lake whitefish remained low over time and across sites as demonstrated in Figure 48.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 126 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 48 2011 Catch per Unit Effort (CUE, Based on Kilometres of Gillnet) of Lake Whitefish and Round Whitefish by Area

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 127 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 49 Number Of Individuals Of Lake Whitefish Assessed For Spawning Condition By Area, 2011

Female Male Area Mature Ripe Spent Total Mature Ripe Spent Total Grand Total 1 Scougall Bank 6 0 4 10 3 36 9 48 58 2 Welsh Bank 4 1 3 8 0 10 0 10 18 3 Scott Point 1 1 5 7 2 9 1 12 19 4 Loscombe Bank 3 1 6 10 4 9 2 15 25 5 MacPherson Bay 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 4 6 Gunn Point 3 0 0 3 4 8 1 13 16 7 Inverhuron Bay 2 0 3 5 0 1 2 3 8 8 McRae Point 5 2 1 8 1 24 2 27 35 Total 25 5 23 53 14 98 18 130 183

All of the 175 round whitefish that were collected during 2011 gillnetting efforts were measured for physical characteristics. The sex ratio was fairly even for round whitefish, with a 0.88:1 ratio for male to female round whitefish. Ripe female round whitefish were also found at only half of the spawning areas located at either end of the geographic range sampled and in very low abundance (see Table 50, only 7 fish were found in this state, ~8% of all female found whitefish in 2011). Ripe male round whitefish were found at most areas, with the exception of the two northern locations (Area 1 and Area 2) and in greater abundance at the southern end of the geographic range sampled. The majority of the male lake whitefish, 65%, were mature with only 17% found in the ripe stage in 2011 (Table 50). Spent female round whitefish were found in low abundance at most areas with the exception of Area 5 and Area 6 (MacPherson Bay and Gunn Point) where none were found. Spent male lake whitefish were also found in very low abundance at all areas with the exception of Area 4 (Loscombe Bank) where none were found. Ripe female round whitefish did not demonstrate any peaks in abundance with time (Figure 49). Ripe male round whitefish maintained a low CUE over time with the greatest abundance found on November 21st at McRae Point. Spent female round whitefish did demonstrate higher CUE values in late November and into early December at Areas 1 and 3 (Scougall Bank and Scott Point) (Figure 49).

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 128 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 50 Number Of Individuals Of Round Whitefish Assessed For Spawning Condition By Area, 2011

Female Male Area Mature Ripe Spent Total Mature Ripe Spent Total Grand Total 1 Scougall Bank 15 1 11 27 6 0 7 13 40 2 Welsh Bank 4 0 4 8 5 0 1 6 14 3 Scott Point 7 0 9 16 5 1 1 7 23 4 Loscombe Bank 5 0 0 5 7 1 0 8 13 5 MacPherson Bay 4 0 0 4 2 1 1 4 8 6 Gunn Point 4 1 2 7 5 3 1 9 16 7 Inverhuron Bay 2 3 4 9 8 2 1 11 20 8 McRae Point 11 2 4 17 15 6 3 24 41 Total 52 7 34 93 53 14 15 82 175

Figure 49 Spawning Condition Of Female And Male Round Whitefish (CUE/Km Gillnet) By Lift Date And Area, 2011

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 129 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

7.3.3 Historic Gillnetting Results (2007 to 2010)

This historic gillnetting results are shown in Table 51 for 2007 to 2010. Loscombe Bank and Gunn Point were sampled from 2007 to 2010. In 2009 the sampling area was extended over a wider geographic range to improve the probability of recapturing marked fish. This area ranged from Scougall Bank to McRae Point. Gillnetting efforts were maximized each season but as lake conditions affect the ability to set nets, the amount of effort was variable by year.

Catch per unit effort for lake whitefish was generally higher in the northern areas whereas catch per unit effort for Round Whitefish demonstrated less variability by area as shown in Figure 50. Generally catch per unit efforts were higher at northern and southern areas which may be the result of habitat quality.

Figure 51 shows catch per unit effort over time for each area. Lake whitefish demonstrate abundance peaks near the beginning of the season at some areas in both 2009 and 2010, when Lake Huron water temperatures dropped below 10°C. Lake whitefish generally demonstrate spawning peaks once water temperature drops below a threshold, which has been 10°C in this part of Lake Huron [R-36]. Round Whitefish generally do not demonstrate these early peaks in abundance but show a more constant presence over time.

Table 51 Historical Gillnetting Results from 2007 to 2010

Effort Number of CUE Lake CUE Round Whitefish Whitefish Whitefish m of gill hrs of Site Year nets soak Lake Round per km per hr per km per hr Loscombe Bank 2007 7312 388.50 161 61 22.02 0.41 8.34 0.16 2008 5941 291.00 51 37 8.58 0.18 6.23 0.13 2009 5027 267.00 118 27 23.47 0.44 5.37 0.10 2010 3800 181.50 19 32 5.00 0.10 8.42 0.18 Gunn Point 2007 7312 388.50 205 72 28.04 0.53 9.85 0.19 2008 5941 289.50 140 67 23.57 0.48 11.28 0.23 2009 5484 324.00 54 93 9.85 0.17 16.96 0.29 2010 3325 150.50 17 43 5.11 0.11 12.93 0.29 Subtotal 44142 2280.50 765 432 17.33 0.34 9.79 0.19 Scougall Bank 2009 2285 109.00 103 41 45.08 0.94 17.94 0.38 2010 2850 128.50 171 82 60.00 1.33 28.77 0.64 Welsh Bank 2009 1828 86.00 191 43 104.49 2.22 23.52 0.50 2010 2850 131.00 50 42 17.54 0.38 14.74 0.32 Scott Point 2009 2285 110.00 92 30 40.26 0.84 13.13 0.27 2010 2850 131.00 85 38 29.82 0.65 13.33 0.29 MacPherson Bay 2009 4570 223.00 17 48 3.72 0.08 10.50 0.22 2010 2850 131.00 10 28 3.51 0.08 9.82 0.21 Inverhuron Bay 2009 3199 157.00 69 109 21.57 0.44 34.07 0.69 2010 2375 110.50 13 25 5.47 0.12 10.53 0.23 McRae Point 2009 1828 96.00 78 85 42.67 0.81 46.50 0.89 2010 1900 89.50 78 23 41.05 0.87 12.11 0.26 Grand total 75812 3783.00 1722 1026 22.71 0.46 13.53 0.27

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 130 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 50 2007-2011 Catch per Unit Effort (CUE, Based on Kilometers of Gillnet) of Lake Whitefish and Round Whitefish by Area

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 131 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 51 Historical Catch-Per-Unit Effort of Whitefish From 2009 to 2010

Figure 52 shows Loscombe Bank and Gunn Point catch per unit efforts throughout each gillnetting season from 2007 to 2010. Increases in Lake whitefish abundance began in early to mid-November consistently over time likely as the result of lake temperatures dropping below 10°C. Male Whitefish generally arrived on the spawning grounds before the females for both species. This is known from the literature [R-36]. Weather conditions did not permit gillnetting for an extended period in mid-November in 2010 and thus catch per unit effort is much lower in 2010 compared to previous years. Round Whitefish demonstrate a more consistent catch per unit effort over time at all sites and years compared to Lake whitefish. Analysis of 2007 to 2011 results is pending and will be included in future annual reports.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 132 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 52 Historic Gillnetting Results

7.3.3.1 Mark - Recapture Results

Mark recapture tagging results are discussed for the period 2007 to 2011 (see Table 52, noting that results from 2004 - 2006 are also provided). With the exception of two round whitefish during this period, all whitefish recaptured had retained their fins clips but lost their Floy type tags. In 2011, fin clips were observed on both recaptured round whitefish retained but both individuals were missing tags. Round whitefish No. 16078 was tagged November 7, 2006 at Douglas Point and recaptured on 25 November, 25 2010 at Gunn Point. This male fish was 391 mm total length (TL) at tagging and 431 mm TL when it was recaptured. Round whitefish No. 16264 was tagged November 14, 2006 at Douglas Point and recaptured on November 25, 2010 at Gunn Point. This male fish and was 387 mm TL at tagging and 409 mm when it was recaptured in spawning condition. Further detail on this basin-wide mark-recapture program is available in Ebener [R-43]. Complete results of this study are pending.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 133 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 52 Number Of Individuals Of Marked Lake Whitefish And Round Whitefish That Were Recaptured, By Year

Lake Whitefish Round Whitefish Year Marked Recaptured Marked Recaptured 2004 225 24 213 1 2005 56 10 22 5 2006 109 43 128 5 2007 0 0 0 0 2008 0 0 0 0 2009 0 7 0 0 2010 0 2 0 4 2011 0 1 0 2 Total 390 87 373 17

7.3.3.2 2011 Incidental Catches

The incidental catches of non-whitefish species in 2011 are reported in Table 53. Total sampling effort was 20,900 m of gill net and 930.2 hrs of soak time in 2011. All unreleased, saleable fish were shipped to a fish processing plant.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 134 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 53 Incidental Catches of Non-whitefish Species by Site During the 2011 Whitefish Gill Netting Assessment at Bruce Power

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Location Scougall Welsh Scott Loscombe MacPherson Gunn Inverhuron McRae Total Bank Bank Point Bank Bay Point Bay Point

Species

Lake Trout 5 1 4 7 7 9 5 11 49 Chinook 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Salmon Brown Trout 7 4 5 2 10 6 11 4 49 Rainbow 2 0 2 3 1 3 0 1 12 Trout Channel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Catfish Walleye 3 5 2 10 10 19 9 5 63 Smallmouth 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 Bass White Bass 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 4

Rock Bass 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 6

White Perch 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 Longnose 38 12 33 35 13 60 29 60 280 Sucker Redhorse 18 2 1 4 3 8 3 17 56 Sucker Common White 0 0 1 1 0 4 10 8 24 Sucker Common 1 3 2 0 0 3 0 0 9 Carp Sheephead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gizzard 136 293 111 866 540 106 986 371 3409 Shad Bowfin 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Burbot 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 3 Longnose 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gar Sturgeon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: Number locations correspond to Figure 46.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 135 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

7.3.3.3 2011 Assessing Lake Whitefish Population Structure

Genetic samples were collected from all lake whitefish and round whitefish across all areas during the 2011 gillnetting program [R-44]. Genetic markers and stable isotope analysis are being used by University of Regina researchers to determine whether spawning aggregations near Bruce Power are genetically and ecologically distinct.

The University of Regina research team extracted genomic DNA from all of the 192 lake whitefish and 182 round whitefish collected by Bruce Power during the 2010 fall spawning season. DNA samples have been extracted from muscle tissues from 130 lake whitefish and 43 round whitefish out of the 212 lake whitefish and 150 round whitefish collected in 2012. All samples produced sufficient DNA for genotyping activities, as well as for long-term archiving purposes.

By close of 2011, the University of Regina research team was in the final stages of optimizing PCR and fragment analysis conditions for a panel of 10-12 microsatellite loci to be used for assessing population structure in lake whitefish. 18 loci were tested on a subsample of 30 whitefish, producing up to 540 microsatellite genotypes. The loci selected were taken from previous publications on lake whitefish in the Great Lakes [R-45]. The most robust panel of markers (at close of 2011) consisted of the following 7 loci, which work consistently well: BWF1, Cocl Lav45, Cocl Lav6, Cocl Lav4, Cocl Lav68, Cocl Lav52, and Cocl Lav72. In 2012, samples will be genotyped with 8-10 microsatellite marker loci, and the data will be compared with 2010 and 2011 collections. Additionally, samples from 2012 are being analyzed with next-generation DNA sequencing. Following preliminary analysis of genomic data, individual samples will be screened for single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

In addition, the University of Regina research team has begun testing on Cocl Lav22, Cocl Lav221, Cocl Lav216, and Cocl Lav10. Each of these loci shows promise, but requires additional optimization for complete evaluation. Cocl Lav23, Cocl Lav74, Cocl Lav18, Cocl Lav38, Cocl Lav80, Cocl Lav219, and Cocl Lav 220 did not produce consistent and clear microsatellite profiles during initial screening, so these were ruled out of contention for the final marker panel. When 10-12 well working loci have been thoroughly tested an identified, all lake whitefish samples collected in 2010 will be genotyped.

The University of Regina team analyzed 188 lake whitefish and 182 round whitefish for stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen in muscle tissue in 2011. Preliminary analyses showed much higher levels of isotopic variation in lake whitefish than round whitefish, indicating that lake whitefish likely obtain their prey from many different sources (Figure 21). Lake and round whitefish have very different distributions, indicating differences in feeding ecology between these two species. Isotopic variability is much higher in lake whitefish. Whitefish carbon values span approximately 8 per mil, suggesting that the fish were feeding in a variety of food webs (locations) prior to being sampled. This is a very large range for fish from within a single location (reference?). In contrast, round whitefish have a much narrower common range of carbon values spanning approximately 4 per mil. Visual inspection of the data indicates that sampling location, lift number, and sex of lake whitefish do not have any large influence on stable isotopes values; however, this remains to be formally tested. Preliminary interpretation of the carbon isotopes data suggests that lake whitefish come from a variety of locations prior to being captured near the Bruce Power site. Formal analysis is ongoing.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 136 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

DNA samples have been extracted from muscle tissues from 130 lake whitefish and 43 round whitefish (out of the 212 lake whitefish and 150 round whitefish collected); samples will be genotyped with 8-10 microsatellite marker loci, and the data will be compared with 2010 and 2011 collections. Additionally, samples from 2012 are being analyzed with next-generation DNA sequencing. Following preliminary analysis of genomic data, individual samples will be screened for single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in order to obtain unprecedented insight into the population genetics of lake whitefish in Lake Huron.

Stable isotopes of C and N are being used to analyze the dietary niches of lake and round whitefish. The 2012 samples analyzed so far suggest niche partitioning in the two species. The very large range of C isotope values suggest that lake whitefish in particular utilize a variety of locations, water depths, and food chains prior to arriving at spawning shoals in 2012. Data and final interpretations have not yet been prepared for scientific publication.

Figure 53 Stable Isotopes Values for Lake Whitefish Captured in the Bruce Power Area of Lake Huron During the 2010 Fall Breeding Season

7.3.3.4 2011 Thermal Stress Effects on Lake Whitefish Embryos

Suitable adult, juvenile and embryonic lake whitefish samples were not able to be obtained from the BPND site, so the University of Regina team collected whitefish from Saskatchewan lakes.

Six juvenile lake whitefish (Last Mountain Lake, SK) provided tissue for isolation of lake whitefish heat shock protein (HSP) genes and for validation of antibodies for HSP detection. Partial transcripts have been isolated for three different HSP genes included HSP70, HSP90, and heat shock cognate (HSC) 70. Prior to this work, no data were available for whitefish HSP70 or HSP90. With respect to testing antibodies to measure HSP protein levels, the University of Regina team has had some limited success with the three different antibodies tested. Four additional antibodies are planned for testing.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 137 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Ten adult lake whitefish (Black Strap Lake, SK) were collected and provided 300,000 lake whitefish embryos for thermal stress experiments beginning in December, 2011. These embryos will be used for large-scale thermal stress experiments in early 2012. Initial experiments include characterization of the kinetics of the heat shock response following 2°, 5°, and 8°C shifts in temperature. Additional experiments are planned to assess the duration of the heat shock response in lake whitefish embryos.

7.3.4 Conclusions

Gillnetting, conducted in 2011 to document the presence and spawning condition of lake and round whitefish, indicated that the CUE was highest at Scougall Bank and lowest at MacPherson Bay for both round whitefish and lake whitefish. Based on the observed peaks in CUE in 2011, it appears that two spawning runs of round whitefish and one spawning run of lake whitefish occurred. Similar to 2010, lake whitefish CUE was found to be generally higher than round whitefish CUE in the southern and northern most sampling areas. Lake and round whitefish CUE in 2011 was the lowest of the years sampled at all sites with the exception of Loscombe Bank and Gunn Point. In 2011, fin clips were observed on two recaptured round whitefish but both individuals were missing tags. Both were tagged at Douglas Point and recaptured on November 25, 2010 at Gunn Point.

The University of Regina research program was initiated in order to determine if a local population of lake whitefish is present near the Bruce Power site. Understanding of the impacts of embryonic thermal stress on development and hatching is ongoing and updates will be provided as appropriate.

7.4 Fish Impingement

Fish Impingement Monitoring was completed at Bruce A and Bruce B in 2012. Bruce A demonstrated a significant improvement in the number of sampling events reported in 2012 compared to previous years (Figure 54). This was due to increased awareness and understanding of the importance of reporting. There were significant fish runs of gizzard shad at both stations in 2011 (Table 54). Gizzard shad accounted for 98% of the fish impinged at Bruce A and 74% of the fish impinged at Bruce B in 2011. Bruce Power operations collected a total of 4,714 fish from both Bruce A and Bruce B, including 16 lake whitefish and 2 round whitefish in 2012. None of the impinged whitefish were observed as being tagged from the international lake wide study. With the exception of lake whitefish, round whitefish and deepwater sculpin, only the fish species with greater than 100 individuals impinged at one station are listed in Table 54 below. The fish impingement monitoring process is being updated and aligned between Bruce A and Bruce B in 2013.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 138 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

45000 1200 Bruce A 41,143 Bruce B 40000 Events Bruce A Events Bruce B 1000

35000

30,684 30000 800

25000

600

20000 18,500 Number of Fish of Number

16,550 Number of Events

15000 400 12,286

9,569 10000 9,087

200

5000 4,350 3,762 3,372 2,760 2,269 1,173912 292 30 28 364 0 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Note: Gizzard shad fish run accounted for high numbers in 2011

Figure 54 Number of Fish Impinged (bars) and Number of Sampling Events (lines) by Year for Bruce A and Bruce B

Note: High Values in 2011 are a Result of a Winter Fish Run of Gizzard Shad

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 139 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table 54 2012 Number of Individuals of Each Type of Fish Impinged, Including Species of Importance (Lake Whitefish, Round Whitefish, Gizzard Shad)

2012 # Individuals Fish Species Bruce A Bruce B Spot Tail Shiner 0 822 Gizzard Shad 14 754 Yellow Perch 70 549 Round Goby 30 358 Longnose Sucker 42 352 Redhorse Sucker 6 256 Rainbow Smelt 1 234 White Sucker 13 166 Emerald Shiner 1 163 Rainbow Trout 2 142 Burbot/Ling 22 141 Alewife 50 130 Lake Whitefish 1 15 Round Whitefish 1 1 Deepwater Sculpin 0 19 Total 364 4350

7.5 Temperature Monitoring

Temperature monitoring in Lake Huron continued in 2012. This included 30 monitoring locations that extended from south of Bruce B (McRae Point) to north of Bruce A (MacGregor Point) to 20 m depth. Two wave current monitors were also deployed in the summer of 2012 at Gunn Point and Douglas Point. This data is being used to create a model of the thermal plume that will be used to understand the potential risk of temperature to indicator organisms. This information may be used to support Environmental Compliance Applications. This work is part of a COG study.

Over the winter Lake and Round Whitefish were incubated at ambient temperatures in Lake Ontario to investigate the effect of temperature on embryo development and hatching success. Results showed very little mortality or deformity. Ambient temperatures were artificially raised to investigate the effects of exposure to increased constant and variable temperature regimes. Result show hatch advance with increased temperature.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 140 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

7.6 Deer Interactions with Traffic

White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are abundant throughout the local area. Biological population sizes naturally fluctuate from year to year depending on recruitment, predation and natural mortality. The deer density in the local area is represented by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Wildlife Management Unit 84 (WMU84) which includes the Bruce Power site (see Figure 56)[R-39]. Available data shows that harvest estimates have varied slightly over time with an average 1487 individual harvested per year between 2003 and 2011 (Figure 56).

Increased traffic during the large construction projects on site (i.e., refurbishment of U1 and U2 at Bruce A) may result in increased vehicle strikes with white-tailed deer. Records of vehicle strikes are kept and the number of strikes and mortalities on site is monitored annually. Historical data, from 1998 to 2004, was compared to refurbishment data, from 2005 to 2012, in terms of the number of vehicle collisions and the number of deer mortalities as the result of these vehicle collisions (see Figure 57). The number of deer collisions on site has been generally lower than historic values despite increased traffic on site due to refurbishment. The number of deer mortalities from these collisions is lower during the refurbishment phase than during the historic phase. This is likely due to the continued use of gates to control shift change traffic, enforced speed limit reductions and increased employee awareness.

Statistical comparisons between historic and refurbishment data was conducted. For the number of vehicle collisions, results showed equal variances between the two periods and a t-test with equal variances showed no significant increase (p = 0.061, using a one-sided test at p = 0.05) in vehicle collisions with white-tailed deer between the historical and refurbishment phase. A non parametric Mann Whitney U test was also used, due to the low sample size, and demonstrated that the number of vehicle collisions is significantly less during refurbishment compared to the historic phase (p = 0.0395, using a one-sided test at p = 0.05). This demonstrates a downward trend in the number of collisions over time.

For the number of vehicle collision mortalities, results show unequal variances between the two periods and a t-test for unequal variances showed significantly fewer collision mortalities during the refurbishment phase compared to the historic phase (p = 0.019, using a one-sided test at p = 0.05). A non parametric Mann Whitney U test was also used, due to the low sample size, and demonstrated the same conclusion (p = 0.0123, using a one-sided test at p = 0.05). This also demonstrates a downward trend in the number of collision mortalities over time.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 141 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure 55 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Wildlife Management Unit 84 (WMU84)

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 142 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

2000

1,810 Total Harvest for All White-Tailed Deer (WMU-84) 1800 1,760 1,720

1,606 1600

1400 1,306 1,326 1,309 1,269 1,279

1200

1000

800

600 Total Harvest for All White-Tailed DeerHarvest (WMU-84)All for White-Tailed Total

400

200

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

Figure 56 Total Harvest for All White-Tailed Deer (WMU-84)

14

13 Collisions Collision Mortalities

12 12

10 10

9 9

8 8 8

77 7 7

6 6 6

55 5

4 4 4 4 4

3 3

Number of White-tailed White-tailed DeerNumberof collisionscollision and mortalities 22 2 2 2 2

1 1

0 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year

Figure 57 Number of Bruce Power White-tailed Deer Collisions and Collision Mortalities

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 143 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

8.0 CONCLUSION

Monitoring Program Requirements

The 2012 Monitoring Program confirms Bruce Power complies with relevant Federal and Provincial environmental legislation, regulations, and other requirements. Bruce Power adopts applicable best industry standards a framework for achieving continual improvement and sustainable performance excellence, while minimizing our environmental impact and preventing pollution. Bruce Power will continue towards the implementation of CSA N288.4-10 [R-1], N288.5-11 [R-4] and N288.6-12 [R-18].

The 2012 radiological effluent monitoring program confirms that the radiological emissions from the Bruce Site are well within regulatory limits.

The Dose to Public to be 1.17 uSv/a, which is a deminiums fraction of regulatory limits. Bruce Power has completed a Site Specific Survey in 2011 and incorporated this information in a completed Pathways Analysis.

Conventional (Hazardous Substances) Monitoring Program

Bruce Power complies with the Environmental Compliance Approval issued by the Ontario Ministry of Environment. Bruce Power continues to monitor site/off site groundwater. Bruce Power complies with the Federal regulations which protect human health and the environment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Impacts and Biodiversity

Bruce Power plans to continue monitoring several elements of the environmental impacts and biodiversity program in 2013 including bass nesting, bass creel, deer interaction with traffic and fish impingement. The fish impingement program is being updated and aligned between Bruce A and Bruce B in 2013. Bruce Power will continue to comply with the Ontario Water Resources Act and all Environmental Compliance Approvals/Permits associated with water temperature monitoring and this will continue in 2013.

Bruce Power is currently conducting a Tier 1 environmental risk assessment and the Tier 2 & 3 will be completed in 2013/2014. Bruce Power will be working with AECL [R-55] (Douglas Point) to develop the tier 2/3 environmental risk assessment which will be used to update the Bruce Power site environmental monitoring plan.

9.0 REFERENCES

[R-1] Canadian Standards Association. 2010. CAN/CSA-N288. 4-10 Environmental Monitoring Programs At Class I Nuclear Facilities And Uranium Mines And Mills.

[R-2] Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. 2003. Reporting Requirements for Operating Nuclear Power Plants, Regulatory Standard S-99.

[R-3] Bruce Power. 2013. 2011 Site Specific Survey Report for the Bruce Power Site B-REP-03443-00009 R001.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 144 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

[R-4] Canadian Standards Association. 2011. N288.5-11 Effluent Monitoring Programs Class 1 Nuclear Facilities And Uranium Mines And Mills.

[R-5] Ontario Power Generation. 2000. The Provincial Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program” N-REP-03481-10000.

[R-6] Klukas, M.H. 1999. Tritium in the Great Lakes; Concentration - Time Model.

[R-7] Canadian Standards Association. 2008. CAN/CSA-N288.1-08 Guidelines for Calculating Derived Release Limits for Radioactive Material in Airborne and Liquid Effluents for Normal Operation of Nuclear Facilities.

[R-8] C.Cheng. 2013. 2012 Results of Radiological Environmental Monitoring programs: N-REP-03481-100011.

[R-9] A. Mathai. 2010. Passive Air samplers NK21-CORR-00531-08368, NK29-CORR-00531-09153, NK37-CORR-00531-01654.

[R-10] K. Talbot. 1996. Notification/Action Protocols for Abnormal Tritium Releases at BNPD B-CORR-00548-00002.

[R-11] CANDU Owner Group Inc. 2009. Tritium in the Great Lakes 2008: Re-evaluation of the Great Lakes Tritium Model, Technical Note TN-08-3039.

[R-12] Health Canada. 2011. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/ed-ud/respond/nuclea/data-donnees-eng.php.

[R-13] Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture 2012 http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/faqs-food-agriculture.html.

[R-14] Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture 2012 http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa/faqs-food-safety.html.

[R-15] National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 2009. NCRP Report No. 160 Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Populations of the United States.

[R-16] Advisory Committee on Radiological Protection and Advisory Committee on Nuclear Safety. 1990. Recommended de minimus Radiation Dose Rates for Canada.

[R-17] Bruce Power. 2011 Annual Summary and Assessment of Environmental and Radiological Data for 2011 B-REP-07000-00004 R000.

[R-18] Canadian Standards Association. 2012. CAN/CSA-N288.6-12 Environmental Risk Assessments at Class 1 Nuclear Facilities and Uranium Mines and Mills. June 2012.

[R-19] COG 2008. Derived Release Limits Guidance, COG-06-3090-R2-I, Nov 2008.

[R-20] Beak. 2002. Guidance for Calculation of Derived Release Limits in Airborne and Liquid Effluents from Ontario Power Generation Facilities N-REP-03482-10000.

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 145 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

[R-21] Bruce Power 2013. Pathways Analyses for the Bruce Nuclear Facility B REP 03443 00006 R002.

[R-22] AirWare On-line Reference Manual. 2012. http://www.ess.co.at/MANUALS/AIRWARE/stabiltiy_class.html

[R-23] Bruce Power, 2013. 2012 Meteorological Data Analysis B-03481.21-11Mar2013.

[R-24] International Organization for Standardization. 2005. ISO 17025:2005 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories.

[R-25] CALA. 2010. Accreditation Program Assessment Report #3203-1835.

[R-26] Ontario Ministry of Environment – Reporting your greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/category/climate_change/STDPROD_0850 95.html.

[R-27] Environment Canada – Federal Halocarbon Regulations, 2003. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/default.asp?lang=En&n=E06A6B0D-1.

[R-28] Environment Canada – Facility Greenhouse Gas Reporting. 2012. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=040E378D-1.

[R-29] Environment Canada – NPRI reporting. 2012. http://www.ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/default.asp?lang=En&n=F6300E68-1.

[R-30] Ontario Ministry of Environment – Municipal/Industrial Strategy for Abatement (MISA). 2012. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/industry/standards/spills/index.htm.

[R-31] Ontario Ministry of Environment – Permit to Take Water. 2012. http://www.ene.gov.on.ca/environment/en/industry/assessment_and_approvals/water _taking/STDPROD_075554.html.

[R-32] Vorauer, A., Johnson, H.M., and Jensen, M.R. 1998. Reconnaissance Level Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program Bruce Nuclear Power Development Generating Stations Bruce 1-4 and Bruce 5-8, 6292-001-1997-RA-0001-R00.

[R-33] Candu Owner Group Inc. 2011. Administrative Limits for Tritium Concentrations Found in Non-Potable Groundwater COG-10-3069.

[R-34] Environment Canada – Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). 2010. http://www.ec.gc.ca/bpc-pcb/Default.asp?lang=En&n=52C1E9EF-1

[R-35] Ontario Hydro Nuclear (OHN), 1991. NK29 SER B91 013, Heavy Water Spill From a Tanker In The Ancillary Service Building.

[R-36] Scott, W.B., E.J. Crossman. 1998. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Galt House Publications.

[R-37] Ontario Hydro Nuclear (OHN). 1999. Bruce 5-8 Environmental Effects Report. Report No.: NK29-REP-07010.011-0001 R000. January 1999. Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 146 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

[R-38] Wismer, D.A. 1993. Bruce B Generation Station Smallmouth Bass Spawning Survey and Population Assessment 1990. Ontario Hydro Nuclear Safety & Licensing Department. Report No. 93002. March 1993.

[R-39] Bruce Power. 2008c. Aquatic Environment Technical Support Document. Bruce New Nuclear Power Plant Project Environmental Assessment. May 2008.

[R-40] Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodconsume/groups/lr/@mnr/@fw/documents/geospati almaterial/mnr_wmu84_pdf.pdf.

[R-41] Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, (OMNR). 2003. Draft Lake Huron Management Unit Creel Survey Field Manual, June 2003.

[R-42] Holmes et al 2002. Whitefish Interactions with Nuclear Generating Stations. Volume 1-4.

[R-43] Ebener, M. 2009. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Great Lakes Restoration Act: 2008 Project Progress Report, Agreement Number 301813J229 - Lake Huron Lake Whitefish Distribution Study.

[R-44] Bruce Power 2011c. Whitefish Investigations 2010 Summary. B-REP-00531-00040, July 2011.

[R-45] Rogers et al. 2004 Molecular Ecology Notes 4:89-92; Stott et al. 2010. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 36:59-65.

[R-46] Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, S.C. 2012, c. 19, s. 52

[R-47] Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.40

[R-48] O. Reg. 215/95 EFFLUENT MONITORING AND EFFLUENT LIMITS - ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION SECTOR

[R-49] O. Reg. 387/04 WATER TAKING

[R-50] Nuclear Safety and Control Act, S.C. 1997, c. 9

[R-51] Brownfields Statute Law Amendment Act, 2001 - SO 2001, c. 17

[R-52] Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19

[R-53] Pesticides Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.11

[R-54] R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 362 WASTE MANAGEMENT - PCB'S 1

[R-55] Smith, C. Bruce Power, Email to C. Gallagher AECL, Thursday April 18, 2013 at 5:26 p.m. DST.

[R-56] O. Reg. 255/11 APPLICATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE APPROVALS Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 147 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

[R-57] Federal Halocarbon Regulations, 2003 SOR/2003-2891

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 148 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

APPENDIX A: SAMPLING SITES

Table A 1 Annual Average TJF for Bruce Power Site for Year 2012-50 m Meteorological Tower

Wind Direction Wind Speed, u (m/s) Stability (wind blowing ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ Class u 2 2 < u 3 3 < u 4 4 < u 5 5 < u 6 u > 6 Total from) Frequency (%) at 10 m Height N 0.15 0.33 0.34 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.96 NNE 0.27 0.35 0.29 0.12 0.01 0.00 1.04 NE 0.19 0.28 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.59 ENE 0.27 0.17 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 E 0.28 0.17 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 ESE 0.29 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 SE 0.19 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.33 SSE 0.23 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 A S 0.22 0.19 0.12 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.64 SSW 0.23 0.10 0.21 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.67 SW 0.25 0.29 0.33 0.17 0.00 0.02 1.07 WSW 0.15 0.29 0.30 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.84 W 0.21 0.61 0.25 0.02 0.04 0.06 1.19 WNW 0.28 0.66 0.15 0.05 0.01 0.00 1.14 NW 0.49 0.58 0.17 0.04 0.04 0.00 1.31 NNW 0.30 0.85 0.27 0.10 0.07 0.00 1.59 Total 3.99 5.17 2.80 0.84 0.27 0.19 13.27

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 149 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Wind Direction Wind Speed, u (m/s) Stability (wind blowing ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ Class u 2 2 < u 3 3 < u 4 4 < u 5 5 < u 6 u > 6 Total from) Frequency (%) at 10 m Height N 0.02 0.11 0.42 0.76 0.19 0.10 1.61 NNE 0.02 0.35 0.57 0.61 0.22 0.07 1.84 NE 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.47 ENE 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.35 E 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 ESE 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.05 0.04 0.38 SE 0.08 0.18 0.15 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.49 SSE 0.06 0.34 0.38 0.17 0.13 0.04 1.12 B S 0.12 0.24 0.34 0.38 0.16 0.19 1.43 SSW 0.07 0.32 0.51 0.52 0.57 0.70 2.69 SW 0.07 0.30 1.14 1.48 0.74 0.27 4.01 WSW 0.04 0.19 0.32 0.19 0.15 0.06 0.95 W 0.00 0.08 0.33 0.15 0.10 0.11 0.76 WNW 0.04 0.11 0.19 0.30 0.21 0.11 0.96 NW 0.07 0.24 0.22 0.27 0.19 0.13 1.13 NNW 0.05 0.34 0.58 0.52 0.38 0.22 2.09 Total 0.86 3.13 5.62 5.66 3.16 2.05 20.48 Note: 50 m on-site tower: Day 185 - day 195 and day 293 - day 305 10 m off-site tower: Day 293 - day 317

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 150 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 2 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at R1

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 151 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 3 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at BR17

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 152 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 4 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at BR17

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 153 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 5 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at BR25

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 154 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 6 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at BR27

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 155 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 7 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at BR32

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 156 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 8 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at BR48

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 157 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 9 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at BF8

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 158 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 10 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at BF14

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 159 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 11 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at BF16

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 160 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 12 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at BMF2

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 161 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 13 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at BMF3

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 162 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 14 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at BDF9

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 163 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 15 Dose to Potential Critical Group Located at BEC

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 164 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 16 Estimated Dose (μSv) to Potential Critical Groups for Year 2012

Critical Group Member C-14 Co-60 Cs-134 Cs-137 HTO I(mfp) Noble Gases OBT Total BR 1 Adult 2.66E-02 2.44E-03 5.94E-03 2.99E-02 3.00E-01 2.77E-02 1.50E-01 7.47E-03 5.51E-01 BR1 Child-10y 2.00E-02 3.37E-03 2.70E-03 1.53E-02 4.80E-02 3.39E-02 0.00E+00 5.78E-03 1.29E-01 BR1 Infant_1y 6.98E-03 1.85E-03 5.88E-04 2.36E-03 1.35E-02 5.18E-02 0.00E+00 3.67E-03 8.07E-02 BR17 Adult 2.15E-02 2.36E-03 5.94E-03 2.99E-02 2.02E-01 1.34E-02 7.13E-02 8.70E-03 3.55E-01 BR17 Child-10y 1.67E-02 3.29E-03 2.70E-03 1.53E-02 1.96E-01 1.73E-02 7.13E-02 6.84E-03 3.29E-01 BR17 Infant_1y 3.94E-03 1.75E-03 5.88E-04 2.36E-03 1.16E-01 2.62E-02 9.23E-02 4.49E-03 2.47E-01 BR25 Adult 2.25E-02 2.45E-03 5.94E-03 2.99E-02 2.47E-01 1.40E-02 6.82E-02 9.82E-03 4.00E-01 BR25 Child-10y 1.74E-02 3.38E-03 2.70E-03 1.53E-02 2.47E-01 1.82E-02 6.82E-02 7.64E-03 3.80E-01 BR25 Infant_1y 4.35E-03 1.86E-03 5.88E-04 2.36E-03 1.51E-01 2.75E-02 8.83E-02 5.12E-03 2.81E-01 BR27 Adult 2.26E-02 2.49E-03 5.94E-03 2.99E-02 2.51E-01 1.24E-02 5.48E-02 9.30E-03 3.89E-01 BR27 Child-10y 1.75E-02 3.42E-03 2.70E-03 1.53E-02 2.55E-01 1.61E-02 5.48E-02 7.24E-03 3.72E-01 BR27 Infant_1y 4.38E-03 1.91E-03 5.88E-04 2.36E-03 1.54E-01 2.43E-02 7.09E-02 4.51E-03 2.63E-01 BR32 Adult 2.22E-02 2.49E-03 5.94E-03 2.99E-02 2.25E-01 1.09E-02 4.55E-02 6.25E-03 3.48E-01 BR32 Child-10y 1.72E-02 3.42E-03 2.70E-03 1.53E-02 2.33E-01 1.42E-02 4.55E-02 4.95E-03 3.37E-01 BR32 Infant_1y 4.24E-03 1.91E-03 5.88E-04 2.36E-03 1.38E-01 2.14E-02 5.89E-02 2.75E-03 2.30E-01 BR48 Adult 3.34E-02 2.52E-03 5.94E-03 2.99E-02 4.57E-01 4.11E-02 2.24E-01 1.59E-02 8.09E-01 BR48 Child-10y 2.56E-02 3.45E-03 2.70E-03 1.53E-02 4.79E-01 5.32E-02 2.24E-01 1.20E-02 8.15E-01 BR48 Infant_1y 1.08E-02 1.95E-03 5.88E-04 2.36E-03 3.11E-01 8.05E-02 2.90E-01 8.37E-03 7.06E-01

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 165 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Critical Group Member C-14 Co-60 Cs-134 Cs-137 HTO I(mfp) Noble Gases OBT Total BF8 Adult 4.88E-02 3.77E-03 1.30E-02 6.78E-02 2.02E-01 1.94E-02 4.40E-02 1.60E-02 4.14E-01 BF8 Child-10y 4.90E-02 7.34E-03 7.05E-03 4.86E-02 1.90E-01 2.55E-02 4.40E-02 1.45E-02 3.86E-01 BF8 Infant_1y 3.60E-02 6.20E-03 2.77E-03 2.18E-02 1.12E-01 4.59E-02 5.70E-02 1.17E-02 2.93E-01 BF14 Adult 4.39E-02 3.90E-03 1.30E-02 6.78E-02 3.70E-01 3.01E-02 6.33E-02 3.60E-02 6.28E-01 BF14 Child-10y 4.54E-02 7.46E-03 7.05E-03 4.86E-02 3.46E-01 3.96E-02 6.33E-02 3.02E-02 5.88E-01 BF14 Infant_1y 3.20E-02 6.36E-03 2.77E-03 2.18E-02 2.28E-01 7.13E-02 8.20E-02 2.43E-02 4.69E-01 BF16 Adult 4.31E-02 3.70E-03 1.30E-02 6.78E-02 1.64E-01 1.17E-02 2.85E-02 1.76E-02 3.50E-01 BF16 Child-10y 4.48E-02 7.26E-03 7.05E-03 4.86E-02 1.40E-01 1.54E-02 2.85E-02 1.60E-02 3.07E-01 BF16 Infant_1y 3.15E-02 6.11E-03 2.77E-03 2.18E-02 7.96E-02 2.77E-02 3.69E-02 1.30E-02 2.19E-01 BM2 Adult 8.22E-02 1.52E-03 1.79E-03 5.46E-03 3.04E-01 1.02E-01 3.81E-02 8.35E-02 6.19E-01 BM2 Child-10y 5.15E-02 1.30E-03 4.18E-04 1.87E-03 2.68E-01 2.00E-01 3.81E-02 7.49E-02 6.36E-01 BM2 Infant_1y 4.71E-02 4.36E-03 2.02E-03 9.09E-03 2.58E-01 6.94E-01 4.93E-02 7.06E-02 1.14E+00 BM3 Adult 8.25E-02 1.51E-03 1.79E-03 5.46E-03 3.01E-01 1.08E-01 4.08E-02 8.32E-02 6.24E-01 BM3 Child-10y 5.17E-02 1.29E-03 4.18E-04 1.87E-03 2.66E-01 2.10E-01 4.08E-02 7.46E-02 6.47E-01 BM3 Infant_1y 4.72E-02 4.35E-03 2.02E-03 9.09E-03 2.57E-01 7.29E-01 5.28E-02 7.04E-02 1.17E+00 BDF9 Adult 1.33E-02 1.22E-03 4.22E-04 1.89E-03 1.14E-01 3.03E-03 2.27E-02 1.88E-03 1.58E-01 BDF9 Child-10y 8.11E-03 1.23E-03 4.18E-04 1.87E-03 9.86E-02 3.31E-03 2.27E-02 1.13E-03 1.37E-01 BDF9 Infant_1y 5.95E-03 1.59E-03 5.35E-04 2.35E-03 3.85E-02 4.46E-03 2.94E-02 8.55E-04 8.36E-02 BEC Adult 7.32E-05 3.54E-05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.97E-02 1.46E-04 2.33E-02 0.00E+00 6.32E-02

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 166 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 17 Pathway Analysis for Critical Group

Air Air Water Water Soil Soil Sediment Sediment Aquatic Aquatic Terrestrial Terrestrial Radio-nuclide (inhalation) (external) (ingestion) (external) (ingestion) (external) (ingestion) (external) plants animals plants animals Total Dose (µSv/y) C-14 1.4E-04 1.6E-07 0.0E+00 9.3E-12 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 8.5E-04 3.5E-03 4.3E-02 4.7E-02 HTO 6.3E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.3E-04 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.1E-04 5.9E-02 1.3E-01 2.6E-01 I(mfp) 6.6E-04 2.2E-05 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 1.8E-07 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 3.8E-02 6.9E-01 7.3E-01 Noble Gases 0.0E+00 5.3E-02 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.3E-02 OBT 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 5.2E-05 4.4E-02 2.6E-02 7.0E-02 Percentage C-14 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 7.4% 90.5% 100.0% HTO 24.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 23.0% 52.2% 100.0% I(mfp) 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2% 94.7% 100.0% Noble Gases 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% OBT 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 62.3% 37.6% 100.0%

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 167 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Table A 18 2012 - Proficiency Test Results for Tritium in Water

Bruce Power Eckert & Ziegler Value 1 Standard Analytics Value

Quarter VL (pCi/L) Deviation (SL) VA (pCi/L) (VL+SL)/VA (VL-SL)/VA Q1 4.54E+03 6.97E+01 4.47E+03 103% 100% Q2 5.13E+03 7.40E+01 4.97E+03 105% 102% Q3 1.33E+04 1.16E+02 1.30E+04 103% 101% Q4 6.02E+02 3.40E+01 5.80E+02 110% 98%

Table A 19 2012 - Proficiency Test Results for Gross Beta in Water

Bruce Power Eckert & Ziegler Value 1 Standard Analytics Value

Quarter VL (pCi/L) Deviation (SL) VA (pCi/L) (VL+SL)/VA (VL-SL)/VA Q1 2.89E+02 4.94E+00 2.85E+02 103% 100% Q2 2.81E+02 5.00E+00 2.73E+02 105% 101% Q3 2.38E+02 4.00E+00 2.51E+02 96% 93% Q4 2.74E+02 5.00E+00 2.74E+02 102% 98%

Table A 20 2012 - Proficiency Test Results for Iodine in Milk

Bruce Power Eckert & Ziegler Value 1 Standard Analytics Value

Quarter VL (pCi/L) Deviation (SL) VA (pCi/L) (VL+SL)/VA (VL-SL)/VA Q1 9.38E+01 6.00E+00 9.25E+01 108% 95% Q2 9.89E+01 3.67E+00 9.97E+01 103% 96% Q3 9.58E+01 2.73E+00 9.96E+01 99% 93% Q4 9.05E+01 3.07E+00 9.00E+01 104% 97%

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 168 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table A 21 2012 - Proficiency Test Results for Gamma in a Filter

Bruce Power 1 Standard Eckert & Ziegler Value Deviation Analytics Value

Annual VL (pCi/L) (SL) VA (pCi/L) (VL+SL)/VA (VL-SL)/VA Chromium-51 3.27E+02 3.96E+01 3.25E+02 113% 89% Manganese-54 1.07E+02 4.95E+00 1.08E+02 103% 94% Cobalt-58 8.96E+01 3.14E+00 9.22E+01 101% 94% Iron-59 1.05E+02 1.10E+01 1.08E+02 108% 87% Cobalt-60 1.68E+02 9.42E+00 1.59E+02 111% 100% Zinc-65 1.65E+02 1.66E+01 1.74E+02 104% 85% Cesium-134 1.53E+02 1.54E+01 1.55E+02 109% 89% Cesium-137 1.05E+02 9.69E+00 1.09E+02 105% 87% Cerium-141 5.31E+01 1.25E+01 4.77E+01 138% 85%

Table A 22 2012 - Proficiency Test Results for 131I in a Cartridge

Bruce Power 1 Standard Eckert & Ziegler Value Deviation Analytics Value

Annual VL (pCi/L) (SL) VA (pCi/L) (VL+SL)/VA (VL-SL)/VA Iodine-131 9.25E+01 1.47E+01 9.77E+01 110% 80%

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 169 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table A 23 2012 - Proficiency Test Results for Gamma in Water

Eckert & Ziegler Bruce Analytics 1 Standard Power Value Value Deviation

Quarter Analyte VL (pCi/L) (SL) VA (pCi/L) (VL+SL)/VA (VL-SL)/VA Q1 Chromium-51 3.01E+02 1.76E+01 3.09E+02 103% 92% Manganese-54 1.50E+02 3.61E+00 1.38E+02 112% 106% Cobalt-58 9.44E+01 3.05E+00 9.34E+01 104% 98% Iron-59 1.27E+02 5.05E+00 1.19E+02 111% 102% Cobalt-60 2.15E+02 3.04E+00 1.97E+02 111% 108% Zinc-65 2.47E+02 6.80E+00 2.35E+02 108% 102% Iodine-131 9.75E+01 4.50E+00 9.38E+01 109% 99% Cesium-134 1.14E+02 3.09E+00 1.06E+02 111% 105% Cesium-137 1.19E+02 3.55E+00 1.13E+02 109% 103% Cerium-141 2.02E+02 5.19E+00 1.84E+02 113% 107% Q2 Chromium-51 5.82E+02 3.02E+01 5.48E+02 112% 101% Manganese-54 1.94E+02 4.28E+00 1.80E+02 110% 105% Cobalt-58 1.33E+02 3.49E+00 1.26E+02 108% 103% Iron-59 1.90E+02 9.06E+00 1.74E+02 115% 104% Cobalt-60 5.08E+02 1.40E+01 4.84E+02 108% 102% Zinc-65 2.88E+02 1.54E+01 2.72E+02 111% 100% Iodine-131 1.04E+02 3.87E+00 9.94E+01 108% 100% Cesium-134 2.58E+02 4.33E+00 2.38E+02 110% 107% Cesium-137 3.09E+02 4.89E+00 2.89E+02 109% 105% Cerium-141 1.16E+02 4.87E+00 1.12E+02 108% 99%

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 170 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Eckert & Ziegler Bruce Analytics 1 Standard Power Value Value Deviation

Quarter Analyte VL (pCi/L) (SL) VA (pCi/L) (VL+SL)/VA (VL-SL)/VA Q3 Chromium-51 3.75E+02 2.78E+01 3.80E+02 106% 91% Manganese-54 3.14E+02 6.92E+00 3.00E+02 107% 102% Cobalt-58 1.60E+02 3.44E+00 1.54E+02 106% 102% Iron-59 2.46E+02 8.34E+00 2.33E+02 109% 102% Cobalt-60 2.51E+02 4.74E+00 2.33E+02 110% 106% Zinc-65 3.01E+02 8.22E+00 2.95E+02 105% 99% Iodine-131 1.03E+02 6.69E+00 9.99E+01 110% 97% Cesium-134 1.88E+02 8.59E+00 1.66E+02 118% 108% Cesium-137 2.86E+02 4.60E+00 2.67E+02 109% 105% Cerium-141 2.68E+02 1.05E+01 2.51E+02 111% 102% Q4 Chromium-51 3.54E+02 2.25E+01 3.62E+02 104% 91% Manganese-54 1.33E+02 4.41E+00 1.21E+02 113% 106% Cobalt-58 1.08E+02 3.09E+00 1.03E+02 107% 101% Iron-59 1.32E+02 4.94E+00 1.21E+02 113% 105% Cobalt-60 1.91E+02 3.17E+00 1.77E+02 109% 106% Zinc-65 2.11E+02 5.60E+00 1.94E+02 112% 106% Iodine-131 7.63E+01 4.35E+00 7.25E+01 111% 99% Cesium-134 1.89E+02 1.13E+01 1.73E+02 116% 103% Cesium-137 1.28E+02 3.06E+00 1.22E+02 108% 103% Cerium-141 5.64E+01 8.99E+00 5.32E+01 123% 89%

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 171 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Table A 24 2012 - Proficiency Test Results for Gamma in Soil

Eckert & Bruce Power Ziegler 1 Standard Value Analytics Value Deviation

Quarter Analyte VL (pCi/L) (SL) VA (pCi/L) (VL+SL)/VA (VL-SL)/VA Q1 Chromium-51 5.54E-01 1.82E-02 6.18E-01 93% 87% Manganes-54 2.83E-01 6.91E-03 2.77E-01 104% 99% Cobalt-58 1.85E-01 3.17E-03 1.87E-01 100% 97% Iron-59 2.36E-01 1.42E-02 2.38E-01 105% 93% Cobalt-60 4.01E-01 4.13E-03 3.95E-01 102% 100% Zinc-65 4.80E-01 1.61E-02 4.71E-01 105% 98% Cesium-134 2.07E-01 4.32E-03 2.12E-01 99% 95% Cesium-137 3.13E-01 4.96E-03 3.13E-01 102% 98% Cerium-141 3.56E-01 1.02E-02 3.69E-01 99% 94% Q2 Chromium-51 6.17E-01 3.14E-02 6.71E-01 97% 87% Manganes-54 2.08E-01 4.07E-03 2.21E-01 96% 92% Cobalt-58 1.46E-01 3.71E-03 1.54E-01 97% 93% Iron-59 2.07E-01 9.49E-03 2.12E-01 102% 93% Cobalt-60 5.62E-01 8.61E-03 5.94E-01 96% 93% Zinc-65 3.35E-01 4.94E-03 3.33E-01 102% 99% Cesium-134 2.75E-01 8.81E-03 2.92E-01 97% 91% Cesium-137 4.19E-01 5.47E-03 4.41E-01 96% 94% Cerium-141 1.34E-01 1.03E-02 1.37E-01 105% 90% Q3 Chromium-51 6.14E-01 3.02E-02 6.34E-01 102% 92% Manganes-54 5.11E-01 5.77E-03 5.01E-01 103% 101% Cobalt-58 2.48E-01 4.49E-03 2.57E-01 98% 95% Iron-59 3.99E-01 1.69E-02 3.89E-01 107% 98% Cobalt-60 3.92E-01 4.70E-03 3.89E-01 102% 100% Zinc-65 5.16E-01 1.71E-02 4.92E-01 108% 101% Cesium-134 2.85E-01 8.59E-03 2.77E-01 106% 100% Cesium-137 5.61E-01 8.50E-03 5.36E-01 106% 103% Cerium-141 4.12E-01 8.91E-03 4.19E-01 101% 96% Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 172 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Eckert & Bruce Power Ziegler 1 Standard Value Analytics Value Deviation

Quarter Analyte VL (pCi/L) (SL) VA (pCi/L) (VL+SL)/VA (VL-SL)/VA Q4 Chromium-51 9.55E-01 2.33E-02 1.01E+00 97% 92% Manganes-54 3.37E-01 8.84E-03 3.36E-01 103% 98% Cobalt-58 2.77E-01 7.02E-03 2.86E-01 99% 95% Iron-59 3.39E-01 1.74E-02 3.36E-01 106% 96% Cobalt-60 4.99E-01 7.37E-03 4.94E-01 103% 100% Zinc-65 5.65E-01 2.17E-02 5.40E-01 109% 101% Cesium-134 4.95E-01 1.59E-02 4.81E-01 106% 100% Cesium-137 4.21E-01 6.06E-03 4.26E-01 100% 97% Cerium-141 1.51E-01 5.33E-03 1.48E-01 106% 98%

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 173 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Figure A 1 Sampling Site Locations

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 174 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix A (Continued)

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 175 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF BRUCE A AND BRUCE B MONITORING WELLS

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 B-REP-07000-00005 Rev 000 April 2013 Page 176 of 176

2012 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT

Appendix B (Continued)

Master Created: 26Apr2013 12:14 Radionuclides for the Great Lakes

Nuclear Task Force International Joint ion

December 1997

International Joint Commission United States and Canada INVENTORY OF RADIONUCLIDES FOR THE GREAT LAKES

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

NUCLEAR TASK FORCE

December 1997 OVERVIEW

The Nuclear Task Force of the International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, has prepared a document, "Inventory of Radionuclides for the Great Lakes." This report uses a material balance approach to describe the quantities and composition of reported releases of radionuclides to air and water, and the distribution of these nuclides in atmospheric, aquatic and biotic compartments of the ecosystems of the Great Lakes. The material balance approach is a first step in establishing the sources, pathways, distributions and movements of radionuclides for the purposes of making specific assessments of human and ecosystem exposure, and undertaking risk assessments from the exposure information.

The primary anthropogenic source of radionuclides is the discharge from nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the Great Lakes region. The contribution of radioactive debris from the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons has decayed sufficiently in the thirty five years since the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1963) that it is a major source only in areas not currently receiving discharges from nuclear facilities. Other s'ources which use radionuclides are commercial, industrial, medical and research institutions. These sources use very small quantities of radioactive materials, but the very large number of such sources may make, in the aggregate, a significant contribution to the burden of radioactive materials in the environment.

The Task Force has concluded that monitoring of radionuclides in the Great Lakes primarily meets the need for compliance by users of radioactive materials with the conditions of the licenses for discharge. This results in differences in the radionuclides reported, how radionuclide levels in the environment are reported, the extent of off-site monitoring, and the specific biological compartments included in monitoring by facilities in Canada and the United States. Very little of the monitoring activities are designed to address or are capable of considering the movement and cycling of radionuclides through environmental compartments and ecosystems. Nevertheless, this report begins to consider in a systematic but limited way the cycling of radionuclides through biota. A revised monitoring and analytical protocol with emphasis on biouptake characteristics, physiological roles and impacts would greatly help in meeting the goals and objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, as amended by the Protocol of 1987. TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... -1- 1.1 Mandate of Task Force ...... 1. 1.2ScopeoftheInventory ...... -1- 1.3History ...... -2- 1.4 Exclusion of direct cosmic and terrestrial radiation ...... -3- 1.5 Acknowledgments ...... -3- 1.6 Stylistic Conventions ...... -3-

2 INVENTORY BY SOURCE OF RADIOACTIVITY ...... -4- 2.1 Description of Sources Pertinent to the Great Lakes ...... -4- 2.2 Natural Sources of Radioactivity in their Undisturbed State ...... -4- 2.2.1 Primordial (Terrestrial) Radionuclides ...... -5- 2.2.2 Mobility and Transport of Terrestrial Radionuclides ...... -6- 2.2.3 Cosmogenically Formed Radionuclides ...... -8- 2.3 Anthropogenic Sources of Radiation ...... 17- 2.3.1 Fallout from Atmospheric Testing of Nuclear Weapons ...... 17- 2.3.2 The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Support Industries ...... -18- 2.3.3 Emissions from Nuclear Power Plants in the Great Lakes Basin ...... -27- 2.3.4 Emissions from Secondary Sources in the Great Lakes Basin ...... -50-

3 INVENTORY BY GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF RADIOACTIVITY IN THE GREAT LAKES AIRSHED AND WATERSHED ...... -52- 3.1 The Whole Lake Data ...... -52- 3.1.1 Geographical Distribution of Radionuclides ...... -52- 3.1.2 Environmental Monitoring Data from Nuclear Reactor Facilities ...... -52- 3.1.3 Water-Column Inventories for the Open Lakes ...... -59- 3.1.4 Sediments ...... -62- 3.2 Inventories for Biological Compartments ...... -63- 3.2.1 Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification ...... -63-

4CONCLUSIONS ...... -87- 4.1 Adequacy of Monitoring ...... -87- 4.2 Need for a Reassessment of Environmental Monitoring of Nuclear Facilities to Support the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement ...... -88- 4.3Reporting ...... -88- 4.4 Harmonization of Monitoring and Data Reporting ...... -90- 4.5 Biological Transfer Factors for Lake Systems ...... -90- 4.6 Radionuclides of Concern ...... -92- APPENDIX1 ...... -94- Bibliography ...... -94-

APPENDIX11 ...... -99- Glossary ...... -99-

APPENDIX111 ...... -106- Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... 106-

APPENDIXIV ...... -108- Terms of Reference: Nuclear Task Force ...... 108-

APPENDIXV ...... -110- Membership of the Nuclear Task Force ...... ; ...... - 1 10- LIST OF TABLES

TABLE la PFUMORDIAL RADIONUCLIDES OF TERRESTRIAL ORIGINS ...... -7- TABLE lb THE DECAY CHAINS OF URANIUM AND THORIUM ...... -8- TABLE 2 COSMOGENICALLY PRODUCED RADIONUCLIDES ...... -9- TABLE 3 INVENTORIES OF COSMOGENICALLY PRODUCED TRITIUM ( 3H) ...... - 1 1- TABLE 4 INVENTORIES OF COSMOGENICALLY PRODUCED BERYLLIUM (7Be and ''Be) ...... -12- TABLE 5a BACKGROUND INVENTORY OF COSMOGENICALLY PRODUCED CARBON (I4C) . - 13- TABLE 5b COSMOGENICALLY PRODUCED CARBON ( 14C) ...... - 14- TABLE 6a INVENTORIES OF COSMOGENICALLY PRODUCED "Kr AND 41Ar...... - 14- TABLE 6b RADIONUCLIDES PRODUCED COSMOGENICALLY BY NEUTRON BOMBARDMENT OFARGON-PART1 ...... -15- TABLE 6b (continued) RADIONUCLIDES PRODUCED COSMOGENICALLY BY NEUTRON BOMBARDMENT OFARGON-PART11 ...... -16- TABLE 7 EFFLUENTS FROM URANIUM MINING AND MILLING ...... - 19- TABLE 8 CAMECO WELCOME LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY LIQUIDRELEASES ...... -24- TABLE 9 CAMECO PORT GRANBY LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY LIQUIDRELEASES ...... -25- TABLE 10 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING OF WESTERN NEW YORK NUCLEAR SERVICE AT WEST VALLEY, NEW YORK ...... -27- TABLE 11 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT REACTORS IN THE GREAT LAKES BASTN ...... -28- TABLE 12 CUMULATIVE AIRBORNE AND WATERBORNE EMISSIONS OF THE MAJOR RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE THREE REACTOR TYPES (1980-1993) ...... -30- TABLE 13 TRITIUM PRODUCTION AND EMISSIONS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT TECHNOLOGIES ...... -3 1- TABLE 14 CARBON-14 PRODUCTION AND EMISSIONS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT TECHNOLOGIES ...... -33- TABLE 15 PRODUCTION OF I4C IN NUCLEAR REACTORS ...... ; ...... -33- TABLE 16 EMISSIONS FROM SECONDARY SOURCES IN CANADA TO THE GREAT LAKES BASIN BY RADIONUCLIDE ...... -5 1- TABLE 17 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL SUMMARV4- TABLE 18 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT IODINE- 13 1 IN WEEKLY AIR CARTRIDGE SAMPLES ...... -5 5- TABLE 19 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT CONCENTRATIONS OF GAMMA EMITTERS IN FISH ...... -56- TABLE 20 LAKE ONTARIO FISH PICKERING NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION AREA ...... -57- TABLE 2 1 RADIONUCLIDE LOADINGS TO THE GREAT LAKES FROM CATTARAUGUS CREEK AND THE WEST VALLEY NUCLEAR SERVICE CENTRE SITE ...... -58- TABLE 22 HYDROLOGICAL PARAMETERS FOR THE GREAT LAKES ...... -60- TABLE 23 INVENTORIES OF TRITIUM, STRONTIUM-90, AND CESIUM- 137 IN THE GREAT LAKES ...... -6 1- TABLE 24 PLUTONIUM INVENTORY (TBq) FOR THE GREAT LAKES ...... -62- TABLE 25 RADIONUCLIDES OF IMPORTANCE FOR INVENTORIES IN BIOTIC COMPARTMENTS INTHEGREATLAKES ...... -65- TABLE 25 (continued) RADIONUCLIDES OF IMPORTANCE FOR INVENTORIES IN BIOTIC COMPARTMENTS INTHEGREATLAKES .. ; ...... -66- TEXT BOX I TRITIUM TERMINOLOGY ...... -67- TABLE 26a TRITIUM ACCUMULATION IN AQUATIC ORGANISMS - PART I ...... -69- TABLE 26a (continued) TRITIUM ACCUMULATION IN AQUATIC ORGANISMS -PART I ...... -70- TABLE 26b TRITIUM ACCUMULATION IN AQUATIC ORGANISMS - PART I1 ...... -7 1- TABLE 26c TRITIUM ACCUMULATION IN AQUATIC ORGANISMS -PART I11 ...... -72- TABLE 26d TRITIUM ACCUMULATION IN AQUATIC ORGANISMS -PART IV ...... -73- TABLE 27 BIOACCUMULATION FACTORS AND BIOMAGNIFICATION FACTORS FOR VARIOUS ELEMENTS IN AQUATIC BIOTA ...... -74- TABLE 28 CESIUM ACCUMULATION M GREAT LAKES BIOTA - PART I ...... -77- TABLE 29 CESIUM ACCUMULATION IN GREAT LAKES BIOTA - PART I1 ...... -78- TABLE 29 (continued) CESIUM ACCUMULATION M GFATLAKES BIOTA - PART I1 ...... -79- TABLE 29 (continued) CESIUM ACCUMULATION M GREAT LAKES BIOTA - PART I1 ...... -80- LIST OR FIGURES

FIGURE 1. ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION OF 226Ra IN THE SERPENT RIVER SURFACE WATER ...... -20- FIGURE 2. CAMECO PORT HOPE FACILITY ANNUAL AVERAGE URANIUM CONCENTRATIONS - RELEASES OF COOLING WATER FROM NORTH U02AND WEST UF, PLANTS ...... -22- FIGURE 3. CAMECO PORT HOPE FACILITY ANNUAL AVERAGE AIRBORNE URANIUM EMISSIONS ...... -22- FIGURE 4. CAMECO BLIND RIVER REFINERY ANNUAL AVERAGE URANIUM CONCENTRATIONS - LIQUIDRELEASES ...... -23- FIGURE 5. CAMECO BLIND RIVER REFINERY ANNUAL AVERAGE AIRBORNE URANIUM EMISSIONS ...... -23- FIGURE 6. REPORTED AIRBORNE TRITIUM EMISSIONS FOR ALL LAKES BY REACTOR TYPE (6 Graphs) ...... -35- FIGURE 6. (Continued) ...... -36- FIGURE 6. (Continued) ...... -37- FIGLTRE 7. REPORTED AIRBORNE AND WATERBORNE TRITIUM EMISSIONS FOR ALL LAKES (2 Graphs) ...... -38- FIGURE 8. REPORTED AIRBORNE AND WATERBORNE 90SrEMISSIONS FOR ALL LAKES BY REACTOR TYPE (4 Graphs) ...... -39- FIGURE 8. (Continued) ...... -40- FIGURE 9. REPORTED AIRBORNE AND WATERBORNE 90Sr EMISSIONS FOR ALL LAKES (MBq): CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS FROM ALL REACTORS CORRECTED FOR DECAY(2Graphs) ...... -41- FIGLTRE 10. REPORTED AIRBORNE AND WATERBORNE 1311 EMISSIONS FOR ALL LAKES (GBq) BY REACTOR TYPE (5 Graphs) ...... -42- FIGURE 10. (Continued) ...... -43- FIGURE 10. (Continued) ...... -44- FIGURE 1 1. REPORTED AIRBORNE AND WATERBORNE 134CsEMISSIONS FOR ALL LAKES (GBq) BY REACTOR TYPE (4 Graphs) ...... -45- FIGURE 11. (Continued) ...... -46- FIGURE 12. REPORTED AIRBORNE AND WATERBORNE 137CsEMISSIONS FOR ALL LAKES (GBq) BY REACTOR TYPE (4 Graphs) ...... -47- FIGURE 12. (Continued) ...... -48- FIGURE 13. REPORTED AIRBORNE AND WATERBORNE 137CsEMISSIONS FOR ALL LAKES (GBq) CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS FROM ALL REACTORS CORRECTED FOR DECAY (2 graphs) ...... -49- FIGURE 14. NOBLE GASES (PBq) IN ALL LAKES ...... -50-

vii 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Mandate of Task Force

In 1995, the International Joint Commission (hereafter: the Commission or IJC) authorized a 'Wuclear Task Force" (hereafter: the Task Force) to review, assess, and report on the state of radioactivity in the Great Lakes and to carry out such other activities as the Commission might, in future, so direct. As an initial project, the Commission requested a review and assessment of the status of radioactivity in the Great Lakes. That project had a completion time within the 1995-1997 biennial Great Lakes reporting cycle. In addition, the Commission authorized the Task Force to recommend additional projects based in part on the following criteria:

(a) Work performed in the preparation of the report on the state of radioactivity in the Great Lakes. The Task Force would use this report as the principal vehicle upon which to base recommendations for various projects. An objective of the report was the prioritization of nuclear problems in the Great Lakes requiring analysis and remediation.

(b) Concerns of the Commissioners.

(c) Problems brought to the attention of the Task Force by its Members, Associates, and others in the course of its work.

The Commission requested that the Task Force make its first official recommendation of additional projects upon the completion of work for its first assessment of the state of radioactivity in the lakes. Further, the Task Force shall undertake such other projects as the Commission directs and shall seek from the Commission directly whatever resources and funds are needed for specific projects and support. This report responds to the mandate set forth by the Commission in 1995.

The Task Force determined that an ''Inventory of Radionuclides" for the Great Lakes was an essential project to address the "state of radioactivity" in the Lakes. Following that decision, the Task Force undertook a study to produce such an inventory. This report results from that work.

1.2 Scope of the Inventory

An inventory of radionuclides for the Great Lakes attempts to quantify and organize the information on the sources, levels, distributions, receptors, and repositories of radioactivity in the Great Lakes Basin (hereafter: Basin). It is the numerical part, but not a theoretical modeling simulation, of a material balance of radioactive substances found in the Great Lakes.

The Commission's Great Lakes projects derive from an international agreement between the United States and Canada called the "Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement" (hereafter: the Water Quality Agreement or Agreement; IJC 1987a). The Agreement contains a "specific objective" (numerical environmental criterion) for radioactivity. In the 25 years of the Agreement's existence, neither this objective nor the subject of radioactivity itself drew much Commission attention. With the impending decommissioning of nuclear power plants, the growing problems of nuclear waste, and the signing of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on 24 September 1996, posing a plutonium disposal problem, general concerns about the effects of radioactivity on humans and ecosystems have made the subject of radioactivity very timely. The Agreement also espouses an "ecosystem approach," which the Task Force has used to place in perspective the extent to which radionuclides may be environmental factors in the dynamics of Great Lakes ecosystems. This ecosystem approach requires, where possible, an estimation of the radioactivity stored in Lake biota, sediments, and the water column.

An inventory is a natural starting point to evaluate many of the issues of radioactivity. It basically organizes the information on what exists and where it exists. Without an inventory, the basic analysis of risk assessment cannot be performed, nor can one determine which aspects of sources, distributions, and pathways of radionuclides require special attention. The Commission recognized the fundamental importance of an inventory and authorized the Task Force to develop this tool.

1.3 History

From 1945 to 1963, radioactive fallout from the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons was the main source of artificial radioactivity to the Great Lakes. Starting in 1963, the commissioning of the reactors at nuclear power plants in the Basin added new sourcesof artificial radioactivity to the Great Lakes. Following the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons continued sporadically through 1980. Simultaneously, the number of nuclear power plant facilities in the Great Lakes region increased rapidly until 1974 then more slowly until 1993. There are 1 1 nuclear power plants with 16 reactors in the United States portion of the Basin and 4 nuclear power plants with 21 reactors in the Canadian portion of the Basin, all with emissions to the Basin. Two other nuclear power plants operate in Great Lakes states near the Basin, but their emissions enter other watershed and airshed regions. During the 30-year period of the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the decay of residual nuclear debris from atmospheric testing has reduced nuclear fallout sufficiently to make it a secondary source of artificial radioactivity to the Great Lakes.

Other large source of radioactivity in the Basin include the following: a tritium removal plant at Darlington, uranium mine and mill tailings that enter the Serpent River Region, uranium refining and conversion at Blind River and Port Hope, and weapons facilities and auxiliary operations at Ashtabula. Not all of these facilities are currently operating, but they remain sources of radioactivity to the Basin. There is some question as to whether facilities at Fernald (Ohio) can produce emissions that reach the Basin directly. The Task Force notes that this facility is sufficiently close geographically to the Basin to consider it as a possible source.

Previous Commission reports from 1977 to 1987 (IJC 1977, 1983, 19873) have reviewed radioactivity in the Great Lakes Basin, specifically those of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board (hereafter: GLWQB). These reports discussed the routinely studied radionuclides: tritium CH), strontium (90Sr),cesium (I3'Cs), radium r6Ra), uranium (238U),and iodine (I3'I); total a, P, and y radiation; and a few occasionally reported radionuclides: antimony C2%b), cobalt (60Co),and thorium e32Th).The past reports can help to address the amount of the radioactivity in the Great Lakes, but they are an inadequate basis for addressing such issues as ecosystem impacts of radioactivity, the technology and resource needs for nuclear waste isolation, the decommissioning of nuclear reactors, and interactions of toxic chemicals and radiation in the ecosystem. 1.4 ~xclusionof direct cosmic and terrestrial radiation

The Task Force did not consider the radiation associated with direct cosmic ray bombardment, except where such radiation produces cosmogenically important background radionuclides. Thus, the Task Force did not consider the problems of solar flux, UV-B radiation, and similar topics as these radiations are non-ionizing and pose a different set of problems from those of radionuclides. Further, the Task Force omitted the natural production of radon gas a decay product of radium in undisturbed rock and soils. Rather, the Task Force addressed the subject of radon gas in its consideration of radionuclides produced in the nuclear fuel cycle, under the topic of uranium mining and milling and fuel processing.

1.5 Acknowledgments

The Task Force used only data from open and public sources, including recently declassified documents from the atomic energy authorities in Canada and the United States. When the Task Force learned that some data were "Proprietary," it sought the permission for use of the data from its holders. The Task Force gratefully acknowledges the providers of data and many persons who assisted in its acquisition and use. In particular, the Task Force thanks Messrs. Paul Gunter and Marcel Buob of the Nuclear Information Resources Service (NIRS) for compiling and organizing the data on nuclear facility licenses, emissions, and monitoring protocols from the files in the reading room of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); Mr. Michael Petko of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for supplying the reports of the Environmental Radiation Monitoring System; Dr. Lester Machta of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for supplying several special reports from the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP); Mr. William Condon of the New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental Radiation Protection, for supplying the annual reports of his organization; Ontario Hydro for permission to access and use proprietary data from its monitoring and surveillance reports and other documents related to nuclear power generation in Ontario; the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) of Canada for assistance in obtaining information on the use of radionuclides by hospitals and commercial entities in Ontario; the reference librarians at the AECB library in Ottawa for patiently assisting us with various reference tasks; Dr. Ursula Cowgill for assistance in analysis and understanding of the data on elemental cycling in plants and animals; Dr. David Edgington for assistance in analyzing inventories for transuranic elements; Mr. Paul Payson for his excellent work in editing this report and last, but never least, the indefatigable and dedicated assistance of Ms mi lie Lepoutre, who served as the Task Force's secretary, assistant, telephone operator, and good friend.

1.6 Stylistic Conventions

The stylistic conventions of the Canadian National Research Council's Research Press have been followed as closely as possible in the preparation of this document. 2 INVENTORY BY SOURCE OF RADIOACTIVITY

2.1 Description of Sources Pertinent to the Great Lakes

The sources of radioactivity include natural background radiation from cosmogenic and terrestrial sources, residual debris from weapons testing in fallout, atmospheric deposition of radionuclides emitted in gaseous discharges from various facilities, liquid emissions from various facilities, and many smaller sources that require identification. Facilities include uranium mining and milling operations, refining, processing, fuel fabrication, nuclear power plants, waste management facilities, and reprocessing and tritium-recovery operations. Smaller sources include research nuclear reactors, radiochemical and radiobiological laboratories, hospital nuclear medicine departments, and industrial sources. The various sources are discussed separately, along with comments on the data acquisition, analysis procedures, and reported emissions. The Task Force made no judgements as to the potential hazards implied by the sources.

2.2 Natural Sources of Radioactivity in their Undisturbed State

The Task Force first examined the natural background of radionuclides for the Great Lakes Region. Since the earth's beginning, every component of the environment has been exposed to a natural level of radioactivity. This natural background forms a baseline against which to evaluate the levels and impacts of other sources of radioactivity in the Region, and an inventory of natural radionuclides in this natural background provides clues to the inventories of other radionuclides of the same elements that arise from other processes and sources.

What is the natural background for radiation? Because what some groups have called "natural," other groups have called "technically or technologically enhanced," the Task Force adopted the following definition:

The natural background radiation levels in the Great Lakes Basin are those derived @om cosmic rays andfiom natural geochemical materials in undisturbed strata.

The Task Force further based its analysis on the earliest reliable measurements it could find. Increases in natural radiation since then belong to the category TENR (technologically enhanced natural radioactivity), which refers to the increase in apparent natural or background radiation resulting from some technical activity (e.g., mining of uranium ore, which leaves radioactive tailings exposed to the atmosphere).

There are two sources of natural background radiation: the interaction of cosmic radiation with various atoms in the atmosphere and a fixed geochemical quantity of naturally occurring radionuclides in the earth's crust. Atmospheric processes include the bombardment of stable nuclei by cosmic rays, other radioactive particles and atomic particles, as well as collisions between selected stable nuclei. Some terrestrial radionuclides decay to gaseous elements (e.g., radon), which reach the earth's surface through diffusion through soil layers and can then enter the atmosphere. The cosmogenic production of radionuclides and release to the atmosphere of radionuclides from crustal processes occur at rates that are balanced by the decay of the radionuclides produced and released. The natural production of atmospheric radionuclides is essentially a steady-state process; provided the cosmic ray flux and the concentration of target atoms remain constant. Radionuclides ultimately decay to stable (non-radioactive) radionuclides. Further, the decay of radioactive crustal material continuously decreases the natural radioactive content of terrestrial materials. This assures that, over geological time (millions of years), the total inventory of natural background radionuclides declines globally and systematically.

Assessing the natural background of a radionuclide is often a difficult task, and some of the estimates include scientific and political controversies. Although the natural background level should either remain constant or decrease, sometimes a situation arises of an apparent increase in natural background levels reported for a radionuclide, usually explained by either various environmental processes that transport or translocate radionuclides from one region to another (e.g., climate processes, oceanic movements, geophysical upheaval) or that past monitoring of background levels of a given radionuclide was not sufficient by today's standards to quantify the sources of a radionuclide. Once in the environment, contributions from various natural sources (in disturbed and undisturbed states relative to the natural occurrence) and artificial sources were subject to the various mixing processes that incorporate the radionuclide into the ambient observed radiation. This observed ambient radiation is sometimes equated to natural background, although it actually represents some unknown summation of contributions from natural and artificial sources. With regard to past monitoring of background levels, the Task Force notes the importance of knowing whether measurements began after rather than before the onset of nuclear weapons testing programs, and the sensitivity, accuracy and calibration standard of the instrumentation used.

A few radionuclides that arise mainly from artificial sources can also arise from natural processes (e.g., 3H and I4C). For certain minor sources, such as nuclear reactions in extraterrestrial dusts and meteorites, the rates of natural production are virtually zero or so small relative to other processes as to be insignificant. Other naturally occurring radionuclides become environmentally active after some human action. Such radionuclides are "technically enhanced" natural radiation. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invented the tei?ii in the early 19701s,and it "stuck." Examples include uranium and thorium and their decay products, which enter the environment from mining, milling, ore processing, and the burning of fossil fuels with a high radioactive mineral ash.

2.2.1 Primordial (Terrestrial) Radionuclides

If the half-life of a radionuclide found in geological strata approximates the estimated age of the earth, then the radionuclide is primordial; it was presumably present from the time of the earth's beginning. Inventories of primordial radionuclides are essential parts of the natural background level of radioactivity in the environment.

Two classes of radionuclides occur naturally in-geological strata: those in the decay series of thorium and uranium and those which do not originate from decay series. Uranium and thorium are natural radioactive elements in various minerals and ores as well as trace contaminants in coal and phosphate-bearing rocks. Geologists and geochemists have intensively studied the mineral deposits of uranium and thorium and have compiled extensive and reliable data on mineral inventories. The non- decay series radionuclides include the well-known 40K(potassium-40) and 87Rb(rubidium-87); radioactive forms of vanadium, cadmium, platinum, cerium, and other rare earth (lanthanide) elements; and one isotope of bismuth. Tables la and lb present the primordial and decay series radionuclides and the decay chains of the latter. Of the non-decay series radionuclides, those of40K, vanadium (50V),and 87Rbare useful in assessing the inventories of unstudied radionuclides. Several uranium and thorium isotopes can also undergo a spontaneous fission process. This mode of decay is very rare compared with the normal decay mode of alpha disintegration, making it relatively unimportant for purposes of calculating an inventory.

2.2.2 Mobility and Transport of Terrestrial Radionuclides

The atmospheric release of radionuclides from geological strata is a multistage process: formation of a radionuclide of a gaseous element, diffusion of the radionuclide through soils to the soil surface (soil-atmosphere interface), and release to the atmosphere. The most important gaseous radionuclide is the noble gas radon, 222Rn,and its long-lived progeny 210Pband 210P~.Radon gas has a half-life of 3.8 days. Once radon reaches the atmosphere, it dissipates quickly while continuing its radioactive decay. Its decay products are solids and aerosol-forming radionuclides, which can deposit on soil or water, but inventories of radonper se are not important for contamination of the water in the Great Lakes, although radon as an air pollutant within the Great Lakes region may be important in health assessments of residents. 0

0 TABLE la PRIMORDIAL RADIONUCLIDES OF TERRESTRIAL ORIGINS

Element abundance Concentration in Half-life Isotope in crustal rock crustal rock Radionuclide (years) abundance (%) (PP~)** 0 Non series decay m 40K 1.26 x lo9 0.018 2090 603 m 50V 6 x 10l5 0.25 135 1 x lo4 "Rb 4.8 x 1O1O 27.85 90 70 l13Cd 1.3 x l0l5 12.26 0.2 7 x lo-7 l151n 6 x 1014 95.77 0.1 2 x lo-5 Iz3Te 1.2 x loz3 0.87 0.002 1 x lo-7 m 13qa* 1.12 x 10" 0.089 30 0.02 m 142ce* 5 X 10l6 11.07 60 1 x 10" 'Wd 1.4 x 1015 23.87 2 8 3 x 10" 147sm* 1.05 x 10'' 15.07 6 0.7 m 152(;d* 1.1 x 10'~ 0.20 5.4 7 x 10" 174Hf 2 x 1015 00.163 3 2 x lo-7 176~~* 2.2 X 10l0 2.6 0.5 0.04 m lg7Re 4.3 x 1O1O 62.93 0.00 1 1 x lo-3 190Pt 6.9 x 10'' 00.0127 0.005 7 x (D m l=Pt 1 x 1015 00.78 0.005 3 x 10" m 209Bi 2 x 1018 100 0.17 1 x 10-lo Decay series (b rn 232Th 1.4 x 1O1O 100 (I, 235~ 7.1 x lo8 00.72 238~ 4.5 X lo9 99.27 9 m * Denotes a lanthanide or rare earth element ** Elemental abundance in crustal rock is the weight abundance of the element in crustal (I, material multiplied by the per cent abundance of the primordial isotope relative to all isotopes 0 of the element. Data are from Mason (1965). 9 9

(h 0 m m m a 9 TABLE lb THE DECAY CHAINS OF URANIUM AND THORIUM

238~234u 9

238U + 234Th + 234pa +234U + 230Th + 226Ra + 222b + 218P0 + 214Pb + 214Bi + 214P0 + 2lOPb + 210Bi + 206T1+ 206Pb(stable)

235u

235U+ 231Th+ 227A~+ 223Fr + 219A~+ 215Bi+ 211Pa+ 211Bi+ 207T1+ 207Pb(stable)

232Th

232Th+ 228Ra+ 288A~+ 228Th+ 224Ra+ 220Rn+ 216Po-3 '12Pb + 212Bi+ 212P~+ 208T1 + 208Pb (stable) 1 208T1+ 208Pb(stable)

The various isotopes of uranium decay either to radioactive thorium or radioactive neptunium. The most common isotope of uranium, 238U,decays to 234Th.The various isotopes of thorium decay to radioactive isotopes of radium, the most important of which a decay product of 230Th.226Ra decays to 222Rn,the only gas in the decay series. The radioactive decay products or radon are radioactive isotopes of lead, bismuth, and polonium, until the chain ends with stable isotopes of lead (Faw and Shultis 1993).

Soil radioactivity incl~des~~K,the thorium and uranium decay series, and the other natural radionuclides in trace amounts. In particular, radionuclides occur in coal, phosphate-bearing rocks, and extractable minerals. The radioactivity can be released in burning of fossil fuel, building materials, or use of phosphate fertilizers. The GLWQB reports present the data for these source of radioactivity in the Basin (IJC 1977, 1983, 1987b). Only the uranium mine and mill tailings have been included as important point sources of radioactivity in the inventory of radionuclides in the Basin. Radionuclides in fertilizers should be considered under non-point-source pollutants. Building materials may pose local problems but do not appear to be an important source of radioactivity to the Basin. The Task Force considers that the radioactivity in fossil fuel emissions remain an unquantified source of radioactivity.

2.2.3 Cosmogenically Formed Radionuclides

The interaction of cosmic radiation with the earth's atmosphere produces many radionuclides. At high altitudes, hydrogen atom nuclei (protons) are 95% of the available targets subject to cosmic ray bombardment. Other atmospheric targets include ions and nuclei of helium, argon, krypton, oxygen, and nitrogen and the carbon atoms in carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Many cosmogenically produced radionuclides have short half-lives and do not affect the inventory of natural radionuclides. Some can serve as tracers for small-scale atmospheric processes (Reiter 1975). Table 2 lists the major cosmogenically produced radionuclides. TABLE 2 COSMOGENICALLY PRODUCED RADIONUCLIDES

1 (a) Major radionuclides of importance to the Great Lakes 7Be, "Be I4C 'Kr I (b) Other radionuclides of scientific interest I I IC* 13N 2%a, "Na 26A1,28A1*

28Mg* 35s7 38s 37Ar,39Ar 'SF* 31si*,32si 41~*,42~* 43S~*,"%c* 49Ca* 56Mn 64C~ 86Rb 34m*C1,36Cl, 38C1*, 39C1* - * Denotes the radionuclides that are produced by cosmic ray bombardment only. The others are produced by anthropogenic as well as natural sources.

Tritium (3H )

Although tritium is produced in the atmosphere, it is more difficult to determine its natural background, because environmental measurements of tritium began after the onset of nuclear weapons testing. UNSCEAR (1982) reviewed data that suggested that the natural concentration of tritium in lakes, rivers, and potable waters was 0.2-1.0 BqIL (5-25 pCi/L) prior to the advent of weapons testing.

Most cosmogenically formed tritium deposits in oceans. The small fraction that goes to the Great Lakes can be estimated by comparing the size of the Great Lakes with that of the oceans. Table 3 summarizes data on the inventory of tritium of cosmogenic origin.

Two radioactive beryllium radionuclides, 7Be (half-life: 53.6 days) and "Be (half-life: 2.6 million years), are produced cosmogenically, mainly in the stratosphere. Exchanges between atmospheric compartments produce a slow build-up of these isotopes in the troposphere. Production of7Beoccurs mainly at higher latitudes and shows a seasonal variation in rainfall with maximum values in spring of about 4 mBq/m3 and minimum values of about 1.5 mBq/d (Kolb 1970).

Beryllium deposited in wet and dry fallout goes mainly to sediments and terrestrial soils. Land surfaces accumulate 71% of 'Be, and aquatic surfaces receive 28%. Deep ocean sediments receive 71% of the ''Be, and terrestrial areas receive 28%. The differences in the inventories for the two isotopes reflects the differences in their half-lives: the longer lastingl'Be reaches terrestrial and aquatic repositories before it has decayed significantly. According to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (1975), the depositional rates of the two beryllium isotopes are relatively constant. Table 4 presents the beryllium data. Probably more is known about the natural background of 14Cthan any other cosmogenically produced radionuclide. '"C is produced by neutron bombardment of '"N in the atmosphere. The variations in the atmospheric content ofl"C are caused by changes in the cosmic ray flux. The neutron bombardment of '"N also follows airborne detonation of nuclear weapons. Libby (1958) estimated that each equivalent ton of TNT explosive produced an average of 3.2 x 1V6atoms of '"C. [A gram-atom (14 grams) of '"C contains 6.023 x loz3atoms, and each ton of equivalent TNT explosive in a nuclear weapon produces approximately 7,500 grams of '"C.] '"C rapidly oxidizes to carbon dioxide (CQ), and moves environmentally in this form. Because oceans receive most of the carbon dioxide, understanding the behavior of '"C requires a model of global transport with atmosphere-ocean coupling processes.

In discussing '"C relative to lZC,researchers sometimes use the terms "normal ratios" and "excess ratios." The normal ratio refers to the ratio of '4C/'2Cthat results from the natural production of these two isotopes. When the ratio of radioactive to stable carbon found in some sample exceeds the normal ratio, that portion of the ratio unaccounted for by natural processes is called excess. Occasionally a researcher reports a reference value of the geochemical ratio, '4C/'2C,calls it " normal," and then designates any observed increase in the ratio over hisfher value as an excess ratio for certain analysis. Such reference values used in technical papers need to be checked against normal ratios.

UNSCEAR (1977) noted that "the fossil records of 14C in tree rings and lake and ocean sediments suggest that the natural 14C levels have remained relatively unchanged for many thousands of years. ... the long-term fluctuation over a period of 10,000 years is attributed to a cyclical change of the dipole strength of the earth's magnetic field, which results in a cyclical change of the cosmic ray flux, which in turn changes the 14C production rate." UNSCEAR thus implied that the normal geochemical ratio value of '4C/'2Chas been constant since primordial times despite different estimates for the natural production rate of radiocarbon, ranging from a low of 1.8 atom~.cm-~.s-'to a high of 2.5 at~rns.crn-~.s-'. CTNSCEAR cited as a "currently most accepted" value, 2.28 at~rns.crn-~.s-',although some geochemists have long used the upper value of 2.5 atoms~~rn~~~s-'in calculations of a radiocarbon inventory. TABLE 3 INVENTORIES OF COSMOGENICALLY PRODUCED TRITIUM (3H) Half-life 12.33 years Production Rate (atoms.~m-~.s-~)

Troposphere 8.4 x lo-' Total Atmosphere 0.25 Global Inventory 3.5 kg (1300 PBq) (as of 1967) Other Reported Global Inventory Calculations

Distribution (%) Atmospheric Production Rate Inventory Stratosphere 6.8 (atoms.~m-~.s-') (PBq) Troposphere 0.40 Biospheretland surface 27.0 Mixed ocean layer 35.0 0.10-0.20 500-1 000 (as of 1953) Deep ocean layer 30.0 0.12 600 (as of 1954) Ocean sediments 0 0.14 700 (as of 1955) 1.2 6300 (asof1957) Concentration 1.06 5500 (as of 1958) Stratosphere 0.10 Bqtkg air 0.9 4800 (as of 1958) Troposphere 0.00012 Bqkg air 0.75 3700 (asof1958) Oceans 0.00067 Bqtkg water (average) 0.6-1.3 3000-7000 (as of 1961) Oceans 0.1 1 Bqkg water (surface water) 0.25-0.35 1300-5500 (as of 1962)

Method of Production Spallation processes; Target nuclei 14N and 160 Main Radiation p 18.6 keV Notes: (1) Inventory per Teegarden (1967). (2) Multiple inventory estimates for the same year indicate different investigators. TABLE 4 INVENTORIES OF COSMOGENICALLY PRODUCED BERYLLIUM ('Be and 1°Be)

'Be ''Be

Half-life 53.6 days 2.5 x lo6years Production Rate (atoms.cm-'.s-l) Troposphere 2.7 x lo-' 1.5 x lo-' Total Atmosphere 8.1 x lo-' 4.5 x lo-'

Global Inventory 3.2 kg (107 PBq) 3.9 x 1O5 kg (as of 1967)

Distribution (%) Stratosphere 60.0 0.00037 Troposphere 11.0 0.23 Biospheretland surface 8.0 29.0 Mixed ocean layer 20.0 0.00057 Deep ocean layer 0.2 0.001 Ocean sediments 0 70.7 Concentration Stratosphere 0.28 Bqkg air - Troposphere 0.0 11 Bqkg air - Oceans - 2 x lo-' Bqkg water Method of Production Spallation processes; Target nuclei 14N, 160, "C Main Radiation Electron capture p 555 keV y 477 keV

Table 5a presents the inventory data for I4C based on information available before 1970. In 1972, a revised estimate of the average rate of production of the radionuclide in the atmosphere over the 11-year solar cycle suggested a slightly lower value than given in Table 5a. Also, UNSCEAR (1977) presented a method of estimating a natural inventory based on "units of atmospheric content of"Cn (referred to herein as "carbon units"), the main stable isotope of carbon. Those additional inventories appear in Table 5b.

The "carbon units of "C" are multiples of 6.17 x 1O", which Broecker et al. (1960) used as an estimate of the stable carbon atom content of the atmosphere in 1963. This estimate would suggest that the biosphere (atmosphere and oceans) contains 67 units of carbon. However, Broecker reported that the concentrations of I4C in carbon units in the surface ocean and deep ocean were lower than concentrations of the isotope in the atmosphere by 4 and 17%, respectively. This would result in inventories of 14C in the combined surface ocean and deep ocean compartments of 56 units of the activity of14C (about 3.8 MCi), and revise the atmospheric production to 2.28 at~ms.cm-~.s-'.Broecker then estimated that about 8% of the inventory of I4C was in oceanic sediments, which corresponds to a total inventory for natural production of 14C of about 230 Mci. Krypton-81 and Argon-37, 39, 41

Cosmogenic processes produce several radionuclides of noble gases: 8'Kr and 37, 39,41Ar.The inventories for these radionuclides are mainly limited to the atmosphere. Only8'Kr decays to stable krypton. Argon radionuclides decay to isotopes of potassium and chlorine, which combine rapidly with oxygen and water vapor to form oxides and hydroxides. These attach to particulate matter and deposit on terrestrial and aquatic media. Table 6a presents selected data for two of these noble gas radionuclides.

Radionuclides Formed by Neutron ~ombardrnentof Argon Nuclei

Several important radionuclides of atomic weights 20-50 form cosmogenically by spallation reactions of neutron and other particle bombardment of stable argon nuclei. These include such long- lived radionuclides as chlorine-36 C6C1 , half-life: 3.08 x 105 years), aluminum-28 c8A1, half-life: 7,400 years), and silicon-32 (32Si,half-life: 280 years) as well as shorter lived radionuclides such as phosphorus-32 and -33 . Table 6b presents selected data for several of these radionuclides.

TABLE 5a BACKGROUND INVENTORY OF COSMOGENICALLY PRODUCED CARBON C4C)

Half-life 5730 years Production Rate (at~ms-cm-~.s-') Troposphere 1.1 Total Atmosphere 2.5 1.5 Bqlyear Global Inventory 6.8x104kg llOOPBq(asof1967)

Distribution (%) Stratosphere 0.30 Troposphere 1.6 Biospherelland surface 4.0 Mixed ocean layer 2.2 Deep ocean layer 92.0 Ocean sediments 0.4 Concentration Stratosphere - Bqkg air Troposphere - Bqkg air 0.0048Bqkg Oceans water

Method of Production Spallation processes; Target nuclei 14Nand 160

Main Radiation p 166keV TABLE 5b COSMOGENICALLY PRODUCED CARBON (14C) AS SUGGESTED BY BROECKER (1963) AND UNSCEAR (1977) Production Rate (atom~.cm-~.s-') Troposphere 1.1 Total Atmosphere 2.28 1.4 Bqlyear

Global Inventory 5.21 x lo4 kg 8500 PBq Distribution (%) Stratosphere 0.48 Troposphere 1.2 Biospherelland surface 1.6 Mixed ocean layer 1.4 Deep ocean layer 87.3 Ocean sediments 8.0

TABLE 6a INVENTORIES OF COSMOGENICALLY PRODUCED "Kr AND 41Ar 81Kr 41Ar

Half-life 21 x lo5years 1.83 hours Production Rate (atom~,cm-~.s-') Troposphere - - Total Atmosphere 1.5 x 45 x lo4 Global Inventory 16.2 kg 0.014 g (23 PBq)

Distribution (%) Stratosphere 16.0 100 Troposphere 82.0 0 Biospherelland surface 0 0 Mixed ocean layer 0.04 0 Deep ocean layer 0.02 0 Ocean sediments 0 0 Concentration Stratosphere - Troposphere - Oceans - Method of Production Cosmic ray bombardment of Cosmic ray bombardment of stable Kr nuclei stable Ar nuclei Main Radiation X-ray p 1.196 MeV Notes: (1) Global inventory data as of 1967. TABLE 6b RADIONUCLIDES PRODUCED COSMOGENICALLY BY NEUTRON BOMBARDMENT OF ARGON - PART I: CHLORINE C6C1), SULFUR C5S), AND ALUMINUM (26A1)

36~1 35~ 26~~

Half-life 3.08 x lo5years 87.9 days 7.4 x lo5 years Production Rate (atorns.~m-~-s-')

Troposphere 4 x 10" 4.9 x lo4 3.8 x Total Atmosphere 1.1 x 1.4 x lo4 1.4 x

Global Inventory 1.4 x lo4kg 4.5 g (1 PBq) 1000 kg

Distribution (%) Stratosphere 0.0001 57.0 0.00013 Troposphere 0.8 0.000006 0.0000007 Biospherelland surface 10.0 29.0 29.0 Mixed ocean layer 24.0 0.014 0.0014 Deep ocean layer 0.4 69.0 0.007 Ocean sediments 0 0 0.007 Concentration Stratosphere 0.0048 Bqlkg air - - Troposphere 0.00013 Bqlkg air - - Oceans - 0.28 x 0.6 x lo-3

Main Radiation p 714 keV p 167 keV B(+) 1.17 MeV y 1.88 MeV y 1.81 MeV y 1.6, 2.17 MeV from y 511 keV 38Cl daughter isotope Notes: (1) Inventory as of 1967. TABLE 6b (continued) RADIONUCLIDES PRODUCED COSMOGENICALLY BY NEUTRON BOMBARDMENT OF ARGON -PART 11: SODIUM ( I2Na),PHOSPHORUS ( 32PAND 33P),AND SILICON( "Si)

"Na 32P 33~ "Si

Half-life 2.62 years 14.28 days 24.4days 280 years Production Rate (atom~-cm-~-s-')

Troposphere 2.4 x 10" 2.7 x lo4 2.2 x lo4 5.4 x 10" Total Atmosphere 1.8 x lo-* 8.1 x lod 6.8 x lo4 1.6 x lod

Global Inventory 1.9-2.0kg 0.4g 0.6 g (3PBq) 1.4 kg

Distribution (Oh) Stratosphere 25.0 60.0 64.0 0.19 Troposphere 1.7 24.0 16.0 0.011 Biospherelland surface 21.0 4.7 5.6 29.0 Mixed ocean layer 44.0 13.0 11.0 0.35 Deep ocean layer 8.0 7.0 1 .O 68.0 Ocean sediments 0 0 0 2.8

Concentration

Stratosphere 8.5 x Bqlkg air 0.028 Bqlkg air 0.025 Bq/kg air - Troposphere 1 x Bqlkg air 1 x 104 Bqlkg air 1 x lo4 Bqlkg air - Oceans - - - 4.66 x Bqlkg water Main Radiation p+ 0.545 MeV p 1.710 MeV p248 keV p 210 keV p+ 1.82 MeV y 1.275 MeV y 5llkeV

Notes: (1) Inventory as of 1967. (2) Some distribution data total to greater than 100% because of rounding errors. 2.3 Anthropogenic Sources of Radiation

Anthropogenic sources refer to those that are mainly human in origin: military, industrial, educational, recreational, medical, or somehow reflecting a human use, intervention, or process. The two main anthropogenic sources are the fallout of military weapons testing and the generation of electrical power at nuclear power plants. Medical, commercial, and other sources are many in number, but their emissions are individually very small, raising the possibility that the sources may, in the aggregate, be a major contributor to the anthropogenic inputs of radioactivity to the Basin.

2.3.1 Fallout from Atmospheric Testing of Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear technologies over the past 50 years have introduced significant quantities of artificial radionuclides into the global environment. Historically, the greatest part of this radioactivity has come fiom atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted prior to the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty, although tests were carried out since then by non-signatory nations. Fallout fiom the tests has been distributed globally, with the maximum occurring in the North Temperate Zone, which encompasses the Great Lakes Basin. From 1963 to 1996, many weapons tests were carried out underground. Radioactive material occasionally vented to the atmosphere fiom these tests, but the impact on global fallout was minimal (LJNSCEAR 1993). With the signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, even this source of radioactivity has hopefully been eliminated.

Previous Commission reports (IJC 1977, 1983, 1987) have extensively covered the inputs of radionuclides fiom this source . Since 1987, atmospheric inputs have not been significant. The Task Force briefly reviews this topic to complete the inventory of radionuclides currently stored in the water column and sediments of the Great Lakes. It is recognized, however, that radioactive fallout deposited on land will also eventually make its way into waters through weathering, surface runoff, ground water movement, and various mechanisms of biological incorporation and biological decay.

Of the many radionuclides produced by nuclear detonations, 3H, 14C, 90Sr,and I3'Cs have received the greatest attention in environmental monitoring programs. They have been measured in air, water, soil, and food products. Other important radionuclides includeg5Zr,"Nb, lo6Ru, 1311, 14Te,2393240P~ , 241Pu, and 24'Arn. Most of radionuclides listed, except the plutonium and americium isotopes, emit beta radiation. Plutonium and americium emit alpha radiation. Although many of the individual radionuclides mentioned are not monitored, agencies of both countries typically report measurements of gross beta radiation. After the brief rise in 1986 due to the Chernobyl accident, the radioactive fallout in the Basin is approaching a level that is entirely due to naturally occurring radionuclides, espe~ially~'~Pb.The decreasing trends for the Great Lakes Basin are similar to values across Canada and the United States. The total inventories of the most important fallout radionuclides are reported in the section on Radionuclide Inventory of the Great Lakes.

The lifetime or cumulative radiation dose that will be received by individuals in the North Temperate Zone fiom all atmospheric detonations conducted between 1945 and 1980 is estimated to be about 1.9 mSv (UNSCEAR 1993). In addition to this dose, there will be a small contribution fiom weapons-generated I4C extending far into the future. Only about 5% of this dose will have been delivered by 2045. 2.3.2 The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Support Industries

The nuclear fuel cycle is currently the main source of anthropogenic radioactivity emitted to the Great Lakes. The cycle consists of mining and milling of uranium; converting the mined uranium to fuel material (typically an oxide of uranium with possible enrichment inZ3'U);fabricating fuel elements (uranium pellets encapsulated into metallic fuel rods); incorporating fuelelements into a nuclear reactor; bringing the reactor to criticality and "burning" of the fuel; reprocessing spent fuel to extract radionuclides for further use; transporting material between fuel-cycle installations; and management of radioactive wastes from each step. All components of the nuclear fuel cycle have been operative in the Great Lakes Basin for some interval of time over the past 35 years.

Uranium Mining and Milling

All uranium mining and milling operations in the Great Lakes Basin are located in the Elliot Lake and Bancroft areas in Ontario.

Elliot Lake once had as many as 15 uranium mining and milling operations. The radioactive tailings of these operations were disposed of in various holding ponds, which empty into the Serpent River and, from it, into Lake Huron. In 1983, the Commission reported that eight mining and milling facilities were operational, and two had closed. By 1987, the Commission had reported that four mines were operational, and one was "under care and maintenance." Further, the Commission noted that there "were several idle and unlicenced tailings areas in the region," which were sources of radionuclides to the environment from leachates. The last operating mine was closed in 1996. The AECB has developed plans for the major waste management areas. These plans feature "the wet cover option" because of acid generation on the mine tailings.

Uranium rock contains, as previously noted, all of the radioactive elements of the uranium and thorium decay chains. The uranium ore from the Elliot Lake area is considered low grade, containing 0.2% natural uranium and 0.4% thorium. Thus, one metric tonne of this ore contains about 2 kg of uranium oxide and has an activity of about 21 MBq from each of the 14 principal members of theZ3W chain, or a total of about 0.29 GBq. In contrast, the ore in the more recent uranium mining operations in Saskatchewan are high grade and typically contain 24% natural uranium. According to UNSCEAR (1982), releases from the mine are primarily radon gas, but the milling operations results in the accumulation of large quantities of tailings containing significant quantities of the uranium decay series isotopes. About 14% of the total radioactivity in the ore feed appears in the uranium concentrate, which achieves better than 90% extraction. According to Ahier and Tracy (1995), Elliot Lake mills extract 95% of the uranium and 10-15% of the other radioactivity. This implies that about 86% of the radioactivity from the uranium decay chain, 0.25 GBq per tonne of ore, and 5% of the uranium, will be retained in the waste as a long-term source of environmental pollution. The principle radionuclides in the waste are radium, thorium, and radon.

Only a very small portion of the radium in uranium ore is water soluble. Mill liquid effluents will vary in activity but will contain all of the uranium decay series radionuclides. The addition of barium chloride (BaCl,) to the holding ponds usually precipitates Z26Ra.Table 7 has information on the radionuclides in milling effluents typical of Elliot Lake Mines. m m m TABLE 7 m EFFLUENTS FROM URANIUM MINING AND MILLING

Basis: 1 metric ton of uranium ore yields 2 kg yellow cake

Activity: 20 MBq for each member of 238Udecay chain, or total of approximately 300 MBq

Radium in mill liquid effluents: 10-20 BqIL (prior to treatment)

Treated effluent prior to discharge: 0.3-3.0 BqIL (I) (I) Nuclides in liquid effluents prior to any neutralization of acid solutions and precipitation of thorium salts: 223Ra, "6Ra, 227Th 230Th 232Th 222Rn 227AC, 210pb, 210P0

Waste generation (1955-1985): 1.2 x 10" m3 waste rock and tailings (Elliot Lake region) Represents an activity of 2000 terabecquerels (TBq) of lZ6Ra(MCi) in 100 megatons (metric) of waste rock, at a m concentration of some 18.5 Bqlg. Radon is estimated to emanate from these piles at a rate of 22 Bq.m%-'.

Radon gas originates from the in situ decay of 226Ra.Most radon released to the atmosphere from tailings piles originates in the top surface layers of tailings. Radon from deeper soil layers, the concentrated cake or the decay of radionuclides in rock mass, must diffuse through dense materials, a long process. The readily observed radon production probably occurs mainly in the top 1-2 m of the tailings, although increasing the depth a few more metres does not necessarily change release rates. By m covering a tailings pile with clean earth fill and revegetating a tailings area, one reduces the radon release rate by a factor of about 2 for each metre of cover (UNSCEAR 1977). The control of radon emissions is an obvious requirement. Soil or water covers over decommissioned mill tailings are necessary for the control of radon. m Radium in liquid effluents from mining and milling activities is a reported chemical parameter in m the monitoring activities under existing permits, but radon is not. Most material reviewed by the Task Force on radon inventories reported estimates based on the authors choosing "typical values" for the airborne release rates for radon and parameters of atmospheric dispersion. The Task Force did not attempt an inventory for radon because of questions about what is a "typical airborne release" and no indications of consistent monitoring of radon. (I) .) All of the Elliot Lake mine tailings areas are located within the Serpent River watershed. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy monitors surface water quality in the Serpent River. One of the monitoring locations (Highway 17) is'located downstream of all the mines and provides a .) good indicator of trends in discharges entering Lake Huron Average annual concentrations ofZz6Raat this location are presented in Figure 1.

.) FIGURE 1. ANNUAL AVERAGE CONCENTRATION OF 226Ra IN THE SERPENT RIVER SURFACE WATER

Year Uranium Refining, Conversion, and Fuel Fabrication

All uraniumfiel fabrication and conversion facilities in the Great Lakes Basin are located in Canada

Most fuel fabrication and conversion facilities in the Great Lakes Basin are in Canada. CAMECO operates facilities at Port Hope and Blind River. Up until 1983 the Port Hope facility consisted of a uranium oxide refinery and a uranium hexafluoride production facility. Then CAMECO moved the refinery operation to Blind River but retained and expanded its conversion facility in Port Hope. The closing of the Port Hope refinery ended the release of 226Rato Port Hope Harbour. Joshi (1991) noted, however, that the sediments still contain heavy loadings of radionuclides from earlier radium processing (1933-1953) and uranium recovery (1942-1983). Figures 2 and 3 present liquid and airborne emissions respectively for the Port Hope facility, while Figures 4 and 5 show emissions for the Blind River facility.

CAMECO also maintains two low-level radioactive waste management facilities in the vicinity of the Port Hope conversion facility. The Welcome waste management area received waste from the Port Hope uranium processing facility between 1948 and 1955. Although inactive, the site is licensed by the AECB. Groundwater and surface water is collected and treated prior to its release to Lake Ontario. Liquid effluent releases from this site are shown in Table 8.

Similarly the Port Granby waste management area operated from 1955 to 1988. Treated liquid effluent from this facility is shown in Table 9.

The releases from these facilities appear to be important sources of radionuclides to Lake Ontario. Information concerning these sources should be evaluated further to assess the significance of the releases.

Other facilities include a fuel fabrication facility at Port Hope operated by Zircatec and fabrication facilities in Toronto and Peterborough operated by Canadian General Electric.

The uranium ore concentrates undergo further processing before use in nuclear power plant reactors, including enrichment with 235Ubefore producing the uranium dioxide or metal for fuel elements. Heavy water reactors can use an unenriched uranium concentration; light-water reactors need an enriched uranium (about 2-4%) fuel.

Port Hope is an "Area of Concern" of the RAPS Programs of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Data from the Port Hope area show that most radionuclide pollutants from fiel fabrication and processing sorb to sediments.

Port Hope is an Area of Concern under the Remedial Action Plan (RAPS)programs of the Agreement. It is the only Area of Concern in which radioactivity is a documented problem causing impaired uses of the resources, and the RAPS documentation contains information on radionuclide levels in various environmental compartments. The Task Force has used the RAP documents as source materials for the Inventory (Krauel et al. 1990). SLNVTd LS3M CCNV bn HLXON MOW X3LVM 3NI1003 60 S3SV3?3X - SNOILW.LN33N03 Mm33W3AV WfhNV AUTI3V6 3dOH LX0d 033MIV3 'Z 2RIfl316 FIGURE 4. CAMECO BLIND IUVER REFINERY ANNUAL AVERAGE URANIUM CONCENTRATIONS - LIQUID RELEASES

0 I iee4 lees ieee iee7 ieee ieee ieeo ieei lee2 1993 1994 lees ieee Year

FIGURE 5. CAMECO BLIND RWER REFINERY ANNUAL AVERAGE AIRBORNE URANIUM EMISSIONS

lees ieee lea7 1mee imee iemo ieei ieez iees ,994 lees iees Year TABLE 8 CAMECO WELCOME LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY LIQUJD RELEASES - Radium Uranium

Annual Flow Avg. Conc. Annual Loading Avg. Cone. Annual Loading Year (lo6L) (Bqm (lo6 Bq) (ma) (kg)

1983 7 1.4 0.04 2.86 - -

1984 73.9 0.07 5.17 - -

1985 76.4 0.05 3.82 - -

1986 91.8 0.06 5.51 - -

1987 76.3 0.055 4.20 - -

1988 87.4 0.057 4.98 - -

1989 78.3 0.057 4.46 0.49 38.4

1990 120.8 0.060 7.25 0.25 30.2

1991 NA NA NA NA NA 1992 120.2 0.060 7.2 1 0.33 39.7 1993 151.8 0.058 8.80 0.26 39.5 1994 106.7 0.066 7.04 0.32 34.1 1995 86.6 0.056 4.85 0.28 24.3 Notes: Uranium analyses did not begin until September 1988. Source of Data: CAMECO annual reports submitted to AECB. NA, not available. TABLE 9 CAMECO PORT GRANBY LOW-LEVEL WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY LIQUID RELEASES

Radium Uranium

Avg. Cone. Annual Loading Avg. Cone. Annual Loading Year (1O6 L) (BqJL) (lo6 BB~) (mg/L) 0%) 1983 90.2 0.1 1 9.92 0.63 56.8

1984 81.6 0.12 9.79 0.58 47.3

1985 89.6 0.07 6.27 0.74 66.3

1986 76.0 0.07 5.32 0.74 58.2

1987 83.0 0.07 5.81 0.81 67.2

1988 64.5 0.068 4.39 0.67 43.2

1989 65.5 0.100 6.55 0.70 45.9

1990 71.0 0.100 7.10 0.74 52.5

1991 NA NA NA NA NA

1992 71.6 0.177 ,12.67 1.40 100.2

1993 101.3 0.1 10 11.14 1.30 131.7

1994 72.0 0.128 9.22 1.OO 72.0

1995 64.5 0.110 7.10 1.OO 64.5 Notes: Source of Data: CAMECO annual reports submitted to AECB. NA, not available.

The seminal work of Wahlgren et al. (1980) on the transuranics showed that these elements in Lake Michigan strongly bind to sediments. A similar process appears to occur for these elements in Port Hope harbour sediments. Originally the concerns about these sediments focused on elevated levels of heavy metals in the turning basin and west slip. In 1984, Environment Canada and the AECB undertook a joint study, "Benthological, Chemical, Radiological and Chronological Evaluation of Sediments in Port Hope Harbour, Ontario" (McKee et al. 1985). Surficial sediments and sediment cores were studied from various locations for both their heavy metal and actinide contents. Fuel Reprocessing

Once a reactor has come on line, nuclear fission reactions in the fuel generate power. As the fuel becomes depleted, waste products of fission and activation radionuclides build up in the fuel elements. Some waste products poison the nuclear fission process, requiring eventual removal of a fuel element from service. Because a spent fuel element contains high-level radioactive wastes, it must "cool down" (high-activity radionuclides must decay) on site for periods varying from 6 months to several years before any further processing of the fuel element, such as extraction of unused uranium and plutonium to produce new fuel elements (fuel reprocessing) on-site or off-site, or on-site storage for future disposal or shipment to a high-level waste repository. As of the time of publication of this report, fuel reprocessing is currently not being carried out at facilities in North America.

Fuel reprocessing has several steps, each of which generates high-level and low-level radioactive waste effluents. The steps first separate uranium and plutonium from other radionuclides, and then from each other, and produce gaseous and liquid effluents, which also require further processing before release to the environment. Gaseous effluents contain tritium and radioactive isotopes of iodine, krypton, xenon, ruthenium, and tellurium. Liquid effluents usually contain isotopes of rare earth elements, cesium, and a few actinides. Special processes aim to recover and remove the iodine radionuclides, especially '''1 (half-life of 16 million years). The liquid wastes are usually concentrated through evaporation, and stored in underground tanks for eventual disposal as high-level waste.

Although the radionuclides expected in reprocessing effluents are known, the Task Force lacked sufficient quantitative data for an inventory of the radionuclides. However, fuel reprocessing is not considered a major source of radioactivity relative to the nuclear power plants. As the Task Force receives additional data on reprocessing effluents, it will consider supplements to the inventory report.

A facility once usedfor fie1 reprocessingplant at West Valley, New York, now serves as a low-level'waste repository.

The Western New York Nuclear Service Center (West Valley) once operated as a fuel reprocessing plant. It was the only reprocessing plant in the Basin. The facility ceased the reprocessing in 1972, but continued as a storage site for its own locally produced high-level and low-level wastes, and to receive low-level wastes from other facilities. In 1982, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) proposed a long-term management strategy for the nuclear wastes on the site. DOE proposed to concentrate, chemically treat, and convert the liquid high-level wastes to a solid form suitable for transportation off site and permanent placement in a federal geological repository. In 1988, DOE proposed a project with "alternatives" to complete closure or long-term management of the facilities and, in 1995, proposed an implementation plan for the various alternatives. In 1996, DOE announced availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (61 Federal Register 1 1620) for "Completion of the West Valley Demonstration Project and Closure or Long-Term Management of Facilities at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center."

The New York State Energy Research and Development Agency (NYSERDA) owns the West Valley site on behalf of the "taxpayers of New York." The site receives low-level radioactive wastes and has some wastes from industrial activities, and generates other wastes. The proposed decommissioning alternatives affect the estimation of radionuclide inventories and may signal current and future thinking by government agencies on decommissioning strategies, especially in a period of very tight and highly constrained budgets. The proposed decommissioning alternatives for West Valley appear in Table 10. As of the time of this report, the decision from DOE was pending. The Environmental Impact Statement does not indicate a DOE or NYSERDA preferred alternative. TABLE 10 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING OF WESTERN NEW YORK NUCLEAR SERVICE AT WEST VALLEY, NEW YORK (adapted from 61 Federal Register 11620 - March 21,1996)

1 Removal and Release to Allow Unrestricted Use. This alternative provides for complete removal of all facilities, buried wastes, and residuals, to assure "minimal" remnants of nuclear operations. It then permits an "unrestricted" civilian use of the site by the owners, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).

2 Removal, On-Premises Waste Storage, and Partial Release to Allow Unrestricted Use. This alternative provides for the removal of existing facilities including buried waste, but does not remove on-site stored high-level, low-level and low-level mixed (with hazardous materials) waste. Hazardous and industrial (non-radioactive) waste would be disposed of off-site.

3 In-Place Stabilization and On-Premises Low-Level Waste Disposal. This alternative provides the in- place stabilization of contaminated structures and buried wastes. Uncontaminated structures are removed. Low-level waste would continue to be disposed of on-site, and all other waste would be disposed of off-site.

4 Monitoring and Maintenance Only. This is a "no action type of alternative," which provides for the management of the site in its current configuration and condition. Only hazardous wastes would be disposed of off-site.

5 Discontinue Operations. This alternative stops any current activities on the site, and leaves the site in its current configuration and condition. All wastes currently on-site remain on-site. No site closure activities and no provision for monitoring.

Notes: (1) Alternative 3 continues the present use of the facility as a low-level nuclear waste repository. (2) Alternative 4 meets a minimum regulatory requirement under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and assures a monitoring baseline for comparing the environmental effects fiom "action alternatives." (3) Alternative 5, "Do Nothing," provides a worst-case baseline for comparison with other alternatives. Public comments on previous proposals of this alternative have led DOE and NYSERDA not to consider this alternative as "reasonable," but neither DOE nor NYSERDA have officially rejected it.

2.3.3 Emissions from Nuclear Power Plants in the Great Lakes Basin

Nuclear power in the Great Lakes Basin dates from 1962 and the commissioning of the Big Rock Point Plant. In 1997, there are 15 facilities. Decommissioning of reactors may begin as early as 2000 with the expiration of the license for Big Rock Point. Table 11 presents data on the licensed nuclear power plants in the Basin. As of the time of this report, Ontario Hydro has taken seven of its reactors off- stream and may consider decommissioning them. This unexpected action occurred in late August 1997.

There are three kinds of nuclear power plants in the Basin: two kinds of light-water reactors (LWR) and heavy-water reactors (HWR). The LWR systems are the "pressurized water reactor" (PWR) and "boiling water reactor" (BWR). The United States facilities are all LWR systems and the Canada facilities are all HWR systems. The systems' names describe the reactor cooling and moderating systems used. A fourth type of reactor found in North America at university and hospital research laboratories is the gas-cooled reactors (GCR) but is not used for electric power production. Under development is a fast-breeder reactor (FBR). The nuclear power plant, Fermi 1, had a FBR system, but the reactor was decommissioned following an accident and replaced by Fermi 2, a reactor of the BWR type.

TABLE 11 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT REACTORS IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN

Reactor Start-up Net Electrical Reactor Type License Expiration (Year) Power (MWe) (Year) United States Big Rock Point 1962 70 BWR 2000 Nine Mile Point 1 1969 625 BWR 2009 R.E. Ginna 1970 420 PWR 2009 Point Beach 1 1970 497 PWR 2010 Palisades 1971 700 PWR 2007 Point Beach 2 1972 497 PWR 2013 Zion 1,2 1973 2 x 1050 PWR 2013 ' D.C. Cook 1 1975 1050 PWR 2014 Kewaunee 1974 520 PWR 2013 J.A. Fitzpatrick 1975 800 BWR 2014 Davis-Besse 1 1977 910 PWR 2017 D.C. Cook 2 1978 1050 PWR 2017 Fermi 2 1985 1090 BWR 2025 pen^ 1986 1205 BWR 2026 Nine Mile Point 2 1987 1070 BWR 2026

Canada Douglas Point 1966 220 HWR Shut Down Pickering A 197111973 4 x 508 HWR 1998 Pickering B 198311984 4 x 508 HWR 1998 Bruce A 197611979 4 x 750 HWR 1998 Bruce B 198411987 4 x 840 HWR 1999 Darlington A 199011993 4 x 850 HWR 1998 Notes: (I) Sources of data: U.S. NRC Information Digest, 1995 Edition; Ahier and Tracy (1995), "Radionuclides in the Great Lakes Basin," published; LJNSCEAR (1977, 1982, 1988); Reporter, AECB Newsletter, Spring 1996. (2) BWR: boiling water reactor; PWR pressurized water reactor; HWR: heavy water reactor (3) The Douglas Point reactor is no longer operating but has not yet been decommissioned.

The relative quantities radionuclides produced depend on the reactor type, including the technology and materials of construction, the amount of electricity generated, and the processes used to handle effluents and waste products. LJNSCEAR documents present nuclear power plant data in a format based on reactor type and power production. LTNSCEAR also applies a special averaging technique, normalization, which puts radionuclide production in a reactor on a unit energy basis, averaged over all reactors worldwide of the given type. The Task Force calculated normalization of the data but did not find it useful. Data on atmospheric emissions from the nuclear power plants in the Great Lakes show varying degrees of completeness, specificity, and descriptive information. All power plants report particulate matter, tritium, total p-emissions excluding tritium, andI3lI. Some plants report "total noble gases," a and y radiation; other plants also list specific noble gas radionuclides (e.g.,4LAr,85Kr, 133Xe, 135Xe); and other plants report other radionuclides of iodine (e.g., '331, 1341,and '351). The measurement of xenon

radionuclides depends on their energy spectrum: those emitting y radiation below 1 MeV might not be , reported. Canadian (thus HWR)plants generally report fewer radionuclides, but Canadian regulations consider the effect of all radionuclides migrating to humans through all pathways. The Task Force learned that while many radionuclides do not require reporting, sometimes the power plant authorities collect this information, but without any consistency or regularity.

The following radionuclides receive consistent reporting in the atmospheric and aquatic emissions from most United States and Canadian facilities: tritium CH), strontium (90Sr),iodine (I3lI), cesium ('34Cs, I3'Cs), and noble gases (a mixture of radioactive isotopes of krypton and xenon). Table 12 summarizes the cumulative amount of each radionuclide released from the three reactor types by the air and water pathways. The results have been summed over all lakes. Tritium and noble gases dominate the radioactivity of atmospheric releases; tritium also dominates the radionuclides in aquatic releases. The emission of the six major radionuclide types are discussed below.

Tritium

The six graphs that compose Figure 6 show the emissions over time for tritium from the three reactors types and for the air and water pathways. Summations have been carried out over all lakes. All results are expressed in terabecquerels (1 TBq = 10" Bq or 27 Ci). When comparing graphs, note that the scales vary.

The information shows that, throughout the entire time period, tritium emissions from HWRs consistently exceed by two orders of magnitude those from PWRs and exceed by three orders of magnitude those from BWRs. Further, the HWRs show a clearly increasing trend with time in both the airborne and waterborne emissions. This comports with expectations for HWRs. Deuterium in the heavy water readily captures neutrons from the fission process to become tritium. As the heavy water "ages," tritium levels increase in the water. If operating conditions do not change, the emissions of tritium will gradually increase in proportion to their concentration in the water. However, the high emissions for these reactors, such as for airborne tritium in 1981, 1983, and 1989 and for waterborne tritium in 1987, 1988, 1989, 199 1, and 1992, do not reflect a gradual increase or an increase in the number of reactors operating but rather anomalous releases. The Task Force has learned that tritium is currently removed from all Ontario HWRs at the Darlington facility. This facility also releases tritium to the Great Lakes airshed. Also, HWR generating capacity increased considerably over the time period: 140% compared with an increase of only 30% for PWRs and BWRs. Time trends are much less apparent in the emissions from the PWRs and BWRs. Occasional elevated values from these reactor types occur in the earlier years. Explanations for these anomalies require review of the detailed reactor records.

The two graphs that compose Figure 7 show the cumulative emissions of tritium for both the airborne and waterborne pathways. The units are petabecquerels (1 PBq = 1015 Bq or 27,000 Ci). These results were obtained by integration of the year-by-year data from the previous graphs, then summing over the three reactor types, and correcting each radionuclide for subsequent disappearance through radioactive decay. While this simplistic approach ignores the disappearance of tritium from the Great Lakes ecosystem through dispersion, drainage, or incorporation into sediments, the graphs do show the total burden of tritium placed upon the global biosphere attributable to reactor emissions in the Basin. Quite simply, the tritium must go somewhere until its final transformation into stable helium-3 by radioactive decay. Table 13 shows tritium production and emission for different types of nuclear power plant technologies.

The four graphs that compose Figure 8 show the 'OSr emissions. The Task Force obtained data only for the United States reactors (PWRs and BWRs). The units here are megabecquerels (1 MBq = lo6 Bq or 27 microcuries (pCi)). No clear time trends appear in the emission data. Some early data on BWRs in the 1970s showed a few anomalously high values. The PWRs showed an elevated value in 1984 for the airborne emissions, and in 1990 for the waterborne emissions.

The two graphs that compose Figure 9 show cumulative emissions ofgoSranalogously to Figure 7. With a half-life of about 30 years,;the 'OSr will slowly decay from the global biosphere, provided the absence of new 90Srreleases.

TABLE 12 CUMULATIVE AIRBORNE AND WATERBORNE EMISSIONS OF THE MAJOR RADIONUCLIDES FROM THE THREE REACTOR TYPES (1980-1993)

BWR PWR HWR Total

Airborne (GBq)

3H 54,289 355,750 57,770,000 58,180,030 "Sr 0.21568 0.05305 * 0.26873 1311 274.01 64.62 29.32 367.95 134Cs 5.79 6.95 * 12.74 137Cs 3.14 8.86 * 12 Noble gas * 1.463 x lo9 Waterborne (GBq) 3H 1 1,840 2,3 16,160 4 1,O 10,000 43,338,000 90Sr 3.09 7.29 * 10.38 1311 36 209.7 * 245.7 134Cs 245.96 241.58 * 487.54 137Cs 507.04 348.72 * 855.76 *These radionuclides are emitted but not separately reported in Canada. TABLE 13 TRITIUM PRODUCTION AND EMISSIONS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT TECHNOLOGIES

Tritium Production Rate in Tritium Emission Rate from Reactors Reactors by

Reactor Type Fission Neutron to air to water activation

PWR

Ci.(GWe.year)-' (1.4-2.0) x lo4 (0.1-8.0) x lo2 1.0 x lo2 9.0 x lo2

TBq.(GWe.year)-' 7.5 x lo2 40 4 33 BWR

Ci-(GWe.year)-' (1.4-2.0) x lo4 Negligible 60 1.4 x lo2

TBq.(GWe.year)-' 7.5 x lo2 Negligible 2 5 HWR

Ci.(GWe-year)-' (1.4-2.0) x lo4 (0.6-2.4) x lo6 (0.3-1.7) x lo4 (2.0-7.0) x lo3

TBq-(GWe-year)-' 7.5 x lo2 9.0 x lo4 6.0 x lo2 1.5 x lo2 Notes: (1) Fission production of tritium does not depend on the technology in the PWR, BWR, and HWR reactors. The three reactor types should produce equal levels of tritium by fission on per unit energy basis. (2) Units are either curies or terabecquerels per gigawatt-year (the number of gigawatts of power output multiplied by the number of years to standardize the values across reactor types). (3) Tritium production in the boron-based control rods in a PWR is reflected in the lower limit of the range under neutron reaction; tritium production in the boron-based control rods of the BWR is negligible and is not included. Tritium production by neutron reaction in the HWR occurs via the tritium-deuterium reaction of heavy water. (4) All data in the table are based on actual measurements at power plants. The original source indicates data which were inferred or estimated by other means. (5) Source: IAEA (1980).

The five graphs that compose Figure 10 show the reported emissions for 13'I. The data show no clear trends, but rather some anomalous emissions in the earlier years. Airborne emissions of13'I are highest for the BWRs, although all three reactor types show some releases. In the BWR, the primary coolant boils to produce steam for the turbines. A volatile radionuclide, such as13'I, is readily released from the coolant to the atmosphere. Waterborne releases of 13'1 are much less. The Task Force did not generate a cumulative graph for this radionuclide, since its half-life of only 8 days assures that it does not accumulate in the biosphere. Cesium-1 34 and Cesium-1 37

Cesium emission data are not available from the HWRs. Figures 1 1 and 12, which are each composed of four graphs, show the emissions of both isotopes of cesium for the BWRs and PWRs, respectively. The display of the results reflects the fact that often the emissions of both isotopes occur in parallel. The units are in gigabecquerels (1 GBq = 16Bq, or 27 millicuries (mCi)). Cesium is somewhat more volatile than strontium; thus, its emissions are higher than strontium. Except for a few anomalies in the early years, the data do not show any time trends in the cesium emissions.

'34Cs(half-life: 2.05 years) is removed fairly rapidly from the biosphere. The two graphs that compose Figure 13 show the cumulative emissions for the longer 1i~ed'~~Cs(half-life: 30 years). The slow decrease in the I3'Cs burden with time means that the emissions have been fairly steady, and that the isotope disappears rather slowly from the biosphere.

Noble Gases

Figure 14 shows the noble gas emissions to air for the combined BWRs and PWRs. Generally, emissions were higher before 1984 than after that time, with one anomalously high value in 1975. Since noble gases are not water soluble, their emissions to water are not considered significant. Most radionuclides of noble gases decay by P-particle emission to elements that form oxides and hydroxides, either in particulate or aerosol form. Other non-gaseous fission and activation radionuclides can form aerosols, which accompany airborne effluents. The aerosols and particulates become part of atmospheric fallout. Monitoring data are available both for "total noble gases" and total particulates in gaseous emissions. Air pollution control systems at nuclear power plants prevent the emissions of all but the very finest particulates.

Short-lived xenon isotopes account for most of the emissions , assuring essentially no build-up. The one exception is 85Kr(half-life: 10 years) which remains in the atmosphere and becomes globally dispersed.

Other Radionuclides, Including 14C and '''1

14C (half-life: 5730 years) and lZ9I(half-life: 16 million years) are also important because of their long half-lives, but are not routinely reported by most facilities. '''1 is difficult to measure; however, a new technique involving accelerator mass spectometry may make this possible in the future. This technology is now available at the University of Toronto. Tables 14 and 15 give information on carbon-14 production and emissions. TABLE 14 CARBON-14 PRODUCTION AND EMISSIONS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT TECHNOLOGIES

14C Production Rate 14C Emission Rate

Reactor Type Fuel Moderator and Coolant Total From the Reactor to Air

PWR

Ci.(GWe.year)-' 4-12 1-1 1 6-50 5-13

kBq.(GWe.year)-' 0.4 0.3 0.7 0. 3

BWR

Ci.(GWe-year)-' 11-16 4-1 1 15-50 11-26

kBq.(GWe-year)-' 0.6 0.4 1.O 0.4

HWR

Ci.(GWe.year)-' 20-50 320-550 450-560 270

kBq.(GWe.year)-' 1.O 20 2 1 10

Notes: (1) Totals reflect direct measurements from several sources not all of which quantified both fuel and moderator and coolant. (2) Units are either curies or kilobecquerels per gigawatt-year (the number of gigawatts of power output produced multiplied by the number of years to standardize the values across reactor types). (3) Most of the I4C is emitted as radioactive carbon dioxide or radioactive methane gas. Thus, only gaseous emissions to the atmosphere appear in the table. The incorporation of radioactive carbon into molecules in the liquid effluents is less than 1% according to the original source material. (4) All data are based on actual measurements at power plants. (5) Source: IAEA (1980).

TABLE 15 PRODUCTION OF I4C IN NUCLEAR REACTORS (adapted from Tait et al. 1980)

Fission production: 1.84 x lo-' moles I4C per kilogram of uranium initially in the fuel or 1.1 1 x 1019 atomskg uranium.

Total carbon isotope production (I2C, I3C and I4C) in the fuel: 8.47 x 10" moles of carbon per kilogram of uranium initially in the fuel or 5.1 x lo2' atomskg uranium.

Relative I4C production: <0.2% of the carbon isotopes.

Activity of I4C produced: 4.26 x lo7Bq per kilogram of initial uranium.

Production of I4C relative to other radionuclides produced from impurities: 1 1 of 64

Fraction of activity of I4C relative to all radionuclides produced from fuel impurities: 0.000968% Reported Airborne Tritium Emissions for All Lakes (in TBq)

Reactor Type: B WR

YEAR

O..M ,YWI--I

Figure 6

Reported Waterborne Tritium Emissions for All Lakes (in TBq)

Reactor Type: 6 WR

YEAR

Dunn lYaRlGRLRtl Reported Airborne Tritium Emissions for All Lakes (in TBq)

Reactor Type: PWR

45

YEAR

warn IrnCRLPH-I

Figure 6 cont.

Reported Waterborne Tritium Emissions for All Lakes (in TBq)

Reactor Type: PWR

YEAR Reported Airborne Tritium Emissions for All Lakes (in TBq)

Reactor Type: H WR

YEAR

Figure 6 cont.

Reported Waterborne Tritium Emissions for All Lakes (in TBq)

Reactor Type: H WR

YEAR Reported Airborne Tritium Emissions for All Lakes (in PBq)

Cumulative Emissions corrected for Decay Reactor Type: ALL

YEAR

Figure 7

Reported Waterborne Tritium Emissions for All Lakes (in PBq)

Cumulative Emissions corrected for Decay Reactor Type: ALL

YEAR

amM ~-7C-Y Reported Airborne Sr-90 Emissions for All Lakes (in MBq)

Reactor Type: BWR

# # 10

8 #QM# #WM#fi, 0 r 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

YEAR

Figure 8

Reported Waterborne Sr-90 Emissions for All Lakes (in MBq)

Reactor Type: BWR

YEAR Reported Airborne Sr-90 Emissions for All Lakes (in MBq)

Reactor Type: PWR

YEAR

Figure 8 cont.

Reported Waterborne Sr-90 Emissions for All Lakes (in MBq)

Reactor Type: PWR

~~-

Bonn

c3 c.3 MC~~*MWWWSm $3 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

YEAR Reported Airborne Sr-90 Emissions for All Lakes (in MBq)

Cumulative Emissions corrected for Decay Reactor Type: ALL

YEAR

OYnn I--"

Figure 9

Reported Waterborne Sr-90 Emissions for All Lakes (in MBq)

Cumulative Emissions corrected for Decay Reactor Type: ALL

YEAR

(-7GRIFOUI Reported Airborne 1-131 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Reactor Type: BWR

YEAR

me nn 8-7 WH.1

Figure 10

Reported Waterborne 1-131 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Reactor Type: BWR

YEAR

C Reported Airborne 1-131 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Reactor Type: PWR

YEAR

rarnvl ,unm7-,

Figure 10 cont.

Reported Waterborne 1-131 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Reactor Type: PWR

YEAR Reported Airborne 1-131 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Reactor Type: HWR

YEAR

wenn I--,

Figure 10 cont. Reported Airborne Cs-134 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Reactor Type: BWR

YEAR

Figure 11

Reported Waterborne Cs-134 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Reactor Type: BWR

YEAR Reported Airborne Cs-137 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Reactor Type: B WR

YEAR

WM Irnrn,GR*R(-I

Figure 11 cont

Reported Waterborne Cs-137 Emissiijns for All Lakes (in GBq)

Reactor Type: B WR

YEAR

mrw Irnrnrn.4 Reported Airborne Cs-134 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Reactor Type: PWR

YEAR

Dsllm IMW7CM.I

Figure 12

Reported Waterborne Cs-134 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Reactor Type: PWR

YEAR

mm IUW7CW.I Reported Airborne Cs-137 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Reactor Type: PWR

YEAR

Figure 12 cont.

Reported Waterborne Cs-137 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Reactor Type: PWR

YEAR

WM IU12RIUUTYI Reported Airborne Cs-137 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Cumulative Emissions corrected for Decay Reactor Type: ALL

YEAR

Figure 13

Reported Waterborne Cs-137 Emissions for All Lakes (in GBq)

Cumulative Emissions corrected for Decay Reactor Type: ALL

YEAR

D.=.u~ 1m7ri~su.x~ Noble Gases (in PBq)

All Lakes

YEAR

0.r- I2mmW-w

Figure 14 2.3.4 Emissions from Secondary Sources in the Great Lakes Basin

The sources not associated with releases from nuclear fuel cycle activities of radioactivity have been designated as "secondary sources." The terminology does not imply that the sources or their emissions are somehow secondary in importance. These non-nuclear fuel cycle sources of radioactivity to Great Lakes Basin are either military or civilian sources such as hospitals, industrial and commercial users, universities, or activities which release a "naturally occurring" radioactive material from an otherwise trapped matrix (technological enhancement), provided that the technological enhancement did not result from an activity associated with the nuclear fuel cycle. Although the emissions from a single source may be negligible, the large number of such sources in the Basin may make their combined effect significant. This discussion addresses open sources of radionuclides, which may eventually be released to the atmosphere or to the sewer systems draining into the lakes. We exclude an even larger category of sealed-source users, which would not be expected to release radionuclides to the air or water. The sealed sources could become a problem only if disposed of indiscriminately in municipal landfill sites.

All users of radioisotopes must obtain a license from the national regulator (the AECB in Canada or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States). Regular reporting of measured or estimated emissions is a condition of maintaining the licence. This information is available from the regulators; however, it is not usually in a format that is either convenient or machine readable. At the time of preparation of this report, the Task Force had obtained information from most of the Canadian users, but not on the larger number of United States users. Although these data are incomplete, we present them to give an indication of the magnitude of the emissions. One could obtain a crude estimate of total secondary emissions to the Basin by considering the ratio of the total population in the Basin to that on the Canadian side.

Hospitals and Universities

The Task Force inquiry on secondary sources emphasized research reactors at universities and industrial sites and the use of radioisotopes in hospitals, research facilities, and medical facilities other than hospitals. The Canadian data, obtained with the cooperation of the AECB, came through questionnaires sent to all its licensees asking them to estimate their emissions. Responses were obtained from 45% of the licensees, which was assumed to include virtually all the licensees with significant emissions. The users of the greatest quantities of radionuclides are nuclear medicine departments of hospitals, which administer radioisotopes to patients for diagnostic purposes. Lesser amounts of radionuclides are used for research or industrial purposes. Generally, about 75% of the radioisotopes administered to patients are assumed to be excreted to sewers.

Table 16 summarizes the results for the secondary Canadian users of radioisotopes for the years 1993, 1994, and 1995. For most radionuclides the emissions are a few megabecquerels per year, but a few can reach the gigabecquerel per year levels. These levels are insignificant compared with the terabecquerel and petabecquerel levels released from nuclear reactors. Also, the radionuclides from secondary sources all have half-lives much less than one year and therefore do not accumulate from year to year. TABLE 16 EMISSIONS FROM SECONDARY SOURCES IN CANADA TO THE GREAT LAKES BASIN BY RADIONUCLIDE

Activity (MBq) Half-Life Radionuclide (days) Type 1993 1994 1995 45Ca 163 Patients 40 8.9 2.7 Research 67 0.30 0.38 Sewer 140 360 Total 107 149.2 363.1

57~0 27 1 Patients 260 280 310 Sewer 23 4 1 3 8 Total 283 32 1 348

58~0 70.8 Patients 93 93 93 Sewer 0.37 0.37 0.37 Total 93.4 93.4 93.4 32P 14.3 Patients 7100 6200 7400 Research 0.088 0.14 Sewer 8900 9600 9900 Total 16,000 15,800 17,300 33P 25.3 Sewer 42 56 400 Total 42 56 400 35S 87.2 Research 0.5 1 0.43 Sewer 12,000 1 1,000 16,000 Total 12,000 1 1,000 16,000 5'Cr 27.7 Patients 2600 2500 2000 Research 0.054 Sewer 1600 1000 94.0 Total 4200 3500 2940 lZ51 59.7 Patients 16,000 8400 6800 Research 2.9 3 .O Sewer 3400 3400 3900 Total 19,400 1 1,803 10,703

1311 8.04 Patients 2.6 x lo6 2.9 x lo6 3.0 x lo6 Sewer 0.71 x lo6 0.73 x lo6 0.65 x lo6 Total 3.31 x lo6 3.63 x lo6 3.65 x lo6 3 INVENTORY BY GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF RADIOACTIVITY IN THE GREAT LAKES AIRSHED AND WATERSHED

3.1 The Whole Lake Data

3.1 .1 Geographical Distribution of Radionuclides

Because of the many different sources of radioactivity to the Great Lakes, their patterns of release and the actions of various environmental processes, the geographical distribution of radionuclides in the Great Lakes shows considerable irregularity and non-uniformity. The presence of a specific radioactive isotope in one of the Lakes does not assure its presence in the other Lakes or connecting channels. Even within a lake, the distribution is not uniform (does not suggest a totally mixed lake) but often shows a stratification with a different activity in the nearshore region compared with the larger open lake region. Thus, some comments about geographical distribution of radionuclides are essential.

Theoretically, all radioisotopes found in atmospheric fallout, regardless of origin (cosmogenic or as the result of past weapons testing or accidents such as at Chernobyl), should appear in the waters and sediments of all of the Great Lakes and connecting channels. Only a very few long-lived isotopes, however, are detectable either in dry or wet precipitation to the Basin. Also, these isotopes may not be detected in all of the air, water, or sediment samples from all of the Great Lakes. Since rates of atmospheric deposition depend mainly on the surface area for the deposition, Lake Superior, with the greatest surface area of the Great Lakes would receive the highest load of isotopes from deposition. However, Lake Superior has no nuclear power plant facilities discharging to it, suggesting that the only isotopes expected from atmospheric deposition would be those associated with past nuclear weapons testing or originate from sources a considerable distance away from the Great Lakes and have been subject to long-range atmospheric transport.

The Task Force used the work of the Commission's International Air Quality Advisory Board to examine the typical atmospheric transport of materials from various locations within North America. Prevailing wind patterns to the Great Lakes from North American sources would suggest the possibility that the Hanford facility (Richland, Washington) and Idaho Falls facility of the Department of Energy might be suitable sources of atmospheric transport of radioactive materials to the Great Lakes. However, the monitoring reports of both facilities, which include high-altitude samples, did not show any detectable radionuclides known to be discharged in air emissions from those facilities reaching the Great Lakes within 5 days, which is sufficient time to transport more than 90% of the materials with half-lives greater than 5 days.

3.1.2 Environmental Monitoring Data from IVuclear Reactor Facilities

The Nuclear Task Force has collected and examined environmental monitoring data provided by the operators of the major nuclear facilities in the Great Lakes Basin. Virtually all of the reported radionuclides had activities or concentrations that were reported as the lower limit of detection (LLD). This does not necessarily mean that the various radionuclides were absent from the environment, nor that their environmental impacts were insignificant: It simply means that the radionuclides could not be detected by the instrumentation and procedures used. The LLD for a measurement depends on several factors including sensitivity of the instrumentation, length of time that radioactivity from the sample is counted, and elapsed time between sample collection and counting, (a shorter elapsed time means fewer losses due to radioactive decay). Facility operators must often seek a compromise between the need for a low level of detectability, the costs of the instrumentation, and the need for a large throughput of samples in a limited amount of time. Operating parameters are often chosen for the purpose of demonstrating compliance with government regulations rather than characterizing the movement of radionuclides in the environment.

Rather than attempting to reproduce the results from all of the station reports, we have chosen three typical examples to illustrate the general significance and the limitations of these results. Table 17 shows the results for artificial radionuclides in shoreline sediments, fish, and surface waters near the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station (Oswego County, New York) during 1994. '37Cs was the only artificial radionuclide detected in sediments and fish, and tritium (3H)was the only one detected in surface water. For the fish and water, there were no significant differences in the measured levels between the indicator locations (column 4) and the control locations (column 6). This would indicate that the measured levels were not due to emissions from the local facilities. Only the137Csin sediment appeared to be elevated at the indicator locations, suggesting a contribution from the power station.

Tables 18 and 19 show environmental monitoring results from the Donald G. Cook Nuclear Plant operated by the Indiana Michigan Power Company. In Table 18, 13'1 levels in air were above the limit of detection for a brief period from February 21 to March 14, 1994. These were directly attributed to station emissions. Table 19 shows that, apart from the naturally oc~urring~~K(potassium-40), the only radionuclide detected in fish during 1994 was 137Cs.These levels are typical of global fallout and do not appear to have been enhanced by station emissions.

In Tables 17-19, the original units of picocuries (pCi) have been retained to illustrate how lower limits of detection are reported (1 pCi = 0.037 Bq).

Table 20 shows levels of radionuclides in Lake Ontario fish in the vicinity of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station during one year (1988). The level of naturally occurring potassium-40 in fish and other biota is regulated by a homeostatic mechanism and is unaffected by inputs from human activities. The I4C and 137Csdetected in the fish are probably due to residual fallout from the earlier testing of nuclear weapons. Levels of 250-350 Bq of 14Cper kg carbon were typical of background values in 1988. One to 2 Bqkg of 137Csare quite typical of fish taken from lakes across Canada (Elliott et al. 1981). TABLE 17 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ANNUAL SUMMARY NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-220 NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-410 OSWEGO COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, JANUARY -DECEMBER 1994

Medium Type and number of LLD Indicator locations: Highest annual mean: mean, Control location: mean,

(units) analyses mean, frequency, and range frequency, range, and location a ' frequency, and range Shoreline Sediment 134~s 150

Fish 54Mn 130

Surface Water 3H 3000 220 (214) 250 (114') OSS: 250 (114) (PC~L) 180-260 250-250 7.6 at 235" 250-250 54Mn 15

Notes: (a) Location is distance in miles and direction in compass degrees based on NMP-2 reactor centerline. (b) Underlined values are the mean 0,with frequency (ratio of number of detectable measurements to total number of measurements) given in parentheses0, and the range of values given underneath (84-390). TABLE 18 INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY - DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT IODINE-131 IN WEEKLY AIR CARTRIDGE SAMPLES Results in Units of lW3 pCi/m3* 2 SD

Collection dates Station codes A- 1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 Coloma Dowagiac New South Bend Buffalo

January 1994 0 1/03/94 40 40 <20

Collection Date Station Description 7Be 40K 137Cs 228Ra 228~h 06/08/94 OFS-South Lake trout <90 2980 * 300

Gamma (Bqkg, *2SD)* 14c**

Species Sample (Bqlkg-C, 13'Cs 134Cs 40~ Location (Composites) Date *2SD) "A" Brown Trout 15 Aug. 88 280 * 40 0.97 * 0.16 <0.13 108 * 5 Discharge Lake Trout 15 Aug. 88 280 * 40 1.82 * 0.26 <0.18 169*7 Sucker 15 Aug. 88 370 * 50 0.46 * 0.15 <0.13 122* 5 "B" Lake Trout 01 Oct. 88 270 * 40 2.00 * 0.27 <0.17 141 * 6 Discharge Brown Trout 15 Aug. 88 270 * 40 0.96 * 0.17 <0.12 125 * 5 Sucker 15 Aug. 88 330 * 40 0.88 * 0.22 <0.19 186 * 7 Duffin's Lake Trout 15 Aug. 88 220 * 40 2.09 * 0.27 <0.19 193 * 8 Creek BrownTrout 15Aug.88 340*40 1.14*0.19 <0.14 145*6 Sucker 15 Aug. 88 460 * 70 0.90 * 0.22 <0.20 180 * 7

Notes: 1 Bq = 27 pCi * Bqkg - wet weight, edible fish flesh. The * values represent twice the standard deviation of one determination. ** The * values represent twice the standard deviation of the mean of two determinations.

Discharges and runoff from the West Valley waste storage site enter Buttermilk Creek, which discharges into Cattaraugus Creek, which then discharges into Lake Erie. Cattaraugus Creek has received continuous radiological monitoring since 1968. Small amounts of radioactivity are detected in the creek, and water samples collected below the discharge area of the facility contain measurable levels of radioactivity. Data through 1985 were previously reported by the Commission (19873). More recent data through 1993 were graciously supplied by Mr. William Condon of the New York State Department of Health's Bureau of Environmental Protection (N.Y. Department of Health 1983-1993). Table 21 summarizes data on the monitoring of Cattaraugus Creek. TABLE 21 RADIONUCLIDE LOADINGS TO THE GREAT LAKES FROM CATTARAUGUS CREEK AND THE WEST VALLEY NUCLEAR SERVICE CENTRE SITE

Annual Average Concentration ( pCi5) Year Gross a Gross p 'OSr 3H 1968 - 123 25 22,000 1969 - 214 47 17,600 1970 - 222 69 19,600 1971 ND 208 3 7 3 1,000 1972 ND 169 9 2200 1973 ND 19 4 <5 00 1974 <4 15 <3

1983 <1.3 -<7 <1.4 - 8.0 <0.6 - 1.4

A simple material balance for a radionuclide in a lake has three source terms (atmospheric fallout, tributary inflow, and direct discharge of effluents to a lake), two storage terms (water column and sediments), and an export term (lake outflow). A sixth term, also an export term, the revolatilization of gaseous radionuclides from a lake surface, applies to a very few radionuclides, mainly those of the noble gases (e.g.,41Ar, '33Xe, "Kr, 222Rn),14C in radioactive methane and carbon dioxide, and tritium in water. While tritium moves through the environment via the hydrological cycle, volatilization from the Lakes does not appear in any of the inventory calculations available for this radionuclide.

By considering the Great Lakes as a system of five lakes and several connecting channels, material balances are possible at two levels of scale: an individual lake, and the "whole" system of lakes and connecting channels. The hydrological parameters of the Great Lakes are shown in Table 22. The material balances share many terms, and the system has several simplifying features. The absence of nuclear power plants on Lake Superior or its tributaries means the input of radioactivity to this Lake comes mainly from atmospheric deposition. The outflows from Lake Superior become inflows to Lakes Michigan and Huron, and the outflows from these lakes become inflows to connecting channels to Lake Erie, whose outflow is Lake Ontario's inflow, and Lake Ontario's outflow goes to the St. Lawrence River.

In a relatively uniform (completely mixed) lake, the product of the lake volume and its average radionuclide concentration or activity estimates the inventory term for lake water storage of the radionuclide. Many inventory calculations separate the inventories of water column and sediments but fail to report the sediments. See the section, Sediments, below for further discussion of sediment inventories.

The inventory of radionuclides in the water column is often difficult, because radionuclides are difficult to detect unless very large samples of water (300 L) are taken. The major exceptions are tritium and isotopes of strontium and rubidium, which because of water solubility of most of their inorganic compounds, remain in the water column preferentially over the sediments. .

The long history of monitoring of 90Srand '37Cs(each with half-lives of about 30 years) is the basis for calculation of the deposition inventories of many other radionuclides. The calculation depends on using geochemical ratios with latitude band adjustments and begins with choosing a given year and noting the depositional flux for 'OSr or '37Csfrom the worldwide fallout data for latitude bands of 30-40°N and 40-50°N (which cover the area of the Great Lakes). The longest fallout record is for90Sr data with I3'Cs fluxes estimated using a ratio of the activities of '37CsP0Srof 1.6. This ratio describes a relatively constant distribution of the two radionuclides in many environmental media and compartments.

For other radionuclides, the activity ratio of a radionuclide to either the strontium or cesium in fallout is used. Data from the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons during the period of 1954-1963 provided usable ratios. Wahlgren et al. (1980) used 0.176 for the, activity ratio 239, 240P~P0Srto estimate the atmospheric deposition of plutonium to the Great Lakes. Separate data sets exist for 'I0Pb, which has been intensively studied as an atmospheric tracer. This isotope has both natural and artificial sources and, therefore, was not studied by the Task Force. TABLE 22 HYDROLOGICAL PARAMETERS FOR THE GREAT LAKES

Drainage Lake basin surface Volume Outflow Depth Lake ( 1o4 km2) (lo4km2) (1O3 km3) (km3/ year) (m) Superior 12.8 8.24 12 65 149 Michigan 11.8 5.8 4.9 49 84 Huron 13.1 5.96 4.6 154 77 Erie 5.9 2.57 0.48 175 17 Ontario 6 1.95 1.6 209 86

Joshi (1991) has noted that, except for 3H, 90Sr,'37Cs, and 239,240P~,data for very few radionuclides have been reported for open lakes. Some open lake data are available for uranium, radium, and thorium in Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Ontario, but most inventory calculations require geochemical correlation and estimation methods. Both Joshi and the GLWQB (IJC 1983, 1987b) have noted that radionuclide data reported for drinking water intakes often do not differ statistically from open lake cruise data, and that averaging the data on a radionuclide from drinking water intakes at different locations in a lake may provide a reasonable estimate of the open lake or even whole-lake average radionuclide concentrations.

Although the Task Force has examined a significant quantity of environmental data collected by nuclear facility operators, the analysis of open water data was constrained by the limited number of lakewide monitoring surveys conducted in the past, making environmental and biological assessments difficult to perform. The Surveillance Work Group of the Commission's Water Quality Board (IJC 19873) has previously recommended that radionuclide monitoring be conducted in the open waters of the Great Lakes every 5 years in a manner similar to the surveys conducted by the National Water Research Institute, Environment Canada, between 1973 and 1983. The last open water surveillance program was initiated in 1990 by Environment Canada, Conservation and Protection, but was limited to Lake Ontario. Its scope was to ensure that nuclear facilities and other sources of radioactive contamination were controlled in a manner that met the broad objectives on the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (IJC 1987~).

Table 23 gives the average concentrations in open lake water of the three major radionuclides ('H, 90Sr,and '37Cs),together with their estimated inventories in the water column. Also shown are the estimated inputs to 1983 from fallout and to 1993 from reactors. Virtually all of the fallout deposition was complete by 1983. No attempt has been made here to carry out a mass balance. It must be recognized that large quantities of radionuclides have been lost to the water column through outflow and sedimentation. TABLE 23 INVENTORIES OF TRITIUM, STRONTIUM-90, AND CESIUM-137 IN THE GREAT LAKES

Concentration Inventory in 1983 Fallout input to Reactor input to (BqIL)' in 1983 (TBq) 1983 (TBq)1,3 1993 (TBq) 3H Superior 6.7 80,000 70,000 No reactors Michigan 7.4 36,000 60,000 1300 Huron 10.6 49,000 70,000 16,100 Erie 8.5 4 100 40,000 70 Ontario 13.5 (10.1)2 22,000 30,000 11,000 All lakes 191,100 270,000 28,500 90Sr Superior 0.016 192 123 No reactors Michigan 0.017 83 9 8 0.007 Huron 0.023 106 9 8 No data Erie 0.024 12 45 <0.001 Ontario 0.025 (0.024)2 40 33 0.003 All lakes 43 3 397 0.01 I3'Cs Superior 0.001 7 20 200 No reactors Michigan 0.001 2 5.9 159 0.35 Huron 0.00 12 5.5 159 No data Erie 0.0006 0.29 74 <0.01 Ontario 0.0008 1.3 54 0.5 1 All lakes 33 646 0.86 Notes: (1) Joshi (1991). (2) Environment Canada, 1990 Lake Ontario Survey. (3) Ahier and Tracy (1995).

Radionuclide levels measured during the 1990 Lake Ontario survey are similar to those from the 1983 survey. 3H in open waters ranged from about 9.1 to 10.8 Bq/L (average: 10.1 Bq/L); concentrations at sites near the inflow to Lake Ontario averaged about 6.8 Bq/L, and a level of 9.2 Bq/L was measured at the outflow (Environment Canada, unpublished data). More recent sampling of3H levels in Lake Ontario between 1991-1993 showed average concentrations between 9 and 1 1 Bq/L, with a projected yearly increase due to routine CANDU operations of about 0.12 Bq/L (Chant et al. 1993). Other radionuclides measured in Lake Ontario open waters in 1990 include uranium (0.270 pg/L), 226 Ra (0.002 Bq/L), and 210Pb(0.12 Bq/L). Levels of 90Srin fish ranged from <0.01-0.059 Bqlg in flesh and 0.01 8-0.059 Bqlg in bone. 13'Cesium in fish flesh ranged from <0.01 to 0.064 Bqlg; all levels measured in bone were <0.01 Bqlg. The inventory for plutonium is a model for further calculations as it is based on actual field data with only the atmospheric deposition term estimated fromgOSr.Table 24 presents the inventory of plutonium from the work of Wahlgren et al. (1980). The Task Force considers that inventory one of the most effective uses of field data, extrapolation, and modeling methods of any of the radionuclide inventories in the literature.

Field studies of plutonium rarely distinguish between the two isotope~,*~~Puand 240P~, but rather tend to report plutonium as a sum of all isotopes. Some limited data suggest a typical isotope distribution of 60% 239P~,30% 240P~,and the remaining 10% divided among short-lived plutonium isotopes and decay chain radionuclides, but that does not seem to compromise the usefulness of the data.

TABLE 24 PLUTONIUM INVENTORY (TBq) FOR THE GREAT LAKES (adapted from Wahlgren et al. 1980)

Deposited Lake Watershed on Surface Water Column Sediments Superior 11 6.7 0.2 6.5 Michigan 10 4.8 0.07 4.7 Huron 10 4.8 0.07 4.7 Erie 7.0 3.0 0.04 3.1 Ontario 5.2 1.5 0.04 1.8 Notes: (1) Estimates were for 1977. (2) The surface deposition calculation is based on using 'OSr data with a 239,240P~P0Sr geochemical ratio of 0.0 176. (3) Plutonium isotopes occur mainly as insoluble oxides and move to the sediments. Revolatilization is not an important process.

3.1.4 Sediments

As noted, most radionuclides entering the Great Lakes move to sediments as their final repositories. The separation of radionuclide fractions between water column and sediments depends on a distribution parameter, &, (defined as the ratio of the activity of a radionuclide per unit weight of sediment to the activity of that same radionuclide per unit weight of the bulk water phase or water column), which quantifies the distribution of activities of a radionuclide in a bulk sediment and bulk water column. Edgington has pointed out to the Task Force that a & of less than 1,000 often means that there is a detectable fraction of the activity of a radionuclide in the water column, a & between 1,000 and 10,000 often means that the distribution of radioactivity between sediment and water column is unpredictable, and KDof greater than 10,000 assures that the radionuclide is almost totally incorporated into the sediment (greater than 99.99%). Although the parameter, &, is empirical, its use has some theoretical basis in surface chemistry. Values of KD depend on sediment properties: consolidation, pore water, strength of bottom currents that cause scour, the chemical environment (i.e.,alkalinity, pH, Eh, ionic strength, etc.), and the biological activity of benthic organisms. In undisturbed sediments, radionuclides that bind to particulates or bottom materials tend to remain in the upper few centimeters of surficial sediments. 3.2 Inventories for Biological Compartments

One of the most difficult components of an inventory is the assessment of the radionuclide content of the biota. Organisms are continuously exposed to radiation and radioactivity, but the extent to which they act as repositories for radioactive isotopes of various elements involves a complex set of metabolic and physiological processes, which have not been intensively studied for purposes of establishing an inventory. Most of the research entails the use of radioactive versions of selected elements or compounds (tracers), which are important in the physiological functioning of various species in order to understand the pathways and mechanisms of those physiological processes and functions. Almost none of the studies extended the data from tracer studies to establish biological compartmental inventories of radionuclides.

3.2.1 Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification

This section addresses individual elements and radionuclides with respect to bioaccumulation and biomagnification factors for freshwater biota. Bioaccumulation refers to the retention in a biological compartment of material from the external environment or a non-biological or non-living source material to an extent or in an amount that exceeds on a relative weight basis the presence of the material in the source. Biomagnification refers to the retention in a biological compartment of a material that originated from another biological compartment in an amount that exceeds on a relative weight basis its presence in the originating biological compartment. Thus, bioaccumulation applies to the uptake of materials from water and sediments as non-living source materials, and biomagnification applies to the uptake of materials from living source materials, as in predator-prey interactions. The quantification of bioaccumulation and biomagnification is through biological transfer factors, which are defined for radionuclides in a manner identical to the definition of the & of sediments:

a ratio of activity of a given radionuclide on per unit weight basis for biological tissue to non-living source material, and a ratio of activity of a given radionuclide on per unit weight basis for a biological repository to that of its biological (living;)source material.

The work emphasizes studies with stable radionuclides, but some data derived from radionuclides appear, mainly radionuclides of cesium and potassium. Table 25 lists those radionuclides in increasing order of atomic weight and number, which because of their half-lives, could be of possible interest with respect to the limnological cycling of elements through the biota of the Great Lakes. Several radionuclides appear as "combinations," notably 140Ba/'4Ta,"ZrP5Nb, and 99MoP9T~.Some reports from nuclear power plants and other dischargers, as well some research and monitoring reports, present the given combinations as single radionuclide entries. These sources report the total activity of the combination (a sum of the activities of the two radionuclides), but either do not or cannot disaggregate the data and assign the separate activities to each radionuclide in the pair. The second radionuclide in each pair is a decay product of the first, and the pair has assumed a special status in the radionuclide literature. However, most of those elements even when released to the water column do not enter biota. Therefore, only a small subset of the elements of the Table 25 are discussed individually.

Because of its importance to the Great Lakes, tritium is discussed separately in this section. For radionuclides other than tritium, the Task Force has prepared Table 27 bioaccumulation and biomagnification factors. These factors are based mainly on data for the stable isotopes of the elements, and where possible, from studies on the radioactive isotopes of the elements. All data were from studies of organisms found in lakes and especially the Great Lakes. Among the early available collection of freshwater data, Cowgill's work from 1973 to 1980 in Linsley Pond North Brantford, Connecticut, althoughnot on the Great Lakes, provides one of the largest and most systematic studies of the uptake of chemical elements in plants and some animal species. Cowgill studied all detectable elements in the plants, animals, waters, and landscape materials of her study area (Cowgill 1970, 1973a, 1973b, 1974a, 1974b, 1976; Hutchinson 1975). She reported data as total elemental concentration (stable plus unstable) with no consideration as to isotopes. She compared her data with marine and oceanic studies because of a shortage of other data sets on elemental accumulations in plants and animals. Following her successful work on Linsley Pond, she turned her attention to similar studies in many aquatic systems ranging from laboratory cultures to entire marshlands in locations all over the world (Cowgill and Prance 1982; Cowgill et a1 1986). The Task Force gratefully acknowledges her guidance in assessing the relationships among elements in aquatic species.

The Task Force also had access to a classic data set of Copeland et a1 (1973) for fish in the vicinity of nuclear power plants on Lake Michigan, and reporting on all of the elements that were quantifiable. Many reports cite this special compendium of Lake Michigan data, including the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP, #76 and #126), but often through secondary sources. TABLE 25 RADIONUCLIDES OF IMPORTANCE FOR INVENTORIES IN BIOTIC COMPARTMENTS IN THE GREAT LAKES

Category Method of Production Radionuclide Half-Life (I, Intermediate) (11, Long-lived) Fission Activation Decay Primordial Cosmogenic 3H 12 years I1 X X X ''Be* 2.5 x 1O6 years I1 X 14C 5 73 0 years I1 X X 32Si 650 years I X X 32p* 14.3 days I X 33p* 25 days I X X 40~* 1.28 x lo6 years I1 x 4SCa 16.5 days I X "Cr* 27.8 days I X X 54Mn* 303 days I X 55Fe* 2.6 years I X 57C0* 270 days I X Yo* 7 1.3 days I X

60C~* 5.26 years I X ‘ 63Ni 92 years I1 X 63~n 243 days I X 86Rb* 18.6 days I X 87Rb* 4.8 x 10" years I1 X "Sr* 52 days I X X "Sr* 28.1 years I1 X "Y 58.8 days I X TABLE 25 (continued) RADIONUCLIDES OF IMPORTANCE FOR INVENTORIES IN BIOTIC COMPARTMENTS IN THE GREAT LAKES

Category Method of Production Radionuclide Half-Life (I, Intermediate) (11, Long-lived) Fission Activation Decay Primordial Cosmogenic

95Zr* 65 days I X "Nb* 35.1 days I X 95Zr$5Nb(combination) I X "Tc* 2.1 x 10' years I X 99Mo$9T~(combination) I1 X lo3Ru 39.6 days I X lo6Ru 367 days I X l1OmAg 253 days I X "3Sn 115 days I X I 17~~~ 14 days I X 1291* 1.7 x 107 years I1 X 134cs* 2.05 years I X 136cs* 13 days I X 137cS* 30.23 years I X '37Ba 12.8 days I X 140~~/140~~ I x (combination) 141ce* 33 days I X 144ce* 285 days I X 210Pb 223 years I1 X X 226~a 1600 years I1 X X 232Th 1.4 x 101° years I1 X 238u 4.5 x 10' years 11 X

Note: A radionuclide with an asterisk means that the element associated with this isotope is discussed in the bioaccumulation chapter. Tritium

As previously noted, tritium is not routinely monitored in biological compartments. An early study, Rosenthal and Stewart (l971), and an important research project of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with three studies, Blaylock and Frank (1979), Kirchmann et al. (1979), and Adams et al. (1979) provide the basic information.

Rosenthal and Stewart (1971) examined two algal species, an aquatic macrophyte, a Daphnia, and three species of freshwater snails in a small pond. Their work has two important characteristics: first, that the tritium which bound to biological tissues ("tissue bound tritium" or TBT) never exceeded 7% of the tritium taken up by the biota, and second, that the species studied occur in the Great Lakes Basin. The experiments ran a sufficiently long time relative to the life cycles of the biota to assure that the results could likely represent a steady-state bioaccumulation level. Their data also show that the levels of TBT may not show species selectivity between plants and animals, although plants seem to accumulate slightly more tritium than animals.

Rosenthal's work shows the need to understand the "tritium terminology." Tritium moves environmentally mainly as a tritiated water molecule, HTO. Discussions of biota tend to emphasize the different forms of HTO in organisms. Text Box 1 gives a short lexicon.

TEXT BOX 1 TRITIUM TERMINOLOGY

(1) Unbound HTO: molecularly intact and identifiable tritiated water which can move with a bulk water phase, and exhibits no surface, electrostatic, colloidal, hydrogen bonding, or other effects with another phase or a chemical component of its own phase other than bulk water. In some reports, it may be referred to as tritium in "free water."

(2) Bound HTO: molecularly intact and identifiable tritiated water which exhibits various kinds of observable surface attraction, hydrogen bonding, electrostatic bonding or other bonding effects associated with another phase or some chemical component other than bulk water in its own phase. This is sometimes referred to as "tritium in the free tissue water or TFTW."

(3) Combustion HTO: tritiated water which is chemically released upon combustion of biological material.

(4) Organically Bound HTO: tritium bound to biological molecules and cellular organic materials. This is sometimes referred to cctissue-boundtritium or TBT."

(5) Tritium Units: The ratio of the tritium content of a system to its stable hydrogen content as multiples of 10-18 which is the ratio of the natural occurrence of atoms of tritium to the atoms of stable hydrogen. These are sometimes abbreviated "TU."

Conversion factors: 1 TU = 10-l8atoms of 'Watoms stable H 1 TU implies a concentration of 0.12 BqL or 3.24pCiL. From the Text Box, the combustion HTO is a form of organically bound tritium. (This form of tritiated water appears to exert most of the adverse toxicological effects on biota.) Organisms can rapidly excrete unbound HTO and mobilize physiological systems to excrete less rapidly bound HTO. However, organisms retain organically bound HTO indefinitely and lose tritium by radioactive decay.

Blaylock and Frank (1979) examined some plants and animals from a pond on the Oak Ridge Reserve (Tennessee). Kirchrnann et al. (1979) added several freshwater and marine species to those previously studied, including a salmonid, and some information on tritium apportionment in cellular compartments. Adams et al. (1979) reported on tritium uptake by Great Lakes aquatic biota in a freshwater marsh system in Lake Erie, near the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant. These studies used mutually agreed upon protocols and methods that assured that their data were statistically compatible (could be pooled statistically, because they come from the same "universe of data"); reported tritium bound to tissues on a dry weight basis, providing consistency and continuity with previous data of early investigators on bioaccumulation; and identified clearly the species studied taxonomically and tissues and substructures examined. Tables 26a-d present the data of Blaylock and Adams (1 979), Rosenthal and Stewart (1971), Kirchmann et al. (1979), and Adams et al. (1979). The Task Force recalculated the bioaccumulation factors for Blaylock and Adams from the original paper. The Task Force only presents the data from North American species from Kirchmann's study.

Tritium levels in organisms track the tritium levels of the environment. Bioaccumulation factors of unityfor tritium are conservative.

Tritium uptake in aquatic biota usually tracks the environmental levels. Some investigators note that tritium in organismal tissues quickly "equilibrate" with the tritium content of the surrounding water, but that view is simplistic. The data show that biota can excrete unbound tritium as HTO rather rapidly, and bound tritium as HTO more slowly, but may not be able to excrete tritium as organically bound HTO. Thus the view of "equilibration" is simplistic since tritium targets DNA and RNA, and through isotope exchange, tritium replaces a stable hydrogen on a nucleotide as organically bound HTO in the cell nucleus or extranuclear DNA in cytoplasm or organelles such as plasmids and chloroplast. "Equilibration" masks the isotope exchange on biomolecules because the exchange process occurs after uptake and at a much slower time scale.

From the available information, the Task Force affirms a bioaccumulation factor of unity (I) is conservative and confirms previous recommendations from marine studies.

The retention of 10% of the tissue-bound tritium level in organisms suggests a method of estimating an inventory of tissue-bound tritium in biota.

The previous information suggests a method to estimate a tritium inventory for aquatic organisms: as the product of the biomass and 10% of the environmental level of tritium. However, such an inventory calculation has a practical limitation in that most environmental tritium data for waters are reported at or below a level of detection, variably 100-200 pCE, depending on the instrumentation. Thus, the method only provides an upper bound estimate of the biological inventory of tritium. TABLE 26a TRITIUM ACCUMULATION IN AQUATIC ORGANISMS - PART I Rosenthal and Stewart Tritium Activities (pCi/mL or pCi/g) Bioaccumulation Factors (1971) I: Lake 11: 111: IV: V: R, VI: R2 VII: R, Plants Water Unbound Bound Food (111) (III/I) (IV/III) Chlamydomonus reinhardi 963 887 400 0.921 0.415 Lemna minor 15.9 16.2 69 1.02 0.439 Animals Daphnia galeata 892 928 482 51 1 1.4 0.540 0.9543 Lymnaea rej7exa (snail) 774 46 845 51 1 1.09 1.09 1.65 Helisoma trivolus (snail) 15.1 4 2.7 511 0.26 0.53 0.0052 Adams et al. (1979) Tritium Activities (pCi/mL or pCi/g) Bioaccumulation Factors

I: Lake 11: 111: IV: R, V: R2 Plants Water Unbound Bound

Cladophora sp. 609.7 h 2.6 609.6 i 6.6 78.9 i 11.6 1.OO 0.12 (0.38)

Spirodela polyrhiza 407.7 i 8.3 413.0 i 7.5 95.3 i 14.1 0.98 0.23

Potamogeton foliosus 423.5 i 9.9 422.9 i 2.4 133.4 h 20.4 0.99 0.3 1 Typha latifolia Stem 646.4 i 8.3 361.1 i 4.1 78.8 * 7.6 0.56 0.12 (0.25) Rhizome 646.4 i 8.3 399.3 i 2.5 75.4 i 7.5 0.62 0.12 TABLE 26a (continued) TRITIUM ACCUMULATION IN AQUATIC ORGANISMS - PART I

Adams et al. (1979) Tritium Activities (pCi1mL or pCi1g) Bioaccumulation Factors I: Lake 11: 111: IV: R, V: R, Animals Water Unbound Bound (II/I) (11111) Plathemis lydia (dragonfly) 646.4 * 8.3 527.1 * 5.2 138.6 * 39.0 0.82 0.2 1 Physa heterostropha (pond snail) 646.4 * 8.3 555.7 * 7.2 76.0 * 29.6 0.86 0.1 1 Gambusia afJinis (mosquitofish) 646.4 * 8.3 555.3 * 10.4 186.3 * 14.3 0.86 0.29 (0.56) Lepomis macrochirus (bluegill) 403.2 * 10.3 409.5 * 6.7 187.9 * 18.3 1.02 0.46 (0.69) muscle Micropterus salmoiiies (largemouth 403.2 * 10.3 412.6 * 7.0 166.2 * 13.9 1.02 0.42(0.61) bass) muscle

Notes: (I) Locations: Rosenthal and Stewart - laboratory; Adams et al. - White Oak Lake at Oak Ridge, Tennessee (USA) (2) Data from Rosenthal and Stewart are recalculated (original data in dpm1mL and dpmlg). All bound tritium data are on a dry weight basis. (3) R, and R, are the bioaccumulation factors obtained by dividing the numbers in the indicated columns (Roman numerals separated by the slash). Column V entries in parentheses are as originally reported by Adams et al., which correct for specimen density. (4) Data for Gambusia afJinis are for the whole animal. (5) Food chain relations from Adam's et al. data are undetermined. None of the listed animals species is known to consume any of the listed plant species. Physa heterostropha, epiphytic on macrophytes, eats algae. Algae of genus Cladophora are not usually desirable food for invertebrates and fishes. Dragonflies (i.e., Plathemis lydia), consume smaller invertebrates rather than plants. (6) References: adapted from Tables I1 and I11 ( Blaylock and Frank 1979), with recalculation of bioaccumulation factors. See note 3. TABLE 26b TRITIUM ACCUMULATION IN AQUATIC ORGANISMS - PART I1 GROWTH OF THE ALGA Scenesdmus obliquus ON LIQUID EFFLUENTS CONTAINING TRITIUM FROM NUCLEAR FACILITIES

I I1 I11 Initial tritium in Tritium in Combustion R Effluent source culture medium water of dry tissue (1111) (nCi1mL) (~CilmL) Radiochemical Lab 52 1.41 27.1 Radiochemical Lab 76.5 4.10 53.6 Radiochemical Lab 70.3 3.08 43.8 Nuclear Power Plant SEMO 5.1 4.60 0.90 SENA 16.6 14.5 0.87 Notes: (1) Location: Brussels, Belgium. (2) Exposure time of algae: 1242days (3) Distribution of tissue bound tritium (TBT) in organismal compartments: lipids, pigments and fatty acids, 58.3%; ether-soluble substances, ND (not detected); free amino acids and carbohydrates, 1.1%; protein hydrosylate, 34%; residue material, 6.6%. Nucleic acids contain more radioactively labeled hydrogens than lipids and lipid fractions. Ratios of activity in nucleic acid to lipid to lipid fraction, when referred back to the tritium content of the algal medium is 1.13:0.56:0.44. (4) Nuclear effluents were filtered on Millipore (0.45 lm) before mixing with culture medium. (5) The specific activity ratios for the effluents from two nuclear power plants (known as SEMO and SENA) suggest, according to the reference, an absence of biologically bound tritium in the filtered effluents. Radioactivity was reported from the filtered residue suggesting the uptake of tritium by microorganisms. (6) Reference: adapted from Kirchmann et a1 (1979), especially Tables I and VI. TABLE 26c TRITIUM ACCUMULATION IN AQUATIC ORGANISMS - PART m TRITIUM UPTAKE FOR FISHES GROWN IN LABORATORY AQUARIA OR IN OUTDOOR MESOCOSM POOLS

Exposure Conditions Specific Activity Ratio Species Medium Days in HTO 3H in food Commercial Food Carassius auratus Aquarium 32 0.13-0.25 (goldfish) Pool 173-2 14 0.1S4 0.27 Salmo gairdneri Dead eggs5 Aquaria 1 0.39 (rainbow trout) Dead fry Aquaria 32 0.42 Fish Aquaria 140 0.15 Salmo trutta forma fario Adult Aquaria 5 0.15 (brown trout) Adult Aquaria 10 0.42 Gambusia aflnis Young Aquaria 2 1 (mosquitofish) Young Pool 11 0.37 Young Pool 39 Adult Aquaria 60 Adult Aquaria 203 Adult Pool 58 Adult Pool 93 0.5 1 Ictalurus lacustris Dead eggs Aquaria 3 0.41 (channel catfish) Small fish Aquaria 133 Notes: (1) Locations: Berkeley, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Brussels, Belgium. (2) Exposure times: 10-30 days in Belgium, up to 203 days in the United States. (3) Tritiated food in tests in Belgium; commercial food in tests in Belgium and the United States. (4) Data reported for muscle tissue; data without footnote are for whole animal. (5) Fertilized eggs for Salmo gairdneri placed in tritiated water when received. (6) Specific activity ratio is the activity in dry tissue divided by that in the water medium. (7) All tissue data are on a dry weight basis. (8) Reference: adapted from Kirchmann et a1 (1979), Table 111, notes and text. TABLE 26d TRITIUM ACCUMULATION IN AQUATIC ORGANISMS -PART IV SPECIES STUDIED IN NAVARRE MARSH OF LAKE ERIE

I. Experimental conditions: 2-ha section of marsh. Earthen dike encloses 10,000 m3 of water (depth of 50 cm; water surface area of approximately 20,000 m2) . 10 Ci HTO added to marsh and the system followed for one year. 11. Plant species: (a) Smartweed (PoIygonum lapathifolium). Bound and unbound HTO follow the declining pattern of HTO in the marsh water. Evapotranspiration accounts mostly for tritium loss. Activity ratios of tritium in the tissue of the plant and marsh water are typically 0.3 or less throughout the observed period reported. (b) Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata). Follows the same pattern as smartweed, but activity ratios of bound HTO to marsh water tritium approach 1.0 at several times. Activity ratios for unbound HTO vary from 0.02 to 0.6. (c) Pondweed (Potamogeton crispus). Follows a similar pattern to smartweed. Activity ratios over a long period of observation for bound and unbound HTO both range from 0.6 to 1.0, but then bound HTO ratios decline to near zero near the end of the observation period while the unbound HTO activity ratios remain in a range of 0.3-0.6. 111. Animal species: (a) The crayfish (Procambarus blandingi) accumulates maximum activity in muscle and viscera within 2 and 3 days directly, then the both bound HTO and unbound HTC decline rapidly. Maximum activity ratios of Bound HTOlUnbound HTO: muscle, 0.34; viscera, 0.23. The unbound HTO follows the marsh water, with activity ratios of close to 1. The bound HTO never reaches an activity level relative to marsh water of greater than 0.2, declines to less than 0.1 within 2 months, and hovers near zerc for the rest of the observation period. (b) Carp (Cyprinus carpio) accumulates maximum activity in muscle and viscera within 4 hours of exposure then declines. Maximum activity ratios Bound HTONnbounc HTO: muscle, 0.25; viscera, 0.39. The unbound HTO follows the same pattern as crayfish, with activity ratios close to 1 during much of the observation period and through its end. The bound HTO activity ratio never exceeds 0.1, remains relatively constant through much of the observation period, then declines to zero near the end of that period. (c) Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) accumulates maximum activity in muscle and viscera within 1 day. Maximum activity ratios Bound HTONnbound HTO: muscle, 0.35; viscera, 0.38. The unbound HTO tracks the marsh water activity decline for the rest of the period (activity ratios of about 0.8), while the bound HTO declines rapidly to near zero within 70 days for both muscle and viscera. IV. To track the tritium in the marsh water, the following data are extracted from the paper by Adams et al:

Days Post- Tritium concentration in Days Post- Tritium concentration in Treatment marsh water (dpmlL) Treatment marsh water (dpmlL)

0 25,000 40 13,000 2 25,000 70 11,000 4 23,000 100 8000 9 20,000 170 5000 220 >2000

Notes: (1) Reference: adapted from Adarns et al. (1979), especially Figures 1-4 and text. (2) Tritium count data are rounded out to the nearest thousand. (3) No estimate of biomagnification factors from the species studied because of a lack of an established food-chain relationship. (4) dpm, disintegrations per minute. TABLE 27 BIOACCUlMULATION FACTORS AND BIOMAGNIFICATION FACTORS FOR VARIOUS ELEMENTS IN AQUATIC BIOTA

Bioaccumulation Biomagnification

Plants/ Invertebrates1 Fishes/ Plants/ Plants1 Fishes/ Fishes/ Elements Water Water Water Sediments Invertebrates Plants Invertebrates

Beryllium 3000 - - - 0.05 - - Phosphorus NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Potassium 1000-3000 - 800 - 1-2 - -

Chromium 50,000 50,000 - - 1 - -

Manganese 50,000 - - - 0.5 - - Iron 50,000 5000 - - 0.1 - -

Cobalt 3 00,000 60,000 - - 1 - -

Rubidium 10,000 12,000 - - 1 - - Strontium 1000 - - - 1.5 - -

Zirconium 2000 2000 - - 1.5 - -

Niobium 20,000 20,000 - - 1.5 - -

Iodine 2000 1000 - - 0.4 - -

Cesium 20,000 10,000 50 - 0.5 - -

Cerium 20,000 - - - 1 - - Notes: NAYnot available. (-) The Task Force was unable to find data. Univalent Elements

The univalent elements sodium, potassium, lithium, rubidium, cesium, silver, chlorine, bromine, and iodine are found in freshwater lakes and their biota. The Task Force was especially interested in potassium, rubidium, cesium, and iodine.

The isotope 40Kis a major natural source of radioactivity. It accounts for as much as 40% of the radioactivity present in biological tissues (humans included). Potassium is a macro element with important physiological functions, and therefore, its presence exerts an important control function on the cycling of other elements. Measurements of4% in Great Lakes biota appear in several documents including the annual reports of various nuclear power plants. Since geological data do not clearly show a selective or differential enrichment of potassium isotopes in geological repositories (i.e., glaciers, mineralized soils, and volcanic rock), a simple inventory estimate for40K depends on the assumption that the ratio of radioactive potassium to stable potassium in biological compartments and substrates is numerically the same as the ratio of radioactive potassium to stable potassium in geological strata.

Since freshwaters are impoverished in sodium (by definition), isotopes of sodium although limnologically important are not discussed. The naturally occurring radioactive isotopes of sodium have not been reported on in biota. An inventory procedure similar for the one40K does not apply to radioactive isotopes of sodium.

Rubidium and Cesium

Rubidium accumulates in plants often with the ability to substitute for potassium and sodium in selected chemical matrices. Isotopes of rubidium are emitted directly by nuclear power plants to the Great Lakes as well as forming as decay products of noble gas radionuclides

Although cesium chemistry parallels sodium and potassium chemistries, cesium does not easily replace either sodium or potassium in various chemical matrices because its atomic and ionic radii are larger than those of sodium and potassium. The element's rarity in nature also limits its biological availability.

The most extensive data base for bioaccumulation of an artificial radionuclide exists f~r'~~Cs. This long-lived isotope (half-life: 30 years) was the first long-lived isotope in nuclear fallout studied in biota as part of biological monitoring and the study of the effect of radio isotopes on biota. The important compilations on radiocesium uptake are the studies of Blaylock (1982), Joshi (1984), and Elliott et al. (1984). The latter two references discuss Great Lakes fishes. Most of the compilations from these authors were from research components of monitoring studies. Further, dischargers of radionuclide materials in the Great Lakes Basin must monitor for 137Csin biological substrates, although the data have deficiencies that limit its use for biocompartment inventory calculations. The Task Force has also examined monitoring data from nuclear power plants f~r'~~Csin fishes. Tables 28 and 29 present data for the bioaccumulation factors for 137Csfor Lakes Huron, Erie, and Ontario. All of the bioaccumulation factors in Table 29 have the same order of magnitude, although fishes in Lake Huron have higher bioaccumulation factors than fishes in Lake Ontario. These factors should not be assumed to hold for the two Lakes over all periods of time. Joshi (1984) calculated bioaccumulation factors from several fish studies going back to 1976. The data in Table 29 show that the ratio ~f"~Csto 40Kis about 0.0 1. This suggests a way to calculate an inventory f~r'~~Cs.From the estimate of the inventory for 40K,estimate the inventory for '37Csby adjusting the estimate for40K by 0.01.

Given the small bioaccumulation rates for radionuclides of cesium, the final repository for radiocesium from fallout and liquid and gaseous discharges to the Great Lakes is sediments. Although cesium salts are relatively soluble in aquatic media, the attachment of the cesium compounds to other particulates provides a mechanism to reach sediments with minimal physicochemical interaction with aquatic media.

Silver

One radionuclide of silver, llO"Ag (half-life: 233 days), consistently appears in the nuclear discharges to the Great Lakes. The radionuclide has been reported every year in the gaseous and liquid discharges of at least eight nuclear power plants in the Great Lakes over the period of 1980-1 993. It persists long enough for silver to cycle through Great Lakes biota following its discharge. However, there is no procedure derivable from the data with which the Task Force could estimate and inventory of this isotope in biological compartments.

Fluorine. chlorine, and bromine

There are no radionuclides of fluorine that need to be discussed. Radionuclides of chlorine are mainly cosmological, although 36C1 sometimes appears as a fission product. The radionuclides of bromine are fission products and are associated with fuel rods and would not be expected to be discharged routinely to the Great Lakes.

Iodine

Freshwater and marine biota both accumulate iodine. The environmental levels of iodine are greatest in the oceans, and marine plants, invertebrates and vertebrates accumulate it to levels greater than freshwater or terrestrial organisms. The low levels of iodine in freshwater limit its uptake almost uniquely to plants and vertebrates, the latter biota having thyroid glands. There are very limited data on the uptake of iodine by freshwater invertebrates. Bioaccumulation factors for iodine of about 500 for plants and biomagnification factors of about 0.05 for zooplankton and insects seem appropriate. TABLE 28 CESIUM ACCUMULATION IN GREAT LAKES BIOTA - PART I 13'Cs IN GREAT LAKES FISHES (adapted from International Joint Commission and other agency reports)

Year Species Location Average 13'Cs Activity Bioaccumulation (Bqfkg) Factor Lake Huron 1981 Walleye Blind River 9.78 * 0.42 (6) 1981 Sturgeon Blind River 3.36 * 0.25 (4) 1982 Lake trout North Channel 8.22 * 0.17 (3) Lake Erie 1982 Walleye Western Basin 0.862 * 0.085 (3) 1556 Lake Ontario 1976 Rainbow trout Ganaraska River 2.4 3528 1977 Rainbow trout Ganaraska River 2.0 239 1 1978 Rainbow trout Ganaraska River 2.2 2354 1980 Rainbow trout Ganaraska River 2.7 1981 Rainbow trout Ganaraska River 1.40 * 0.13 (9) 1700 1982 Rainbow trout Coburg 1.5 * 0.1 1414 1982 Lake trout Coburg 1.5 * 0.1 (3) 1425 1982 Lake trout Niagara on the Lake 1.60 * 0.12 (4) 1490 1982 Lake trout Oswego 1.60 * 0.4 (2) Notes: (1) References: International Joint Commission (1983, 19873); Joshi (1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988a, 19883). (2) Numbers in parentheses are number of fishes used in the averaging. If no number appears in parentheses, then either only one measurement was reported, or the source of the data did not qualify the information in some manner. (3) Data are from Environment Canada and New York State Department of Health. (4) Radioactive measurements made on wet weight basis. (5) Bioaccumulation factors from Joshi (1984). Bioaccumulation factors relate to open water levels or ambient levels at collection site, depending on the available data. TABLE 29 CESIUM ACCUMULATION IN GREAT LAKES BIOTA - PART I1 lJ7CsIN GREAT LAKES FISHES; STUDIES AT HWR NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONS (adapted from operating reports of Ontario Hydro) Activity (Bq/L or Bqlkg) Bioaccumulation Lake and Sample or Sample or Factors Year Station Substrate '37Cs140K Substrate 137C~ 40K 137~~ ~OK

1992 Ontario Trout 1.07* 0.15 120* 4 0.0089 Troudwater * 857 Darlington Whitefish 0.56 * 0.15 119*4 0.0047 Whitefishlwater * 850 (Provincial Park) Sucker 0.18 * 0.15 105 * 6 0.00 17 Suckerlwater * 750 Water c0.003 0.14 * 0.03 Waterlsediments 0.000389 Sediments 2.5 5 1.3 360 * 30 0.0069 1992 Ontario Trout 0.96 * 0.1 8 124* 6 0.0077 Troutlwater * 886 Darlington Whitefish 0.48 * 0.18 126 * 6 0.0038 Whitefishlwater * 900 Sucker 0.23 * 0.1 1 109*4 0.002 1 Suckerlwater * 779 Water c0.003 0.14 * 0.04 Waterlsediments 0.000342 Sediments 4.2 410 * 30 1992 Ontario Trout 1.04 * 0.22 137 * 7 0.0076 Troudwater 69.3 979 Pickering Whitefish 0.63 * 0.15 120 *4 0.0053 Whitefishlwater 42.0 857 ("A" Discharge) Sucker 1.15 * 0.22 121 * 7 0.0095 Suckerlwater 76.7 864 Water 0.01 5 * 0.004 0.14 * 0.04 0.107 ~aterlsediment 0.00091 0.000342 Sediments 16.5 * 1.5 410 * 30 0.0402 1992 Ontario Trout 0.92 * 0.1 8 132*4 0.0069 Troudwater * 77 6 Pickering Whitefish 0.85 * 0.22 136 * 6 0.0063 Whitefishlwater * 800 ("B" Discharge) Sucker 1.OO 0.22 131 *6 0.0076 Suckerlwater * 77 1 Water c0.003 0.17 * 0.05 Waterlsediment 0.000395 Sediments 7.0 * 1.3 430 * 30 0.0162 TABLE 29 (continued) CESIUM ACCUMULATION IN GREAT LAKES BIOTA -PART 11: lS7CsIN GREAT LAKES FISHES; STUDIES AT HWR NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONS (adapted from operating reports of Ontario Hydro)

Sample Activity (BqIL or Bqlkg) Sample Bioaccumulation Factors Year Lake and Station or Substrate 137C~140Kor Substrate 137Cs 'OK 137Cs 40~

1992 Ontario Trout 1.00* 0.15 104*3 0.0096 Trodwater 0 612 Pickering Whitefish 0.74 * 0.22 133 * 6 0.0056 Whitefishlwater * 783 (Duffins Creek) Sucker 0.96*0.18 153*4 0.0063 Suckerlwater 0 900 Water <0.003 0.1 7 * 0.04 Sediments 8.5 * 1.4 390 * 20 0.022 Waterlsediment 0.00044 1992 Ontario Pickering Rainbow trout <0.15 128 4 (w) (Coolwater Farms) Rainbow trout 0.2 * 0.1 117*4 (s) 0.0017 Limiting Values of Bioaccumulation Factors for '37Csin fishes Troutlwater 357 (Darlington: Prov. Park) relative to water based on LLD of the radionuclide of 0.003 BqIL TroutJwater 320 (Darlington: NGS) for Lake Ontario Nuclear Generating Stations Troutlwater 307 (Pickering: B) Troutlwater 333 (Pickering: Duffins Creek) Average geochemical ratios "7Cs/40Kfactors for species monitored at HWR facilities

Lake and Station Species 137Cs140K Species 137C~140~ Species 137C~140~ Species 137Cs140~ Lake Ontario: Darlington Trout 0.0083 Whitefish 0.0043 Sucker 0.0019 Pickering Trout 0.0083 Whitefish 0.0053 Sucker 0.0078

Average for Lake Ontario fish: Trout 0.0083 Whitefish 0.0048 Sucker 0.0048 All fishes 0.0060 Average Bioaccumulation factors for species monitored at HWR facilities on Lake Ontario 137Cs 40K 137Cs 40K

Darlington Pickering Troutlwater * 872 Trodwater 69 789 W hi tefishlwater * 875 Whitefishtwater 42 813 77 Suckerlwater 765 Suckerlwater 845 * 63 Average all fishlwater * 837 Average all fishlwater 816 TABLE 29 (continued) CESIUM ACCUMULATION IN GREAT LAKES BIOTA -PART 11: lJ7CsIN GREAT LAKES FISHES; STUDIES AT HWR NUCLEAR GENERATING STATIONS (adapted from operating reports of Ontario Hydro)

Average geochemical ratios for 137Cs140Kfor species monitored at HWR facilities on Lake Huron Station Species 137C~140K Species '37Cs140K Species 137Cs/40K Species '37Cs140K

Bruce Trout 0.0185 Walleye 0.0238 Bass 0.021 All fish 0.0194 Average Bioaccumulation factors for species monitored at HWR facilities on Lake Huron Station Species 137Cs 40K Bruce Walleyelwater * 1063 Basslwater * 1123 Troutlwater * 1318 Average all fishlwater * 1168 Comparisons of Lakes Ontario and Huron Average geochemical ratios for 137Cs140K Average bioaccumulation factors '37Csand 40K Lake Ontariokake Huron Lake Ontariokake Huron Trout 0.45 All fish 0.3 1 All fishlwater * 1.41 Notes: (1) Sediment data are dry weight; fish data are wet weight (2) Symbols: (w) samples taken in winter-spring period (January to June); (s) samples taken in summer-autumn period (July to December); (*) cannot calculate the number from information given. (3) Averages of bioaccumulation factors are calculated when there are two or more results for a given species of fish. The overall average bioaccumulation factor for fishes in a lake averages all data from that lake without regard to the number of entries per species. (4) Bioaccumulation factors reported for 137Csbased on one data set only. (5) Ratio of bioaccumulation factors for40Kfor Lake Ontario and Lake Huron comparison obtained by taking the ratio of the averages of all of the bioaccumulation factors for the fishes of each lake. Divalent Elements

The divalent elements beryllium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, and barium are all found in the waters, sediment, and'biota of the Great Lakes. The studies of two investigators, Cowgill (1973a, 1973b, 1974a, 1974b) and Yan et al. (1989) are most important.

Bervllium

Cowgill's data are the most comprehensive for beryllium. Because beryllium isotopes produced cosmogenically remain in the atmosphere for a long time, the appearance of radioactive beryllium in Great Lakes biota suggests that the beryllium probably originates from artificial sources, mainly reactions in a nuclear reactor. 'Be has been occasionally documented in gaseous and liquid effluents of nuclear reactors, but as a very minor radionuclide.

Calcium and Maanesium

The radionuclides of calcium and magnesium are too short lived to consider biological inventories. However, the Task Force notes that chemical data for both elements are needed in discussing the behaviour of the radionuclides of other elements cycling within the Great Lakes, especially radionuclides of divalent elements in the same or adjacent families of the Periodic Table: beryllium and barium. Calcium also correlates with many other elements: titanium, phosphorus, iron, cerium, lanthanum, and most other rare earth elements. The correlation suggests that it exerts a control function on the cycling of many other elements in freshwater biota.

Strontium i Strontium has several important radionuclides. The element accumulates in plants, can biomagnify up the food chain, and thus presents a health hazard to humans through intake of food. Isotopes of strontium can be found in the water column because many strontium compounds are water soluble. Although strontium has bone as its target organ in vertebrates, the Task Force could not confirm that calcium has a control influence on either strontium uptake or biological cycling.

Barium

I4OBa is a fission product of some importance. It accumulates in biota, but the available data on barium levels in biota do not permit a separate calculation of the radioactive barium content. The Task Force did find that levels of barium in biota are correlated with levels of calcium and that high environmental levels of calcium and high tissue levels of calcium both block uptake and accumulation of tissue levels of barium.

Transition Elements

Zinc, manganese, iron, technetium, iuthenium, chromium, nickel, cobalt, and molybdenum belong to different chemical groups, but it is often easier to address them together. Their radionuclides are mainly activation products, but they are also produced by fission. Because their nuclear reactions involve inter- conversions, their methods of analysis usually provide data on all them virtually simultaneously. All of these elements accumulate in biota, but the pathways for technetium are unknown. That element has not been studied in aquatic biota despite the fact that its major ion, pertechnate (TcQ)'- is water soluble and allows potential direct uptake by biota from the water column. The important radionuclide of zinc is 65Zn(half-life: 244 days), which can cycle within the Great Lakes. Zinc is an essential trace element in nutrition, assuring its bioaccumulation in all species. From the available date on zinc levels in Great Lakes biota, the Task Force could not calculate a separate inventory for this radioisotope.

Chromium

The important radionuclide of chromium is5'Cr. Chromium cycles through biological compartments in several valence states, two of which are very important in aquatic systems. The hexavalent (+6) state is water soluble and very toxic to most organisms. The trivalent (+3) state has a low water solubility and behaves as a trace micronutrient in certain tissue and organismal systems (Mertz 1967; see also other papers by Walter Mertz). Most environmental studies report a total chromium level without specification of the valence states. From the available date on chromium levels in Great Lakes biota, the Task Force could not calculate a separate inventory for this radioisotope.

Molvbdenum

Molybdenum is a trace element nutrient needed by plants. It occurs in several enzymes associated with nitrogen fixation and the utilization of iron and sulfur in cellular metabolism. Two radionuclides, 95Moand "Mo, form as fission and activation products. Althoughg9Mohas a half -life of only 6 hours, it decays to "Tc (half-life: 212,000 years) and thus plays an important role in estimating inventories for technetium. "Mo and 99Tcare sometimes treated as a combined pair. From the available date on molybdenum levels in Great Lakes biota, the Task Force could not calculate a separate inventory for this radioisotope.

Iron and Manaanese

The important radionuclides are 55Fe(half-life: 2.6 years), 59Fe(half-life: 45 days), 54Mn(half- life: 303 days), and 56Mn(half-life: 2.6 hours). The two radionuclides of iron and lower atomic weight radionuclide of manganese last long enough to cycle through Great Lakes ecosystems.

Depending on the pH of the freshwater system or the "local pH(the acidity of surface materials) and the level of oxygenation of the system (aerobic versus anaerobic environment), iron and manganese hydroxides can form precipitates on the external surfaces of biological materials. Many analyses of plants that report very high iron and manganese levels may actually have reported crystalline ferric and manganese oxides as surface contaminants. Despite these chemical artifacts, both elements have major metabolic roles in organisms and approach a status of macronutrient rather than simple trace nutritional requirement. From the available date on iron and manganese levels in Great Lakes biota, the Task Force could not calculate separate inventories for the listed radioisotopes. Ruthenium

Without nuclear technology, ruthenium would be of little interest to the Task Force. Two radionuclides are produced by fission and appear mainiy in nuclear fuel processing operations: lo3Ru(half- life: 41 days) and '06Ru (half-life: 1 year). The radionuclides can appear in both gaseous and liquid effluents. They were detected in the atmospheric fallout to the Great Lakes after the accident at Chernobyl, but not from the liquid discharges of radionuclides from nuclear power operations. Both radionuclides persist long enough for possible cycling within the biota of the Great Lakes, but the element has rarely been detected analytically in freshwater biota and reported in the literature. It has no known biological role, and despite its persistence, the available studies suggest that it moves mostly to sediments. The Task Force has not estimated a biocomparhnent inventory for ruthenium given its lack of observation in freshwater biota.

Cobalt

All radionuclides of cobalt are activation products. Four radion~clides,~~Co,58Co, 59C~, and 60Co, are discharged to the Great Lakes, but two of them, 60Co(half-life: 5.26 years) and 57Co(half-life:270 days), last long enough to cycle biologically. The former has commercial use, and the latter is used in research.

Cobalt is an essential micronutrient that activates vitamin Q,. Therefore, cobalt uptake occurs in all aquatic biota. Some algae, macrophytes, and invertebrates can substitute cobalt for zinc in essential enzyme systems (Price and Morel 1990; see also other papers of Frangois Morel), suggesting that Zn:Co geochemical ratios may be important in certain water bodies. From the available data on cobalt levels in Great Lakes biota, the Task Force.could not calculate a separate inventories for cobalt radioisotopes.

Sulfur, selenium, and tellurium

Except for polonium, a decay product of transuranic elements, none of the Group VIb elements require inventories. The Task Force has previously discussed the cosmogenically produced radionuclides of sulfur. All radionuclides of selenium produced by nuclear activities in the Great Lakes Region except for 79Seare very short lived, but the residuals of 79Seare important only in considerations of the high-level waste inventories for fuel elements. The Task Force has no documentation that selenium radionuclides are released by nuclear facilities to the Great Lakes Basin. Despite the toxicity of tellurium, biota only show limited accumulation. Nor are radionuclides of tellurium documented in the releases from nuclear power plants, although such radionuclides would require consideration in the high-level waste inventories for fuel elements. Several isotopes of tellurium form as fission products. The volatility of many tellurium compounds is the factor explaining their appearance in the gaseous radionuclide emissions of fuel reprocessing operations.

Trivalent Elements

The trivalent elements include boron, aluminum, gallium, indium, and thallium. Boron and aluminium bioaccumulate in organisms, but there is no indication that they are discharged to the Great Lakes. Their congener elements of gallium, indium, and thallium do not have radionuclides that are produced in nuclear systems that are likely to be discharged to the Great Lakes. Scandium. vttrium. lanthanum, and rare earths

The Group IIIa elements of the Periodic Table are rather unusual. All are rare in nature. Scandium often shows up in particulate matter sampled in the upper atmosphere, and has two radionuclides which form cosmogenically. But while scandium can bioaccumulate, there is no indication that its radionuclides are related to either natural background levels or radioactive discharges to the Great Lakes.

Yttrium, lanthanum, and the other rare earth elements, are well represented among the radionuclides formed in the nuclear fuel cycle. Many of these elements have primordial radionuclides, and almost all of the isotopes of rare earth elements are mildly radioactive. The behaviour of these elements in biota is not well understood. Cowgill's studies suggested that organisms may exert considerable selectivity on which elements they accumulate: besides cerium and lanthanum, and occasionally europium, the freshwater plants seem to favour the elements of even atomic number. c he^ also accumulate in biota greatly compared with source materials, which often have levels undetectable by present methods.

Yttrium: Radionuclides of yttrium are fission products and the decay products of radioactive strontium. Two radionuclides of yttrium occur in discharges to the Great Lakes, 90Yand 9'Y. The former has a very short half life, but the latter has a sufficiently long half-life to be of interest. Yttrium can accumulate in organisms, but the available data base is sparse; Cowgill's data are the most comprehensive. Yttrium's environmental cycling appears to follow its congener elements.

Lanthanum and Cerium: Lanthanum, although very toxic to aquatic biota, is detected in small amounts in aquatic biota along with other rare earth elements. Lanthanum phosphate, the compound expected in most fresh waters, is very insoluble, limiting its bioavailability. The decay of40Ba to 140La makes lanthanum of biological interest.

Cerium is the only other rare earth element besides lanthanum that is usually detected in biota. Cowgill's data probably form the most complete set on the stable forms of the element in freshwater biota. Cerium isotopes except 13'Ce, which is cosmogenic, are fission products and have been detected in Great Lakes waters. The two major radionuclides, I4'Ce and lUCe, usually appear in the aerosol content of gaseous emissions from nuclear power plants and occasionally in the liquid emissions. In nuclear fuel reprocessing operations, these radionuclides can appear equally likely in both gaseous and liquid emissions. Both isotopes were detected in the Great Lakes waters following the incident at Chernobyl.

Calcium appears to control the biological uptake of lanthanum ai~dcerium as well as other lanthanides. The mechanism is unclear. It may block uptake directly by a mechanism similar to the one for barium or indirectly because of the relationship with phosphorus. Where uptake occurs, the Task Force has no indication that radionuclides of other rare earth elements behave differently with respect to calcium, and thus further discussion of individual lanthanides does not appear warranted.

The Task Force derived bioaccumulation factors of 20,000 for both lanthanum and cerium in freshwater plants; biomagnification factors were 2.4 in zooplankton and insects for lanthanum and 1.0 in zooplankton and insects for cerium. Quadrivalent Elements

The quadrivalent elements are carbon, silicon, germanium, tin, and lead. Despite their common chemical grouping, their chemistry differs very markedly from element to element.

Carbon has already been discussed as 14C. Silicon bioaccumulates in some species as an essential element in the skeletal structure of diatoms and foraminifera, usually in the amorphous mineralogical form of opaline phytoliths. There is no indication that radioisotopes of silicon are emitted to the Great Lakes. The two cosmogenically produced radionuclides of silicon, 31Siand 32Si,have unknown impact on the Great Lakes. Germanium isotopes can result from fission, but the discharge of germanium to the Great Lakes is largely undocumented.

Radionuclides of lead result from the decay of transuranics. The long life of 210Pband the concern about lead as a toxicant and air pollutant have led researchers to study this element and this particular radionuclide intensively. Thus, the information bases on radionuclide and stable lead are rather large, but the biological data on the radionuclide form of lead is not very extensive.

-Tin

Tin is the most difficult quadrivalent element to consider. Very few data exist on its occurrence in aquatic systems and even less in biological compartments, Cowgill's data being the most comprehensive. Analytical methods to quantify tin in environmental media and substrates call for considerable skill and instrumental sophistication. The important radionuclides are113Sn(half-life: 115 days) and ll'"Sn (half- life: 14 days), and 12%n(half-life: 100,000 years). The first two radionuclides originate by fission and activation processes, the third by activation processes only. The first two have been occasionally documented in the Great Lakes, while third one has not, although its appearance would signal trouble. The activation sources are the zircalloy (a zirconium-tin alloy) cladding for nuclear fuel elements, making them important radionuclides from the nuclear fuel cycle. From the available data on tin levels in Great Lakes biota, the Task Force could not calculate a separate inventories for tin radioisotopes.

Quinquevalent Elements

The quinquevalent elements include arsenic, phosphorus, antimony, and bismuth. Transition quinquevalent elements are vanadium, niobium, and tantalum. Quadrivalent transition elements, specifically titanium, zirconium, and hafnium have biological characteristics that follow the quinquevalent elements. Data for biological uptake of antimony, bismuth, and tantalum are very rare or non-existent. Titanium and hafnium accumulate in plants, but there is no indication that their radionuclides are discharged to the Great Lakes. Titanium data assist in establishing inventories for many other elements including phosphorus, calcium, and the lanthanides.

Of all of the elements of the Periodic Table, phosphorus holds a special place in the limnology of the Great Lakes. Starting in 1972, the removal of phosphorus from point sources and its quantification and management in non-point sources and sediments has guided programs to control eutrophication (the proliferation of aquatic plants which are stimulated by excess or luxuriant levels of nutrients, mainly phosphorus) of the Great Lakes. The chemistry and biology of phosphorus in the Great Lakes is rather complex subject to understand, and the control of eutrophication in the Great Lakes, while highly successful, has not achieved results sufficient to reduce the current control programs. Phosphorus has two radioisotopes, both of which have cosmogenic as well as other sources. Although the isotopes have half-lives of the order of a few days to a few weeks, the chemical dynamics of phosphorus make all sources of phosphorus a special concern. Further, the early work on understanding the dynamics of phosphorus chemistry and biology in lakes used both of these isotopes as tracers.

In the section on sources of radioactivity, the data presented on secondary sources (e.g.,hospitals, university laboratories and reactors, commercial uses) indicated widespread use and discharge of both radioisotopes of phosphorus. For these reasons, phosphorus has received special attention in the Inventory of Radionuclides.

Zirconium and niobium

Zirconium and niobium are associated with the cladding material of fuel elements in nuclear power plants. Their radionuclides are both neutron activation and fission products. Radionuclides of zirconium, mainly 95Zr,occurred in the fallout from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons prior to 1963. Radionuclides of zirconium decay to radionuclides of niobium, and the combination 95ZrP5Nbsometimes appears as a single radionuclide in the emission reports of nuclear facilities. Bothg5Zr(half-life: 65 days) and 95Nb(half-life: 35 days) are of potential environmental concern. The radionuclideYg4Nb(half-life: 20,000 years), is one of the longest lived, but there are no indications that it is either discharged directly to the Great Lakes region or forms as a decay product of another radionuclide discharged to the Great Lakes. It has a very small fission yield and is included among the radionuclide inventories for spent nuclear fuel.

Both elements bioaccumulate. Cowgill's data are the most extensive and suggest niobium accumulates in plants more than zirconium. From the available data on zirconium and niobium levels in Great Lakes biota, the Task Force could not calculate separate inventories for their radioisotopes.

Vanadium

Vanadium accumulates. It is an essential micronutrient for certain plants and fungi. 50Vis a primordial radionuclide, and its inventory in biological tissue can be estimated by a similar procedure used for 40K.Other radionuclides of vanadium form as both fission and activation products. Recent interest in vanadium by a number of researchers has provided a data base on vanadium uptake in plants and animals that offers possibilities in producing inventories for the biological compartments. However, there is only limited indication that vanadium radionuclides are released to the Great Lakes, and the only inventory that can be calculated for a radioactive isotope of vanadium is for its primordial radionuclide50V by multiplying the vanadium level in biota by 0.0025. 4 CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Adequacy of Monitoring

The Task Force concludes that:

(1) Monitoring meets the needs of the relevant atomic energy acts in the United States and Canada but is not designed to look at environmental cycling of radionuclides.

(2) Quality Assurance Protocols are also designed for compliance monitoring. Therefore, it is not possible to tell if nuclear plant monitoring is satisfactory to assure meeting the goals and objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Discussions

The information base used to assemble the inventories, notably the emissions data from nuclear facilities, and the monitoring data off-site of the facility but keyed to activities of the facility, has many problems. The Task Force reviewed the actual monitoring protocols (i.e.,directives, instrumentation, sampling plans, chemical analysis techniques, station and monitoring site locations, quality assurance considerations, data reporting and statistical analysis procedures), and found the following:

(A) All monitoring has as its primary goal to show that a given nuclear facility complies with the health, safety, and environmental requirements of its facility license. In turn, the health, safety, and environmental requirements in the license are dictated by the atomic energy legislation of each country. Thus, the Task Force concluded that the current state of monitoring is that of compliance.

(B) The atomic energy legislation of each country prescribes a maximum annual allowable human exposure to radiation as the basis for setting the environmental monitoring requirements for each individual radionuclide. The use of dose assessment models translate this exposure criterion into allowable discharges of specific radionuclides and types of energy.

(C) The dose assessment models used to derive the allowable discharges have a very limited relationship to the cycling of radionuclides for development of an inventory. The models make assumptions about the distribution of the activity of a given radionuclide in different environmental compartments and the fraction of that radionuclide's activity which is taken up by biota and assimilated and retained as opposed to taken up and then released, excreted, or otherwise removed. The models also make specific assumptions about the transfer of radioactivity from retained radionuclides in other biological compartments and the movements of the radionuclides through various foodwebs. This includes direct uptake by humans through drinking water or through intermediate uptake and bioaccumulation through food species. (D) When monitoring environmental media, it is a particular characteristic of radionuclide measurements that the lower limit of detection for a given sample will depend on the amount of time lapsed between collection and analysis. This arises because the radioactivity in the sample continues to decay after sample collection, and all measured activities must be corrected back to the time of collection. Thus, the reported lower limits of detection may vary considerably from one laboratory to another, or even for measurements carried out in the same laboratory at different times after collection. For this reason it is not practical to use reported lower limits of detection in order to derive an upper bound for the radionuclide inventories in the Great Lakes, or in any environmental compartment within the lakes.

4.2 Need for a Reassessment of Environmental Monitoring of Nuclear Facilities to Support the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement

The comments on monitoring in the previous four items are generic and do address specific data problems associated with individual facilities in each country. These comments led the Task Force to conclude that:

(3) There is a strong need for a comprehensive review of all monitoring activities at nuclear facilities with a view toward making the monitoring more accommodating to the needs of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

(4) Since there are policy and fiscal implications to any likely expansion or adjustment of the monitoring efforts, the Task Force calls upon the relevant atomic energy and environmental agencies in each country to explore in great detail the kinds of monitoring needed and the changes to the current protocols.

4.3 Reporting

The Task Force concludes that:

(5) There are significant differences in the scope of data reporting and analysis of United States and Canadian nuclear power plant emissions.

(6) The monitoring for toxic chemicals used in large quantities at nuclear power plants needs to be included in analyses of their impact on the Great Lakes ecosystem

(7) The monitoring of radionuclides does not include the identification of radioactive forms of toxic chemicals.

(8) The details of United States data reporting are greater and more helpful for the purpose of ecosystem impact analysis than is Canadian reporting, but the United States data come in mixed formats, which make them difficult to organize. (9) Facilities in the United States have historically aggregated their data on an annual basis, but that the contract to continue this aggregation task has apparently been discontinued as a cost savings measure.

(10) The current biological monitoring and reporting is neither consistent nor adequate for lakewide assessments.

(1 1) Developing inventories for specific isotopes in biological compartments was a difficult task because no common reporting format for production/presentation of biological data is used.

Discussions

Conclusions 5 through 11 describe problems associated with using the specific data from individual nuclear facilities and associated monitoring sites. The conclusions address the scope of data collections, the completeness of such data collections from specific sites and facilities, the methods of reporting and aggregation of the data, and the problems of handling data from variable formats. In addressing these specific data issues, the Task Force noted the following important considerations:

(A) Since all of the Canadian nuclear power plant facilities belong to one corporate entity, the Canadian data are quite uniform in their scope, reporting, and formats. The United States nuclear power plant facilities, however, belong to some 15 different corporate entities. Thus, while the United States facilities report data that meet the requirements set by the (US) Nuclear Regulatory Commission, these data often vary in scope, reporting, and formats.

(B) To bring some semblance of order to the data fiom United States nuclear power plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had previously contracted with the Brookhaven National ~aboratorieito produce an annual document, which assembled in a standardized format the emissions data from United States nuclear power plants. These reports often appeared 3 years after the individual facilities reported their emissions for a given year and usually reflected the varying timetables and lag times in the submissions of data from the United States facilities. The termination of the Brookhaven contract in 1996 without a new contractual effort represents a serious reporting setback for those groups interested in the radionuclide emissions from United States nuclear power facilities.

(C) The Task Force noted that the United States reporting tends to include a far greater number of radionuclides than the Canadian reporting, although the Task Force could not always judge whether the more extensive reporting by United States sources is more comprehensive and useful than the Canadian reporting. The United States data often report radionuclides at extremely low levels, basically limits of detection. The uncertainties in the reported data may call into question the information value of reporting selected radionuclides in certain emissions at levels of detection. On the other hand, the aggregated reporting of these radionuclides at trace levels does reveal much about the performance of the nuclear reactors and allows for a better understanding of the relationship between a particular reactor technology and the generation of its nuclear waste products. (D) Biological data have multiple problems, ranging from sample descriptions to variable lower limits of the levels of detection of radionuclides. The latter problem has particularly troubled the Task Force, because for many radionuclides the lower limit changes with every sample even when the methodology and instrumentation do not change. This rather curious situation arises because of the need to back calculate and correct radionuclide data to the original time of sampling. Radioactivity continues to decay in a sample after collection and through the period of storage, analysis, and reporting. To place all measurements on a common basis, the radionuclide levels must be corrected to those at the time of sample collection.

(E) The large-scale use ofnonradioactive toxic chemicals at nuclear power plants is often overlooked in establishing toxic substances inventories and monitoring activities. Among the chemical problems are those related to weed control on roadways and fence areas in a facility and at its perimeter, calling for considerable use of herbicides and pesticides. Facilities with cooling towers require the use of antifouling agents, water softening agents, and a variety chemicals to maintain heat transfer surfaces at their highest heat exchange capacities. The corrosion and fouling of piping and cooling system components, including water intakes, has led to widespread use of anti-corrosion and fouling-control agents. The problems of the zebra mussel has led to increased use of chlorine as a decontaminating agent. How these chemicals behave in contact wi.th radioactivity is not assessed in any of the monitoring work.

4.4 Harmonization of Monitoring and Data Reporting

The Task Force concludes that:

(12) There is a need to harmonize the approaches used in the United States and Canada with respect to the scope of monitoring, the radionuclides reported, and the reporting of biological data. International cooperation among the nuclear agencies of both countries would accomplish much of this harmonization.

4.5 Biological Transfer Factors for Lake Systems

The Task Force concludes that:

(13) There is a special issue of reporting nuclear data, which applies specifically to the Great Lakes and has the implication of rendering incorrect some dose-assessment factors used in establishing the transfer of radionuclides from biota to humans in the region of interest. The issue relates to the transfer factors which estimate uptake of radionuclides in biota. These transfer factors traditionally have been derived from work done in rivers and oceans, rather than in freshwater lakes. The Task Force is concerned that the factors derived from riverine and oceanic systems are inappropriate for use in the Great Lakes. Discussion

In developing the inventory for radionuclides, the Task Force noted that the bioaccumulation, biomagnification, and transfer factors used to describe the cycling of radionuclides and their transfer along exposure pathways to biota, including humans, came from the long history of work done in the marine, estuarine, and river environments. This work stemmed from interests in the deposition of radionuclides in the oceans and the transport of radionuclides down rivers and estuaries from discharges to the oceans. The comparable studies for lakes were virtually non-existent. Yet for the Great Lakes, the need for transfer factors that describe lake environments is critical.

To what extent can one use riverine, estuarine, or oceanic data to infer lake situationsfor the cycling and transfer of radionuclides in environmental compartments? Where no data exist, it is the obvious approach.

But why bother to use marine data when lake data exist that can be used to develop the appropriate factors? The Task Force undertook such analysis after discovering the nuclear sciences literature was not extensive in its coverage of lake situations.

To those persons who believe that the oceanic work, excellent as it was, should be used for the Great Lakes without confirmation, the Task Force cites two examples: radionuclides of silver, specifically llO,"D"Ag,and radionuclides of lanthanide elements (rare earths). These radionuclides appear in the effluents of nuclear power plants from the Great Lakes.

Silver, in the presence of chloride (the main anionic constituent of estuaries and oceans) forms silver chloride (AgCl), a compound with such a low water solubility in water that it is a basis for the quantitative analysis of silver. To reverse the solubility requires a large quantity of either ammonia or cyanide ion, such levels in environment being toxic in their own right. Because of nitrogen limitations of marine and estuarine environments, ammonia would not be present in these environments unless a specific pollutant source were present or an unusual algal species dominated plankton production. In lakes and rivers, however, where chloride is low and nitrogen is rarely limited, the presence of the silver radionuclides in soluble ionic form is almost a given. Only soluble silver is subject to biouptake, and biouptake factors for silver in freshwater systems are as high as 100,000. However, factors for silver do not exist for freshwater biota, and thus the marine factors are the ones in use.

Rare earth elements (the lanthanides) have unusual biological uptake. Freshwater organisms can often selectively accumulate these elements, and except for yttrium, cerium, and lanthanum, and in a few instances europium, usually only the even atomic numbered elements accumulate in freshwater biota. Thus, it is not correct to assume that all lanthanides accumulate and to use the marine factors, which rarely discriminate among lanthanides, but rather use cerium and lanthanum as surrogates for all of the elements in this group. 4.6 Radionuclides of Concern

Based on the Task Force's studies, it concludes that:

(14) There are radionuclides that merit separate studies and further reporting because of the patterns of use and discharge; physical, chemical, and biological properties; and the special monitoring needs of lakes as opposed to estuaries, oceans, and rivers (these include tritium, carbon-14, iodine-129, isotopes of plutonium, and radium-226).

(15) There are other radionuclides that could be a potential concern in special situations: technetium 99, -99m; phosphorus-32; chromium-5 1; cesium- 134, - 137; cerium- 14 1, - 144; strontium-89, -90; iodine-125, -13 1; and cobalt-60. Discussions

The radionuclides listed in conclusion 14 are those which have exceptionally long half-lives, arise from both natural (cosmogenic and primordial) sources and some aspect of the nuclear he1 cycle, and present long-term toxicological and ecological problems. Except for14Cand '291, the isotopes are routinely monitored in the Great Lakes.

The isotopes listed in conclusion 15 occur often in the discharges of sources other than nuclear power plants as well as in some cases in various components of the nuclear fuel cycle. Under conditions of large-scale emission or abundance, they merit special monitoring studies. Y' Joel Fisher, Canadian Co-Chair U.S. Co-Chair

- I Rosalie Bertell Walter Carey

Robert Krauel V John Clark

Bliss Tracy v APPENDIX I

Bibliography

Adams, L.W., Peterle, T.J., and White, G.C. (1979) Tritium behaviour in aquatic plants and animals in a freshwater marsh; In: Behawiour of Tritium in the Environment. IAEA, Vienna. pp. 23 1-244.

Ahier, B.A., and Tracy, B.L. (1995) Radionuclides in the Great Lakes Basin; Environ. Health Perspect. 103(Suppl. 9): 89-1 0 1

Blaylock, B.G. (1982) Data bases available for bioaccumulation factors for freshwater biota; Nucl. Saf 23: 427-438.

Blaylock, B.G., and Frank, M.L. (1979) Distribution of tritium in a chronically contaminated lake; In: Behaviour of Tritium in the Environment; IAEA,Vienna. pp. 247-255.

Broecker, W.S. (1963) Radioisotopes and large-scale oceanic mixing; In: The Sea, Volume 2; M.N. Hill (ed.); Wiley; New York. p. 88.

Broecker, W.S., Gerard, R.D., Ewing M., and Heezen, B.C. (1960) Natural radiocarbon in the Atlantic Ocean; J. Geophys. Res. 65: 2903.

Chant, L.A., Workman, W.J.G., King, K.J., and Cornett, R.J. (1993) Tritium concentrations in Lake Ontario, AECL Research Report RC-1149; COG-93-484

Copeland M.A., Beath, R.H., and Prater, W.M. (1973) Trace Element Distributions in Lake Michigan Fish: Baseline Study with Calculations of Concentration Factors and Equilibrium Radioisotope Distributions, ERG Special report 2; Argonne National Laboratory

Cowgill, U.M. (1 970) The hydrogeochemistry of Linsley Pond, North Branford, Connecticut. I. Introduction, field work, and chemistry by X-ray emission spectroscopy; Arch. Hydrobiol. 68: 1-95.

Cowgill, U.M. (1973a) Biogeochemistry of rare-earth elements in aquatic macrophytes of Linsley Pond, North Branford, Connecticut; Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 37: 2329-2345. Cowgill, U.M. (1973b) Biogeochemical cycles for the chemical elements in Nymphaea odorata Ait. and the aphid Rhopalosiphum nymphaeae (L.) living in Linsley Pond; Sci. Total Environ. 2: 259-303.

Cowgill, U.M. (1 974b) The hydrogeochemistry of Linsley Pond. 11. The chemical composition of the aquatic macrophytes; Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 45: 1-1 19.

Cowgill, U.M. (1974b) The hydrogeochemistry of Linsley Pond. 111. The mineralology of the aquatic macrophytes; Arch. Hydrobiol. 74: 350-374.

Cowgill, U.M. (1 976) The chemical composition of two species of Daphnia, their algal food and their environment; Sci. Total Environ. 6: 79-1 02.

Cowgill, U.M., and Prance, G.T. (1982) Changes in the chemical composition during growth stages of Victoria amazonica (Poeppig) J. de C. Sowerby (V. regia Auctt.), Nymnphaeacea; Int. Rev. Gesamten Hydrobiol. 67:235-244

Cowgill, U.M., Emmel, H.W., Hopkins, D.L., Applegath, S.L., and Takahashi, L.T. (1986) The influence of water on reproductive success and chemical composition of laboratory reared populations of Daphnia magna; Water Res. 20: 3 17-323

Elliott, S.E.M., Burns-Flett, C., Hesslein, R.H., Brunskill G.J., and Lutz, A. (1981) Cesium- 137, radium-226, potassium-40 and selected stable elements in fish populations from Great Slave Lake (Northwest Territories), Louis Lake (Saskatchewan), Lake Winnipeg (Manitoba) and Experimental Lakes Area (Northwestern Ontario). Can. Data Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. No. 293. Department of Fisheries and Ocean, Winnipeg, Man.

Faw, R.E., and Shultis, J.K. (1993) Radiological assessment: sources and exposure; Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Hutchinson, G.E. (1 975) A Treatise on Limnology, Volume 3, Limnological Botany; Wiley-Interscience; New York.

International Atomic Energy Agency (1980) Radiological Signzjicance and Management of Tritium, Carbon-14, Krypton-85 and Iodine-I29 Arisingfrom the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, April 1980.

International Joint Commission (1 977) Great Lakes Water Quality 1977, Appendix D, Radioactivity Subcommittee Report; International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, Great Lakes Regional Office, Windsor, Ont.

International Joint Commission (1983) 1983 Report on GreatLakes Water Quality, Appendix on Radioactivity; International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, Great Lakes Regional Office, Windsor, Ont. International Joint Commission (1987a) Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978 as modified by the Protocol of 1987

International Joint Commission (19873) 1987 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, Appendix B; Great Lakes Surveillance; International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, D.E. Rathke and G. McRae (eds.), Section 5.3 "Radioactivity;" Great Lakes Regional Office, Windsor, Ont. pp. 5.3.1-5.3.43.

Joshi, S.R. (1984) '37Cs,226Ra and Total U in fish from Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron and Superior during 1976-1982; Water Pollut. Res. J Can. 19: 1 10-1 19.

Joshi, S.R. (1985) Recent sedimentation rates and 'lOPb fluxes in Georgian Bay and Lake Huron; Sci. Total Environ. 41: 219-233.

Joshi, S.R. (1986) Transport of West Valley Derived Radionuclides to Lake Ontario via the Niagara River; National Water Research Institute, Burlington, Ont.

Joshi, S.R. (1987) Early Canadian results on the long-range transport of Chernobyl radioactivity; Sci. Total Environ. 63: 125-137.

Joshi, S.R. (1988a) The fallout of Chernobyl radioactivity in Central Ontario, Canada; J Environ. Radioact. 6: 203-21 1.

Joshi, S.R. (19883) West Valley-derived radionuclides in the Niagara River area of Lake Ontario; Water Air Soil Pollut. 37: 111-120.

Joshi, S.R. (199 1) Radioactivity in the Great Lakes; Sci. Total Environ. 100: 61-104.

Kirchmann, R., Bonotto, S., Soman, S.D., Krishnamoorthy, T.M., Iyengar, T.S., and Moghissi, A.A. (1979) Transfer and incorporation of tritium in aquatic organisms. In: Behaviour of Tritium in the Environment; IAEA, Vienna. pp. 187-203.

Kolb, W. (1971) Tungsten- 18 1 and short-lived fission products in ground level air in North Germany and northern Norway; Nature (London), 232: 552-553.

Krauel, R., Weston, S., Boyd, D., and Andrews, D. (1990) Port Hope Harbour - Remedial Action Plan, Stage I: Environmental Conditions and Problem Definition; Port Hope Harbour RAP Team, Port Hope, Ont. Libby, W.F. (1958) Radioactive fallout; Bull. Schweiz. Akad. Med. Wiss. 14:309-347.

Mason, B. (1965) The Principles of Geochemistry, 3rd edition; Wiley, New York.

McKee, P.M., Hart, D.R., and Burt, A.J. (1985) Benthological, Chemical, Radiological and Chronological Evaluation of Sediments in Port Hope Harbour; Beak Consultants Ltd.

Mertz, W. (1967) Biological role of chromium; Fed. Proc. 26: 186-193.

National Council for Radiation Protection and Measurements (1975) Natural Background Radiation in the United States; NCRP Report 45.

New York State Department of Health (1983-1993) Annual Reports: Environmental Radiation in New York State

Price, N.M., and Morel, F.M.M. (1990) Cadmium and cobalt substitute for zinc in a marine diatom; Nature (London), 344: 658-660.

Reiter, E.R. (1975) Atmospheric Transport Processes, Part 4: Radioactive Tracers; Department of Energy Critical Review Series; United States Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

Rosenthal, G.M. and Stewart M.L. (1971) Tritium concentration in algae and transfer in simple aquatic food chains; In: Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on Radioecology, May 1971 ; Conference Document 6 1501-P, Volume 1. pp. 440444.

SENES Consultants Limited (1987) Environmental Assessment of the Port Hope Remedial Program. SENES Consultants Ltd., Toronto, Ont.

Tait, J.C., Gould, I.C., and Wilkin, G.B. (1980) Derivation of Initial Radionuclide Inventories for the Safety Assessment of the Disposal of Used CanduWFuel; Report AECL-988 1; Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Ottawa, Ont.

Teegarden, B.J. (1967) Cosmic-ray production of deuterium and tritium in the earth's atmosphere; J. Geophys. Res. 72: 4863-4868. United States Government 61 Federal Register 11620 (March 21, 1996) United States Government Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10 CFR 835 (1995) Occupational Radiation Protection

40 CFR 51 (1993) Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of Implementation Plans, as amended

UNSCEAR (1977) Sources, Effects and Risks of Radioactivity; Report to the UN General Assembly with Appendices; United Nations, New York.

UNSCEAR (1982) Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation; Report to the UN General Assembly with Appendices; United Nations, New York.

UNSCEAR (1988) Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation; Report to the UN General Assembly with Appendices; United Nations, New York.

UNSCEAR (1993) Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation; Report to the UN General Assembly with Appendices.; United Nations, New York.

Wahlgren, M.A., Robbins, J.A., and Edgington, D.N. (1980) Plutonium in the Great Lakes. In: Transuranic Elements in the Environment, W.C. Hanson (ed.); United States Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. pp. 659-683.

Yan, N.D., Mackie, G.L., and Boomer, D. (1989) Chemical and biological effects correlates of metal levels in crustacean zooplankton from Canadian Shield Lakes: a multivariate analysis; Sci. Total Environ. 87/88: 4 19458. APPENDIX II

Glossary

Absorbed dose: Energy deposited per unit mass when ionizing Anthropogenic: Made by humans. radiation passes through matter. Artificial radioactivity:. Man-made radioactivity produced by fission, Accelerator: A device for increasing the velocity and energy of fusion, particle bombardment, or electromagnetic irradiation. charged elementary particles, for example, electrons or protons, through application of electrical andlor magnetic forces. Atom: A particle of matter indivisible by chemical means. It is the Accelerators have made particles move at velocities approaching the fundamental building block of the chemical elements. Atoms are speed of -light. electrically neutral.

Actinides: A group of 15 elements with atomic number from 89 to Background radiation: The radiation naturally present in the 103 inclusive. All are radioactive and include thorium, uranium, environment. It includes both cosmic rays and radiation from naturally plutonium, and amercium. occurring radioactive materials contained in the earth and in living organisms. Activation: The process of making a material radioactive by bombardment with neutrons, protons, or other nuclear particles. Becquerel (symbol Bq): See "Activity" Also called radioactivation. Beta particle (symbol P): A particle emitted from a nucleus during a Activity: The rate at which spontaneous transformations occur in certain type of spontaneous transformation. It is physically identical to the nuclei of a collection of atoms. The fundamental unit is the an electron but may cany a positive or negative charge. It is somewhat becquerel (Bq). One Bq is equal to one transformation per second. more penetrating than an alpha particle but still represents a relatively A traditional unit, still in use, is the curie (Ci). One Ci is equal to minor risk when emitted from a source external to a living organism. 3.7 x 101° or 37,000,000,000 transformations per second. Bioaccumulation: The ability of an organism to build up concentrations Alpha particle (symbol a): A collection of four, primary nuclear of a chemical substance from its environment. particles, two protons and two neutrons. Its composition is identical to the nucleus of a helium atom. Its expulsion from a nucleus is one of several methods for accomplishing spontaneous nuclear transformation (also called "decay" or "disintegration"). It is the least penetrating of the three types of radiation commonly emitted from radioactive material has entered a living organism. Biological half-life: The time required for a biological system, such Committed Effective Dose: The effective dose that will be accumulated as a human or an animal, to eliminate, by natural processes, half the over a period of time following a single intake of radioactive material amount of a substance that has entered it. into the body. Standard periods of integration are 50 years for adults and 70 years for a lifetime exposure. Biomagnification: The tendency for the concentrations of a chemical substance in living organisms to increase as one moves Conversion: A step in the nuclear fuel cycle where uranium oxide further up the food chain. (UO,) is converted to uranium hexafluoride (UF,), to be used in subsequent enrichment of the 235 isotope of uranium. Biosphere: The biological components of the global ecosystems. Coolant: A substance circulated through a nuclear reactor to remove or Biota: Living organisms. transfer heat. Common coolants are water, air, carbon dioxide, liquid sodium, and sodium-potassium alloy. Biouptake: The uptake of substances by living organism from the environment. Cosmic rays: Radiation of many sorts but mostly atomic nuclei with very high energies, originating outside the earth's atmosphere. Cosmic Body burden: The amount of radioactive material present in the radiation is part of the natural background radiation. Some cosmic rays body of a man or an animal. are more energetic than any anthropogenic forms of radiation.

Boiling water reactor: A reactor in which water, used as both Cosmogenic: Secondary radionuclides produced by bombardment with , coolant and moderator, is allowed to boil in the core. The resulting primary cosmic rays, particularly in the upper atmosphere. 5 steam can be used directly to drive a turbine. ? Curie: see "Activity" Breeder reactor: A reactor that produces fissionable fuel as well as consuming it, especially one that creates more than it consumes. Decay: The process of spontaneous transformation of a radionuclide. The decrease in the activity of a radioactive substance. Cladding: The outer jacket of nuclear fuel elements. It prevents corrosion of the fuel and the release of fission products into the Decay Product: A radionuclide or radionuclide produced by decay. It coolant. Aluminium or its alloys, stainless steel, and zirconium may be formed directly from a radionuclide or as a result of a series of alloys are common cladding materials. successive decays through several radionuclides.

Collective Effective Dose: The quantity obtained by multiplying the Decommissioning: The act of removing a regulated facility from average effective dose or committed effective dose by the number of operation and operational regulation. This usually entails a certain persons exposed to a given radiation source (unit, person-sievert; amount of cleanup (decontamination). symbol, person Sv). Depleted uranium: Uranium having a smaller percentage of Electron volt (symbol eV): A unit of energy equivalent to the energy uranium-235 that the 0.7% found in natural uranium. It is obtained gained by an electron passing through a potential difference of one volt. fiom the residues of uranium isotope separation. It is used to quantify the amount of energy carried by all forms of ionizing radiation. Radiation emitted fiom nuclei during the process of Deuterium (symbol 'H or D): An isotope of hydrogen whose spontaneous transformation generally have energies in the range of ke~ nucleus contains one neutron and one proton and is therefore about (= 1,000 eV) or MeV (= 1,000,000 eV) twice as heavy as the nucleus of normal hydrogen, which is only a single proton. Deuterium is often referred to as heavy hydrogen; it Enrichment Factor: A ratio of activities or concentrations of an isotope occurs in nature as 1 atom to 6500 atoms of normal hydrogen. It is in two media relative to the ratio of a standard chemical in those media. nonradioactive. Equivalent Dose: The quantity obtained by multiplying the absorbed Diatoms: One-celled plants (algae) of the phylum Bacillerophyta dose by the appropriate radiation weighting factor to allow for the that have a silicon shell (frustule) that remains as a fossil after the different effectiveness of the various ionizing radiations causing fatal cell has died. cancers (unit, sievert; symbol, Sv).

Dose: see "Absorbed Dose" Fallout: Air-borne particles containing radioactive material that fall to the ground following a nuclear explosion. "Local fallout" fiom nuclear Ecosystem: The combination biological and non-biological detonations falls to the earth's surface within 24 hours after the interacting components that describe some system of interest. detonation. "Tropospheric fallout" consists of material injected into the , troposphere but not into the higher altitudes of the stratosphere. It does .+ Ecosystem Approach: The philosophy in the Great Lakes Water not fall out locally, but usually is deposited in relatively narrow bands Quality Agreement that guides the development of processes, around the earth at about the latitude of injection. "Stratospheric regulations, criteria, and objectives for programs and activities to fallout7' or "worldwide fallout" is that which is injected into the ., meet the goals of the Agreement. The approach emphasizes the stratosphere and which then falls out relatively slowly over much of the i: consideration of the effects and impacts of various activities and earth's surface. substances on all of the media and components of ecosystems in the Great Lakes. Fission: The splitting of a heavy nucleus into two approximately equal parts, accompanied by the release of a relatively large amount of energy Effective half-life: The time required for a radionuclide contained in and generally one or more neutrons. Fission can occur spontaneously, a biological system, such as a man or an animal, to reduce its but usually is caused by nuclear absorption of gamma rays, neutrons, or activity by half as a combined result of radioactive decay and other particles. biological elimination.

Electromagnetic radiation: Radiation consisting of associated and interacting electric and magnetic waves that travel at the speed of light. Examples are light, radio waves, gamma rays, and X-rays. All can be transmitted through a vacuum. Fission products: The nuclei formed by the fission of heavy Heavy-water-moderated reactor: A reactor that uses heavy water as its elements plus the radionuclides formed by the fission fragments' moderator. Heavy water is an excellent moderator and thus permits the radioactive decay. use of inexpensive natural uranium as a fuel.

Foraminifera: Marine microinvertebrates that have a silicon shell, Homeostasis (homeostatic): A group of closely spaced physiological which remains as a fossil after the animal has died. steady states for metabolic processes within which an organism, cell, tissue, or other biological components attempts to maintain itself for Fuel cycle: The series of steps involved in supplying fuel for optimum performance. nuclear power reactors. It includes mining, refming, the original fabrication of fuel elements, their use in a reactor, and radioactive Ion: An atom or molecule that has lost or gained one or more electrons. waste disposal. By this ionization it becomes electrically charged. Examples are an alpha particle, which is a helium atom minus two electrons, and a Gamma Rays (symbol y): Photons of electromagnetic radiation, proton, which is a hydrogen atom minus its electron. similar to X-rays. They are usually more energetic than X-rays and are emitted from nuclei during spontaneous transformation. Gamma Ion exchange: A chemical process involving the reversible interchange rays are very penetrating and are best shielded against by dense of various ions between a solution and a solid material, usually a plastic material such as lead. or a resin. It is used to separate and purify chemicals, such as fission products or rare earths, in solutions. Genetic effects of radiation: Radiation effects that be transferred +I from parent to offspring. Any radiation-caused changes in the Ionization: The process of adding one or more electrons to, or 0 genetic material of sex cells. removing one or more electrons from, atoms or molecules, thereby ';3 creating ions. High temperatures, electrical discharges, or nuclear Gray (symbol Gy): See "Absorbed dose" radiations can cause ionization.

Half-life (physical): The time in which half the atoms of a particular Ionizing radiation: Radiation capable of dislodging one or more radioactive substance disintegrate. Measured half-lives vary from electrons from atoms or molecules, thereby producing ions. Examples millionths of a second to billions of years. are alpha particles, beta particles, X-rays, and gamma rays.

Heavy water (symbol D,O): Water containing significantly more Isotope: Differing forms of a particular chemical element. The atoms than the natural proportion of heavy hydrogen atoms to ordinary of all forms will have the same number of protons in each nucleus and hydrogen atoms. Heavy water is used as a moderator in some the same number of electrons surrounding the nucleus. Hence, the reactors, because it slows down neutrons effectively and also has a chemical behaviour of all forms will be essentially identical. However, low cross section for absorption of neutrons. each version's nuclei will have a number of neutrons that is different from any other version. Thus, the isotopes (forms) of a particular element will have different physical properties, including the mass of its atoms and whether the nuclear structure of its atoms will retain its identity indefmitely (be "stable") or undergo spontaneous transformation at some future time (be "radioactive"). Limnology: The study of inland waters, lakes, and rivers. Nucleus: The small, positively charged core of an atom. It is only about 'I,,,,, the diameter of the atom but contains nearly all the atom's Lower Limit of Detection (symbol LLD): This is the lowest mass. All nuclei contain both protons and neutrons, except the nucleus concentration of radioactive material in a sample that can be of ordinary hydrogen, which consists of a single proton. detected at the 95% confidence level with a given analytical system. Radionuclide: A species of atom characterized by the constitution of its Macrophyte: Rooted aquatic plants. nucleus, which is specified by its atomic mass and atomic number (Z), or by its number of protons (Z), number of neutrons (N), and energy Moderator: A material, such as ordinary water, heavy water, or content. graphite, used in a reactor to slow down high-velocity neutrons, thus increasing the likelihood of further fission. Plutonium (symbol Pu): A heavy, metallic element with atomic number 94. An important isotope is Pu-239 produced by neutron irradiation of Natural radioactivity: The property of radioactivity exhibited by uranium-238. Plutonium is used in reactor fhel, weapons, and more than 50 naturally occurring radionuclides. specialized mobile power sources such as space probes and heart pacemakers. Neutron: An uncharged primary nuclear particle with a mass slightly greater than the other primary nuclear particle, the proton. Primordial: Present since the beginning of the earth. When emitted from a nucleus following a fission or other nuclear event, a neutron can cause ionization indirectly. A "free" neutron, Proton: An elementary particle with a single positive electrical charge , -. .=,: normally present in our environment, is unstable and exhibits a half and a mass approximately 1837 times that of the electron. The nucleus " + life of about 13 minutes. of an ordinary or light hydrogen atom. Protons are constituents of all ? nuclei. The atomic number (Z) of an atom is equal to the number of Non-ionizing radiation: Radiation that is not capable of dislodging protons in its nucleus. -. ...,,. ..~>. electrons from atoms or molecules (see ionizing radiation). - .. Examples of non-ionizing radiation are radio waves, microwaves, Quality factor (QF): A factor by which an absorbed dose is multiplied and light. to more closely correspond to a biological effect produced. Dose (Gy) x QF = Dose Equivalent (Sv). Nuclear Reactor: A device in which a fission chain reaction can be initiated, maintained, and controlled. Its essential component is a Rad: The traditional unit of absorbed dose of ionizing radiation. A core with fissionable fuel. It usually has a moderator, a reflector, dose of one rad results from the absorption of 100 ergs of energy per shielding, coolant, and control mechanisms. gram of material. It has been supplanted by the gray (Gy) which is equal to one joulekilogram. Nuclear Fission: The process in which a nucleus splits into two or more nuclei and energy is released. Radiation: The emission and propagation of energy through matter Radium (symbol Ra): A radioactive metallic element with atomic or space by means of electromagnetic disturbances, which display number 88. As found in nature, the most common isotope has an both wave-like and particle-like behaviour; in this context the atomic weight of 226. It occurs in minute quantities associated with "particles" are known as photons. Also, the energy so propagated. uranium in pitchblende, carnotite, and other minerals; the uranium The term has been extended to include streams of fast-moving decays to radium in a series of alpha and beta emissions. By virtue of particles. Nuclear radiation is that emitted from atomic nuclei in being an alpha- and gamma-emitter, radium is used as a source of various nuclear reactions, including alpha, beta, and gamma luminescence and as a radiation source in medicine and radiography. radiation and neutrons. Radon (symbol Rn): A radioactive element, the heaviest of the noble or Radioactive Fallout: Radioactive materials deposited from the inert gases known. Its atomic number is 86, and it atomic weight is atmosphere. 222. It is a progeny of radium in the uranium radioactive series.

Radioactive series: A succession of radionuclides, each of which Rem: A traditional unit of dose equivalent obtained by multiplying the transforms by radioactive disintegration into the next until a stable absorbed dose in rad by the appropriate quality factor and any other radionuclide results. The first member is called the parent, the necessary modifying factors. The rem has been superseded by the intermediate members are called progeny, and the fmal stable seivert (Sv). member is called the end product. Reprocessing: The extraction of usehl fissionable materials from spent reactive fuel rods. Radioactive decay: The spontaneous transformation of one I radionuclide into a different radionuclide or into a different energy CI state of the same radionuclide. The process results in a decrease, SI units: The International System of Units as defined by the General g with time, of the number of the original radioactive atoms in a Conference of Weights and Measures in 1960. These units are sample. It involves the emission fiom the nucleus of alpha particles, generally based on the metre/kilogram/second units, with special beta particles, or gamma rays; as the nuclear capture or ejection of quantities for radiation including the becquerel, gray, and sievert. orbital electrons; or fission. Sievert: The SI unit of dose equivalent. It is equal to the absorbed dose Radioactivity: See "Activity." in gray (Gy) times the appropriate quality factor (QF) times any other necessary modifying factors. One sievert (Sv) is equal to 100 rem. Radioisotope: An unstable isotope (version) of a chemical element. Nuclei of atoms of such an isotope undergo spontaneous Spallation: The splitting off of small fragments fiom a nucleus under transformation and emit radiation. bombardment by high-energy particles.

Spontaneous Fission: The spontaneous splitting of a nucleus.

Stable Nuclei: The nuclei of a non-radioactive substance. Tailings: Waste material remaining after a useful substance has Uranium Series: The series of radionuclides resulting from the been extracted from a mineral ore. radioactive decay of uranium-238, also known as the uranium-radium series. The end product of the series is lead-206. Many anthropogenic Technologically enhanced: Refers to a situation where the radionuclides decay into this sequence. concentrations of naturally-occurring radionuclides, in environmental media are increased as a result of human activities, Uranium (symbol U): A radioactive element with the atomic number 92 e.g., the mining and milling of mineral ores containing radioactive and, as found in natural ores, an average atomic weight of substances. approximately 238. The two principal natural isotopes are uranium-235 (0.7% of natural uranium), which is fissionable, and uranium-238 Terrestrial Sources: Natural radiation sources in the earth's crust or (99.3% of natural uranium). Natural uranium also includes a minute biosphere, as opposed to sources fiom space. amount or uranium-234. Uranium is the basic raw material of nuclear energy. Thorium series (sequence): The series of radionuclides resulting from the radioactive decay of thorium-232. Many anthropogenic X-rays: A penetrating form of electromagnetic radiation emitted either radionuclides decay into this sequence. The end product of this when the orbital electrons of an excited atom return to their normal state sequence in nature is lead-208. or when a target is bombarded with high-speed electrons. X-rays are always non-nuclear in origin. Thorium (symbol Th): A naturally radioactive element with atomic number 90 and, as found in nature, an atomic weights of approximately 232. The thorium-232 isotope is abundant and can be transmitted to fissionable uranium-233 by neutron irradiation. Transfer Factor: The ratio at equilibrium of the concentration of a' chemical substance in one biological compartment to that in another biological compartment.

Transuranic element: An element beyond uranium in the Periodic Table, that is, with an atomic number greater than 92. All 11 transuranic elements are produced artificially and are radioactive. They are neptunium, plutonium, americium, curium, berkelium, californium, einsteinium, fermium, mendelevium, nobelium, and lawrencium.

Tritium: A radioactive isotope of hydrogen with two neutrons and one proton in the nucleus. It is both naturally occurring and produced in nuclear reactors. It is used in weapons, biomedical research, and in self-illuminating devices. It has a physical half-life of 12.33 years. See tritium terminology Text Box. APPENDIX Ill

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AECB: Atomic Energy Control Board (Canada) IJC: International Joint Commission

BEIR: National Research Council's Committees on LLD: Lower Limit of Detection Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (United States) LWR: Light Water Reactor BWR: Boiling Water Reactor NCRP: National Council On Radiation Protection (United CAMECO: CAnadian Mining and Energy Company States)

CANDU: CANadian Deuterium Uranium refers to the NRC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (United States) Canadian design of a nuclear power reactor, which utilizes natural uranium fuel and heavy water moderator. NYSERDA: New Yark State Energy Research and Development Agency DOE: Department of Energy (United States) PWR: Pressurized Water Reactor EPA: Environmental Protection Agency (United States) QF: Quality Factor FBR: Fast-Breeder Reactor TBT: Tissue Bound Tritium GCR: Gas-Cooled Reactor TENR: Technologically Enhanced Natural Radioactivity 1 GLWQB: Great Lakes Water Quality Board UNSCEAR: United National Scientific Committee on the HTO: tritiated water (Hydrogen - Tritium - Oxygen) Effects of Atomic Radiation publishes periodic reports on sources and effects of ionizing radiation. HWR: Heavy Water Reactor

IAEA: International Atomic Energy Agency

ICRP: International Commission for Radiation Protection Elements Units of Measurement

Ac, actinium; Ag, silver; Al, aluminum; Am, americium; Bq, becquerel; mBq, millibecquerel (lo-' Bq); Ar, argon; kBq, kilobecquerel (lo3Bq); MBq, megabecquerel B, boron; Ba, barium; Be, beryllium; Bi, bismuth; (lo6Bq); GBq, gigabecquerel (logBq); Br, bromine; TBq, terabecq~erel(10~~Bq); PBq, petabecquerel C, carbon; Ca, calcium; Cd, cadmium; Ce, cerium; Bq); C1, chlorine; Co, cobalt; Cr, chromium; Cs, cesium; Cu, copper; Ci, curie; nCi, nanocurie (lo-' Ci); pCi, microcurie (lo4 Ci); F, fluorine; Fe, iron; Fr, francium; MCi, megacuries (lo6Ci) Gd, gadolinium; H, hydrogen; He, helium; Hf, hafnium; dpm, disintegrations per minute I, iodine; In, indium; K, potassium; Kr, krypton; eV, electron volts; keV; kiloelectron volt (lo3 eV) ; La, lanthanum; Lu, lutetium; MeV, megaelectron volt (1 O6 eV) Mg, magnesium; Mn, manganese; Mo, molybdenum; N, nitrogen; Na, sodium; Nb, niobium; Nd, neodymium; g, gram; pg, microgram (lo4 g); mg, milligram (lo-' g); Np, neptunium; kg, kilogram (10' g) 0, oxygen; P, phosphorus; Pa, protractinium; Pb, lead; Pd, palladium; Po, polonium; Pt, platinum; Pu, plutonium; Ra, radium; Rb, rubidium; Re, rhenium; Rn, radon; ha, hectare Ru, ruthenium; S, sulfur; Sb, antimony; Sc, scandium; Se, selenium; hr, hour Si, silicon; Sm, samarium; Sn, tin; Sr, strontium; Ta, tantalum; Tc, technetium; Te, tellurium; Th, thorium; L, litre; mL, millilitre (lo" L) Tl, thalium; U, uranium; mymetre; cm, centimetre (lo-' m); km, kilometre (lo3m) V, vanadium; Xe, xenon; s, second Y, yttrium; Yb, ytterbium; Zn, zinc; Zr, zirconium. Sv, sievert; mSv, millisievert Sv)

v, volts

W, watt; MW, megawatt (1O6 W); GW, gigawatt (lo9W) APPENDIX IV

Terms of Reference: Nuclear Task Force

The International Joint Commission (Commission) has authorized a 'Nuclear Task Force" to review, assess and report on the state of radioactivity in the Great Lakes and to carry out such other activities as the Commission may, in future, so direct.

(I) The name of the Task Force shall be the Nuclear Task Force.

(2) The Task Force shall undertake, as its initial project, a review and assessment of the status of radioactivity in the Great Lakes. This project is to be completed in connection with the current biennial Great Lakes reporting cycle. A report of this work shall be available along with the other reports at the Great Lakes Biennial Meeting. The Commission may or may not require that similar reports be prepared for subsequent Great Lakes Biennial Meetings.

(3) The Task Force shall propose such additional projects as it deems important, based in part on the following criteria:

(a) Work performed on the State of Radioactivity in the Great Lakes Report. This report shall be the principal vehicle upon which to base recommendations for projects since the report has as one of its production objectives the prioritization of nuclear problems in the Great Lakes requiring analysis and remediation.

(b) Concerns of the Commissioners.

(c) Problems brought to the attention of the Task Force by its Members, Associates, and others in the course of its work.

(4) The Task Force shall make its first official recommendation of additional projects upon the completion of work for its first assessment of the state of radioactivity in the lakes.

(5) The Nuclear Task Force shall undertake such other projects as the Commission directs.

(6) The Task Force shall seek from the Commission directly whatever resources and funds are needed for specific projects and support. (7) The Task Force shall consist of, at most, six 'Members' chosen from staff of the the United States and Canadian Sections and of the Regional Office and from the Water Quality Board, the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, and the Council of Great Lakes Research Managers. In addition, the Task Force shall utilize the services of 'Associates', who are specialists in a variety of nuclear issues and who can provide assistance, support, analysis, information, data and appropriate liaison to groups outside of the Commission. There are no restrictions on the number of Associates. All members and Associates shall receive letters of appointment which specify their status and responsibilities.

(8) Members shall direct the work of the Task Force, be responsible for the production of its reports, and for the presentation of reports and views of the Task Force. Associates shall support the work of the Task Force, but will not ordinhily be called upon to present their views or the views of the Task Force to the Commission.

(9) The Commission shall appoint two co-chairs of the Nuclear Task Force and will approve associate members.

(10) The Task Force may establish whatever subgroups it deems necessary for its work. A subgroup shall be chaired by a Member.

(1 1) The Task Force shall report directly to the Commission.

(12) The Task Force will be sunsetted in five years.

(1 3) The start date of the Task Force was December 1994. Membership of the Nuclear Task Force

DR. MURRAYCLAMEN, CO-CHAIR, CANADIAN SECTION, INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION Dr. Clamen is Secretary of the Canadian Section of the International Joint Commission (IJC) and is responsible for the day-to-day operations and management of the Section. A registered professional engineer, his expertise is in international water resource studies and environmental assessments. His career has included experience in the private sector with consulting engineering and research firms in Quebec and British Columbia and a total of 20 years in the Federal Public Service; 17 years with the IJC, and three with Environment Canada. At the IJC he has provided technical and policy advice to the Commissioners on a wide range of transboundary issues and participated in numerous Canada1U.S. studies and assessments.

DR.JOEL FISHER, CO-CHAIR, US SECTION,INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION Dr. Fisher's environmental work began in the military service where he worked on programs to dissemble, disarm and dispose of nuclear and chemical munitions. Later at the United States Environmental Protection Agency he worked for several years on programs which addressed the environmental fate and behaviour of pollutants in the emissions from fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. At the International Joint Commission, he advises on the problems of environmental fate and behaviour of pollutants which have transboundary implications.

DR. ROSALIEBERTELL, GNSH, INTERNATIONALINSTITUTE OF CONCERNFOR PUBLICHEALTH Dr. Bertell has worked professionally in Environmental Epidemiology since 1968, serves on the Advisory Boards for the Great Lakes Health Effects Program of Health Canada, and the Ontario Environmental Assessment Board and has been a member of the IJC Science Advisory Board. She has published a Handbook for Estimating the Health EfSects of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation and the popular non-fiction book: No Immediate Danger: Prognosisfor a Radioactive Earth, together with more than 100 other publications.

DR. BLISSTRACY, HEALTH CANADA Dr. Tracy heads a group on radiological impact at the Radiation Protection Bureau. He has carried out a number of research projects on environmental radioactivity including the uptake of radiocesium in Arctic food chains, uranium uptake and metabolism in humans, and radioactivity in Great Lakes ecosystems. Dr. Tracy provides advice regularly toward environmental impact assessments of nuclear and radioactive waste disposal facilities. He is also involved in planning for the Federal Nuclear Emergency Plan and is contributing to the design of an international monitoring system for verification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

RIR. ROBERTKRAUEL, ENVIRONMENT CANADA Mr. Krauel is manager of the Environmental Contaminants and Nuclear Programs Division in Environment Canada's Ontario Regional Office. Mr. Krauel has been Coordinator of the Federal - Provincial Remedial Action Plan Team for Port Hope Harbour. He has participated in several environmental assessment reviews related to the nuclear industry, including uranium mine decommissioning, low level radioactive waste management, and uranium refining and conversion. DR.WALTER CAREY, OHIO STATEUNIVERSITY Dr. Carey is a private consultant and a Certified Health Physicist. During 35 years at the Ohio State University, he taught courses on Zoology and Nuclear Engineering. He also served as the original Director of the Nuclear Reactor Laboratory and later as the University's Radiation Council, and is the Chair of the Council's Radiation Protection Standards Committee. He is a Diplomat of the American Academy of Health Physics, a member of Sigma Xi and an Emeritus Member of the American Nuclear Society.

DR. JOHNCLARK, REGIONAL OFFICE, INTERNATIONALJOINT COMMISSION Dr. Clark received a doctorate in Environmental Health from the University of Cincinnati in 1970. Prior to joining the Commission's staff in 1974 he served as a Public Health Analyst and as a Statistician with the United States Public Health Service. Radionuclides in the Great Lakes Basin are well below levels that would result in immediate harm. Brian A. Ahier and Bliss L. Tracy The Great Lakes basin is an area of radiologic interest due to both actual and Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada potential exposures that may be received by its large population. Comprising one of The Great Lakes basin is of radiologic interest due to the large population within its boundaries that the world's largest sources of freshwater may be exposed to various sources of ionizing radiation. Specific radionuclides of interest in the and supporting a population of over 36 basin arising from natural and artificial sources include 3H, 14C, 90Sr, 1291, 1311, 137Cs, 222Rn, 226Ra, million residents, the basin is unique in 235U, 238U, 239Pu, and 241Am. The greatest contribution to total radiation exposure is the natural that it contains nearly all components of background radiation that provides an average dose of about 2.6 mSvtyear to all basin residents. the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium min- Global fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted before 1963 has resulted in ing to radioactive waste management, as the largest input of anthropogenic radioactivity into the lakes. Of increasing importance is the shown in Figure 1 (1,2). There are radionuclide input from the various components of the nuclear fuel cycle. Although the dose from presently 16 operational nuclear generat- these activities is currently very low, it is expected to increase if there is continued growth of the ing stations located on the shores of Lakes nuclear industry. In spite of strict regulations on design and operation of nuclear power facilities, Huron, Michigan, Erie, and Ontario, the potential exists for a serious accident as a result of the large inventories of radionuclides with contained in the reactor cores; however, these risks are several orders of magnitude less than a total installed electrical generating capac- the risks from other natural and man-made hazards. An area of major priority over the next few ity of 27,000 megawatts (MW). As a result decades will be the management of the substantial amounts of radioactive waste generated by of the large inventories of radioactive nuclear fuel cycle activities. Based on derived risk coefficients, the theoretical incidence of fatal material at these facilities, there is a poten- and weighted nonfatal cancers and hereditary defects in the basin's population, attributable to 50 tial for a significant accidental release of years of exposure to natural background radiation, is conservatively estimated to be of the order radionuclides into the environment. of 3.4x105 cases. The total number of attributable health effects to the year 2050 from fallout Although the probability of such an occur- radionuclides in the Great Lakes basin is of the order of 5.0x103. In contrast, estimates of rence is extremely small, the health, social, attributable health effects from 50 years of exposure to current nuclear fuel cycle effluent in the and economic consequences could be basin are of the order of 2 x 1 2. Although these are hypothetical risks, they show that the radio- significant; this requires consideration in logic impact of man-made sources is very small compared to the effects of normal background radiologic assessments of the basin's envi- radiation. Environ Health Perspect 1 03(Suppl 9):89-101 (1995) ronment. In addition, accidents at nuclear Key words: dose, fallout, Great Lakes, nuclear power, radioactivity, risk installations situated beyond the Great Lakes have the potential for contamination of the basin as a result of long-range atmospheric transport. Introduction July 1945 by the first successful test of an Sources Before human exposure to atomic 1942, ionizing bomb. Since then, the uses of Natul radiation was limited to natural radioactivity nuclear energy have become more diverse Radioactivity and medical diagnosis. In December 1942, and widespread, encompassing medical By far, the greatest contribution to the the first controlled, self-sustaining nuclear diagnosis and treatment, nuclear power, average public radiation exposure comes chain reaction was achieved, followed in and consumer and industrial applications. from radioactive elements in the earth's These applications, however, release radioac- crust and from cosmic radiation originat- tivity into the global ecosystem and have ing in deep space. Natural sources con- This paper was prepared for the Great Lakes Health added to the levels of existing natural radia- tribute on average more than 98% of the Effects Program which is part of a Canadian tion, provoking concern over the possible human radiation dose, excluding medical Department of Health Initiative established in 1989. health effects associated with increased exposures (3). The global average dose from Manuscript received 11 November 1994; manuscript accepted 9 March 1995. radiation exposure. natural sources as estimated by the United The authors wish to thank E.G. L6tourneau, B. Radionuclides present in the biosphere, Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects Welsh, and P. Waight for reviewing and providing whether natural or artificial in origin, ulti- of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) (4) is comments on this document. Address correspondence to Brian A. Ahier, mately result in irradiation of human pop- about 2.4 mSv/year, which can be com- Radiation Protection Bureau, Health Canada, 775 ulations. The biologic consequences of pared with the National Council on Brookfield Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KlAlCl. ionizing radiation exposure involve tissue Radiation Protection and Measurements Telephone: (613) 954-6674. Fax: (613) 957-1089. E- mail: [email protected] damage and can cause immediate physio- estimate of 2.6 mSv/year for Canada (5). Abbreviations used: AECB, Atomic Energy Control logic harm within a few days or weeks fol- Exposure is both external, from direct cos- Board, Canada; CANDU, Canada Deuterium Uranium; lowing a large, acute individual dose or mic and terrestrial radiation, and internal, ICRP, International Commission on Radiological the most Protection; NCRP, National Council on Radiation delayed effects, important of from inhalation and ingestion of terrestrial Protection and Measurements; UNSCEAR, United which is the development of various can- and cosmogenic radionuclides found in air, Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of cers after an extended latent period fol- water, food, and soil. Atomic Radiation; WHO, World Health Organization; lowing low, chronic exposures. Doses Terrestrial radiation exposure originates Bq, becquerel; GW, gigawatt; MW, megawatt [MW(e) denotes electrical power output]; Sv, Sievert; received from natural radioactivity and from the primordial radionuclides, whose tl)2, radioactive half-life. routine exposures from regulated practices half-lives are comparable to the age of the

Environmental Health Perspectives Vol 103, Supplement 9 * December 1995 89 AHIER AND TRACY

approximately 1.6 mSv, of which about 1.1 mSv results from the inhaled radon decay products. Actual individual expo- sures to background radioactivity in air, food, and water are, however, highly vari- able and depend on numerous factors including the amount, type, and availabil- ity of the radionuclide in the environment and the amount inhaled or ingested by the individual. Average exposure of the popu- lation in Canada and the United States from various sources of natural radiation is provided in Table 1 (5). AtmosphericWeapons FalIout In addition to the natural background radiation, nuclear technologies over the past 50 years have introduced significant quantities of artificial radionuclides into the global environment. The majority Qf these radionuclides have come from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted in the 10- year period immediately before the 1963 limited test ban treaty, although additional tests have taken place since then by nonsignatory nations. Radionuclides pro- Figure 1. Nuclear fuel cycle facilities in the Great Lakes basin. Data from the International Joint Commission (1) duced by these tests have been distributed and Joshi (2). globally, with the maximum time-integrated weapons fallout per unit area occurring in earth, and the secondary radionuclides pro- produced in the atmosphere by the the North Temperate Zone (40°-50°N), duced by their radioactive decay. The natu- interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric which encompasses the Great Lakes basin. rally occurring radionuclides include argon, oxygen, and nitrogen. Cosmogenic Weapons fallout is the principal source of mainly 40K, and the three radioactive decay radionuclides reach the earth through radionuclides in the basin. Although contin- chains originating with 238U, 232Th, and atmospheric mixing, precipitation scaveng- ued underground weapons testing has 235U. These radionuclides are ubiquitously ing, and gravitational settling; exposures resulted in occasional venting of radioactive present in low concentrations in soil and result primarily from ingestion and are rela- material to the atmosphere, the impact of water as a result of weathering and erosion tively constant throughout the world. The these tests on environmental fallout levels of rock. The isotopic abundance of 40K in four radionuclides that contribute a measur- has been insignificant (4). natural potassium is only about 0.012%, able dose to humans are 14C, 3H, 22Na, and Of the many radionuclides produced but because potassium is widespread and is 7Be, on the order of 12 pSv annually, but by nuclear detonations, 3H, 14C, 90Sr, and taken into the body as an essential element, the greatest contribution to this dose is from 137Cs have received the greatest attention it contributes on average about one-tenth of 14C since it is a relatively long-lived in environmental monitoring programs, the internal dose from natural radiation radionuclide and a major constituent in having been measured in air, water, soil, (4). Another major exposure pathway to body tissue (4). and food products. Other radionuclides natural radiation results from the decay of The annual average contribution due to include 95Zr, 95Nb, 106Ru 131, 144Ce, 226Ra in the 238U series. This decay results all internally deposited radionuclides is 239,240pu, 241Pu, and 241Arn. Estimates of in the formation of gaseous 222Rn, which can enter the atmosphere through emana- Table 1. Summary of total effective dose rates from various sources of natural background radiation in Canada tion from soil and building materials. The and the United States. principal sources of internal exposure, and a Total effective dose rate, mSv/year major component of total background radi- Bone Bone Other ation exposure, are the rapidly decaying Source Lung Gonads surfaces marrow tissue Total formed as a result of succes- radionuclides Cosmic radiation 0.03 0.07 0.008 0.03 0.13 0.27 sive decays of 222Rn. Exposure occurs when Cosmogenic nuclides 0.001 0.002 - 0.004 0.003 0.01 these radionuclides, namely 218po, 214Pb, External terrestrial 0.03 0.07 0.008 0.03 0.14 0.28 214Bi, and 214po, are inhaled and retained Inhaled nuclides 2.0 - 2.0 in the lungs. Nuclides in body 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.17 0.40 Additional but minor contributions to Totals (rounded) 2.1 0.23 0.05 0.12 0.44 3.0a exposure come from the remaining non- 'The effective dose rates for Canada are about 20% lower for the terrestrial and inhaled components; the average series primordial radionuclides, primarily effective dose rate in Canada from natural radiation is 2.6 mSv/year. Data from the National Council on Radiation 87Rb (5), and cosmogenic radionuclides Protection and Measurements (5).

90 Environmental Health Perspectives - Vol 103. Supplement 9 * December 1995 RADIONUCLIDES IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN

the 1983 inventory of fallout 3H, 90Sr, and Table 2. Inventory of radionuclides in the Great Lakes from fallout to 1983, nuclear facility releases, and 1989 137Cs in the lakes are shown in Table 2 inventories stored at the facilities. (2). Annual measurements of gross beta Estimated radionuclide inputs and inventories by lake, TBq radioactivity from fallout in air and precip- Radionuclide Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario itation at Canadian monitoring sites Tritium around the lakes are shown in Figure 2 Fallouta 7x104 6x104 7x104 4x104 3x104 (6,7). Measurements of fallout 90Sr and Nuclearfacilities 2x1032 1.5x104 2X102 5x102 137Cs in milk samples from regions around Strontium-90 these sites are shown in Figure 3. These Fallouta 123 98 98 45 33 decreasing values are similar to the national Nuclear facilities 0.015 0.11 1.5 0.15 Storedatfacilities - 5x106 3.5x106 6x105 4X106 averages for Canada. Cesium-1 37 The total dose that will be received by Fallouta 200 159 159 74 54 individuals in the North Temperate Zone Nuclear facilities 9 0.12 0.2 25 during the first 100 years following the initi- Stored at facilities 8 x 106 5x106 7x 105 7x 106 ation of nuclear weapons testing, for all TBq, terabecquerels. 'Input from fallout was calculated by Joshi (2) using deposition flux at mid-basin location for atmospheric detonations conducted between each lake using New York City data and adjusting for latitude. 1945 to 1980, is estimated to be about 1.9 mSv (4). Although this dose represents only 5% of the committed dose from long-lived 14C, all other fallout radionuclides will have delivered almost all of their dose during this Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario period. In addition, the truncated dose pro- Thunder Bay, Ontario vides a measure of the radiation hazard ------Toronto, Ontario presented to those living during the period ------Windsor, Ontario of intensive testing before 1963 and is equiv- 14 National average alent to slightly less than 1 extra year of exposure to natural background radiation.

Nudear Fuel Cycle co Precipitation, Bq/m2 Increases in local exposures above natural Coa background levels may result from radionuclides released during the various 0. stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. Nearly all C.,c0 components of the nuclear fuel cycle are 0. found within the basin, the main elements 102 ofwhich are uranium mining, fuel prepara- .,0 tion, reactor operations, fuel reprocessing, Co and waste management. Currently, fuel ~0cB reprocessing is not conducted in the basin, a was in at West C,,co although facility operation .0 lo0 Valley, New York, from 1966 to 1972. .0 Three categories of radionuclides are CD associated with the fuel cycle phases: 238U and 232Th decay series radionuclides that Air, mBq/m3 are released in uranium mining and milling operations, which enhance the levels of 100 natural terrestrial radionuclides; radioactive fission products and actinides produced in the nuclear fuel during normal reactor Last atmospheric detonation by a treaty signatory operation; and those produced by neutron absorption in structural and fuel-cladding lo-0 - I -I materials during reactor operation. The 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 impact of normal fuel cycle effluent on the basin ecosystem is small; however, the con- Figure 2. Gross beta radioactivity in precipitation and air. Annual averages at basin stations and national averages sequence of a large-scale accidental dis- for Canada from 1959 to 1990. Data from Health Canada (6). charge of radioactivity from an operating nuclear reactor or storage facility, though extremely unlikely, must be considered in a Great Lakes basin are situated in Canada. the North Channel of Lake Huron in the radiologic assessment ofthe basin. At present, there are four active uranium Elliot Lake area (Figure 1). Eleven other Uranium Mining Activities. All mine, mill, and tailings, management areas, mine-and mill operations in the Serpent uranium mining and milling activities in the all located in the Serpent River basin on River, Espanola, and Bancroft regions of

Environmental Health Perspectives * Vol 103, Supplement 9 * December 1995 91 AJ-IIER AND TRACY

lo, Fuel Preparation. Preparation of fuel for nuclear power generation includes purification and conversion of the yellow- cake concentrate to U03 or UF6, isotopic enrichment in 235U if required, and fabri- "Sr cation into reactor fuel elements. All fuel l o, preparation facilities in the Great Lakes 5o basin are located in Ontario, with various activities distributed between Blind River, .~2 Port Hope, Toronto, and Peterborough. The principal waste generated by the 1lo,l02 ,-70-- conversion process is the raffinate from sol- vent extraction, although smaller quantities of uranium dust are released to the atmos- phere. The main radioactive constituents are unrecovered 235U, 232Th, and 226Ra, the latter which was discharged at a rate of lo,- lo0 about 48 GBq/year from the Port Hope Sault Ste. Marie, Ontariio refinery before its relocation to Blind Thunder Bay, Ontario River, Ontario, in 1983. This can be com------Toronto, Ontario pared with the discharge of 90 GBq/day in ------Windsor, Ontario the tailings of a single mill (11). Estimates * National average of airborne uranium emissions from UF6 0r production at Port Hope ranged from 252 E kg in 1986 to 57 kg in 1989; quantities in liquid effluent ranged from 432 kg in 1986 _ to 65 kg in 1990 (12). Radionuclide co0 releases from fuel fabrication facilities are c0 small, with annual emissions to air from a co 102 400 tons/year plant estimated to be about 0.52 GBq/year, equivalent to 3.5 kg/year of natural uranium (11). Nuclear Power Generation. The first nuclear power reactor in the Great Lakes basin began operations in 1963 at in,IV 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 Charlevoix, Michigan; in 1966, the first Canadian reactor at Douglas Point, Figure 3. 90Sr and 137Cs radioactivity in milk samples. Annual averages from regions in the ba.sin and national Ontario, became operational. A 15-year averages for Canada from 1959 to 1990. Data from Health Canada (6). period of growth in the nuclear industry was followed in the mid-1970s by a significant slowdown in the installation of Ontario have been decommissioned, the Radon is the most important radionu- additional nuclear capacity as a result of majority of which have been revegetated or clide released from mining aLctivities. In rising costs, environmental concern, and reclaimed (8). terms of volume, mine and mill wastes public pressure. There are presently 16 Milling facilities receive mined uranium have had the greatest impatct on local operational nuclear generating stations ores for conversion into U308 (yellowcake) ecosystems within the basin, despite their located on the shores of Lakes Michigan, concentrate for further processing. More low radioactivity concentratic ns. Between Huron, Erie, and Ontario consisting of 36 than 95% of the uranium is removed in the 1955 and 1985, an estimated 1.2x 108 m3 pressurized and boiling water reactors milling process, along with approximately of waste rock and tailings were generated (Table 3). Of the 27,000 MW of electrical 10 to 15% of the radioactive material; the in the Elliot Lake and Bancroft areas. generating capacity installed in the basin, remaining 85 to 90% remains with the ore Assuming that the annual pro duction rate just over 50% is generated in Canada. tailings as a long-term source of 226Ra and of waste rock has remained coonstant, these Nuclear power generation results in the 222Rn gas (9). The long half-life of 226Ra tailings-management areas cc)ntain about formation of artificial radioactive fission (1600 years) maintains the production of 2x103 terabecquerels (TBq) of 226Ra in products within the fuel and the activation 222Rn for thousands of years. Tailings piles 100 megatons of waste rock;at a concen- of stable elements in the structural material are a potential source of radioactive conta- tration of about 18.5 Bq/g (8). Radon and coolant circuit. Although the fission mination due to emanation of 222Rn and to emanates from these piles at a rate of product inventory is substantially larger dispersion of the tailings by wind and about 22 Bq/m2/sec (9). Estimates for than the inventory of activation products, water, which is determined by the degree of total tailings production in the United the former is retained in the fuel core. stabilization of the pile and the waste man- States up to 1983 are on the order of 175 Treatment systems remove the majority of agement procedures implemented. megatons (10). radionuclides from the liquid and gaseous

92 Environmental Health Perspectives - Vol 103, Supplement 9 * December 1995 RADIONUCUDES IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN

Table 3. Commercial nuclear power plants in the Great Lakes basin. 0.05 mSv/year at the site boundary or 5% of the public dose limit. The U.S. Nuclear Reactor name Power, MW Type Startup year Location Regulatory Commission regulates doses at Lake Michigan-total installed capacity: 6400 MW the boundaries ofAmerican reactor facilities. Kewaunee 500 PWR 1974 Carlton, Wisconsin Estimated cumulative inputs of 3H, Point Beach 1-2 2x485 PWR 1970-1972 Two Rivers, Wisconsin 90Sr, and 137Cs to the lakes from fallout Zion 1-2 2x1040 PWR 1973 Zion, Illinois Donald C. Cook 1-2 2 x 1040 PWR 1975-1978 Bridgman, Michigan and from liquid effluent releases from Palisades 730 PWR 1971 South Haven, Michigan nuclear installations are given in Table 2 Big Rock Point 67 BWR 1962 Charlevoix, Michigan (2). A comparison of inventories shows Lake Huron-total installed capacity: 7000 MW that the contribution due to fallout is Bruce A 4 x 850 PHWR 1977-1978 Kincardine, Ontario significantly greater than that from nuclear Bruce B 4x850 PHWR 1984-1987 Kincardine, Ontario power installations. The relative contribu- Douglas Point 200 PHWR 1966/1984a Kincardine, Ontario tion due to continued reactor operations can Lake Erie-total installed capacity: 3100 MW be expected to increase as the remaining Fermi 1 Fast breeder, accident and shutdown 1966 fallout radionuclides decay. Fermi 2 1090 BWR 1986 Newport, Michigan Nuclear Fuel Waste Management. Davis-Besse 1 860 PWR 1977 Oak Harbor, Ohio 1140 BWR 1986 North Perry, Ohio The final step in the nuclear fuel cycle is the Perry 1 management and disposal of radioactive Lake Ontario-total installed capacity: 10,300 MW Pickering A 4x500 PHWR 1971-1973 Pickering, Ontario wastes, some of which have extremely long Pickering B 4x500 PHWR 1982-1986 Pickering, Ontario half-lives. Wastes generated in the fuel cycle Darlington A 4x850 PHWR 1992 Newcastle, Ontario fall into the broad categories of high-level Robert E. Ginna 470 PWR 1969 Ontario, New York radioactive wastes, which comprise mainly Nine Mile Point 1 610 BWR 1969 Scriba, New York unprocessed spent reactor fuel, and low- Nine Mile Point 2 1070 BWR 1987 Scriba, New York level radioactive wastes that comprise most James A., FitzPatrick 760 BWR 1975 Scriba, New York other operational wastes. Whereas liquid Near basin-total installed capacity 8,900 MW and gaseous effluent may be released to the 12 additional reactors located in the near basin Great Lakes basin-total installed capacity 26,800 MW environment in a controlled manner, solid Great Lakes basin and near basin-total installed capacity 35,700 MW wastes are stored either at the facilities or in licensed waste consolidation areas. All spent Abbreviations: MW, megawatt; PWR, pressurized water reactor; BWR, boiling water reactor; PHWR, pressurized fuel is currently stored at the reactor sites. heavy water reactor (CANDU). "Reactor shutdown date. Data from UNSCEAR (4). Radioactive waste management options are determined by the type and origin of the Table 4. Radioactive wastes associated with the operation of the Pickering A (2000 MW) and Bruce A (3000 MW) waste and are subject to regulatory, techni- generating stations for 1 year. cal, and sociopolitical considerations. Principal Nuclear power plant wastes consist of Stage in fuel cycle Quantity radiation Activity, TBq activation products in the coolant and structural materials, low-level solid and liq- Mining, milling, and mainte- refining (0.2% U ore) 1.6 x1 05tons a 40.7 uid wastes produced through reactor Fuel fabrication 200 m3 a 0.015 nance, and high-level spent reactor fuel and Reactor operation irradiated reactor components. Low-level Airborne effluenta ,B 4800 (Pickering A+B) wastes include in-reactor components, filter 1600 (Bruce A+B) media, ion-exchange resins, contaminated Liquid effluenta 600 (Pickering A+B) clothing and tools, and laboratory wastes. All 750 (Bruce A+B) reac- Reactor wastes 1000 m3 , 74 low-level wastes produced by Canadian Irradiated fuel 356 tons a,,y 1.18 x 109 b tors, or resulting from research and mainte- 8.51 X106 c nance, are stored at the Bruce Nuclear Power Development on Lake Huron. Low-level Based on 80% generating capacity. 'Average 1985 to 1989 discharges (4); major component is tritium. bActivity at wastes American reactors are at one after Data from UNSCEAR and Atomic of Canada Limited (13). generated by discharge. cActivity year discharge. (4) Energy transferred to federally licensed sites for near- surface land disposal. Table 4 lists the quan- streams during purification. Low levels of products and activated corrosion products tities of radioactive waste associated with a radionuclides are released to the environ- (3,4). Tritium in aqueous and gaseous single year of operation of a typical nuclear ment under controlled and monitored con- emissions is the principal radionuclide generating station (4,13). ditions, in quantities dependent on the released from Canadian CANDU (CANada By far, the largest quantity of radioactivi- reactor type and design. Atmospheric Deuterium Uranium) heavy water reactors. ty produced in the fuel cycle is contained releases include tritium (3H), radioiodine, As a condition of licensing, nuclear generat- within the irradiated fuel, which accounts fission product noble gases (88Kr, 133Xe), ing stations are required to monitor and for over 99% of the radioactivity produced activation gases (14C, 16N, 35S, 41Ar), and report all releases to the responsible author- during reactor operations. At discharge each particulates such as 60Co, 90Sr, and 137Cs. ity. The Atomic Energy Control Board fuel bundle contains approximately 107 to Radionuclides released into, the aquatic (AEC'B) imposes a strict design objective for 108 -EBq of radioactiVity (13), most of environment include 3H and other fission releases from CANDU power reactors of which decays away within the first 1000

Environmental Health Perspectives * Vol 103, Supplement 9 * December 995 93 AHIER AND TRACY

years, primarily due to the disintegration of coal-fired power plants are barely detectable from residential, commercial, and public 90Sr, 137Cs, and other fission products. (10). A study of emissions from a thermal buildings during remedial clean-up activities Some actinides such as 238Pu also decay generating station in southern Ontario conducted by the AECB during the latter significantly during this time (14). A typi- revealed that atmospheric releases of halfofthe 1970s. These wastes were consol- cal 2000 MW capacity CANDU station radionuclides were insignificant compared idated at less accessible areas in the town. produces about 350 tons of spent fuel each to routine emissions from a nuclear gener- Wastes at the Port Granby waste man- year as high-level waste (13). Spent reactor ating station of similar capacity (17). agement facility, 16 km west of Port Hope, fuel is stored on site in water-filled contain- Phosphate ores used in fertilizers may also consist primarily of uranium, 230Th, 226Ra, ment pools with capacities for 5 to 10 years release small quantities of radionuclides and their decay products. The total esti- of irradiated fuel production. As the used into the ecosystem. In general, however, mated volume is approximately 348,000 fuel bays are filled, older spent fuel is the impact of incidental sources on the m3, with average activities of 0.1 GBq/m3 moved to on-site dry storage containment. basin is negligible. of 230Th and 0.07 GBq/m3 of 226Ra (8). The basic concept for the permanent Runoff and groundwater collected in reser- disposal of high-level radioactive wastes is Areas ofLocal Conmination voirs are pumped to a water treatment facil- the containment and isolation ofthe materi- Although the current levels of radionuclides ity north of the burial site. Groundwater al by burial in stable, underground forma- in Great Lakes waters are below objectives flowing from the site to the lake carries tions. These formations would provide a specified in the Great Lakes Water Quality about 25 MBq of 226Ra and 25 kg of ura- natural barrier to the release of radioactiv- Agreement, some areas in the basin can be nium annually, both ofwhich are diluted at ity, which would be further inhibited by considered radiologically contaminated on a the shore to concentrations that are below solidification or vitrification of the waste local scale. Contamination at these sites drinking water guideline levels (2). before placement in the repository. The has resulted from nuclear fuel cycle or The contamination of water and sedi- deep geologic waste disposal concept pro- radionuclide operations. ments in the Port Hope harbor due to the posed by Atomic Energy of Canada Port Hope and Port Granby, Lake release of liquid wastes from the refinery Limited for Canadian high-level wastes is Ontario. Several sites in the Great Lakes has resulted in the designation ofthe harbor currently in the process of environmental basin have been contaminated as a result of as an area of concern by the Great Lakes assessment (15). Both the Canadian and early waste management practices. The Water Quality Board. Concentrations of Ontario governments have opted to delay most important example is the town of uranium and gross alpha-beta radioactivity site selection until after the approval of the Port Hope, which lies approximately 100 in harbor waters are often above maximum disposal concept. Any future repository will km east of Toronto on the north shore of acceptable values defined by the Great likely be located in the Canadian Shield Lake Ontario. Before its current uranium Lakes Water Quality Agreement (18). and possibly in the basin. conversion operations were opened, the About 90,000 m3 ofsediment are contami- town was the site of radium (1933-1953) nated with uranium and thorium decay Incidental Sources and and uranium (1953-1983) refining opera- series radionuclides, as well as other heavy Low-levelWastes tions and fuel fabrication facilities. In metals. Typical contaminant concentra- The most significant source of radioactive 1983, uranium refining operations were tions in the harbor sediments are about 22 wastes in the basin is the nudear fuel cycle; relocated to Blind River, Ontario, and new MBq/m3 of 226Ra and 310 pg/g of ura- however, many non-fuel cycle facilities, facilities for UF6 production were con- nium (8). Though classified as low-level principally hospitals, universities, govern- structed. From 1933 to 1948, wastes from waste, it is unlikely that 226Ra contamina- ment laboratories, and industry, have been the radium operations were deposited at tion of the harbor sediments has an effect licensed to use radionudides. The low activ- several sites within the town. These sites on the human food chain [RW Durham, ities and short half-lives of the radionudides were replaced in 1948 by the Welcome unpublished report; (19)]. Although a employed generally permit disposal through Waste Management Facility in Hope potential risk exists from direct contact dilution and discharge into municipal sewer Township. Disposal of waste at Welcome with the sediments, the existing depth of systems. Solid wastes are disposed of at low- ceased in 1955 with the opening of the water forms an effective barrier to exposure level burial sites. Studies carried out to assess currently operating Port Granby Waste of the general population. the relevance of these sources showed that Management facility in the Town of In addition to ore wastes, ongoing the majority of radionuclides contained in Newcastle, first licensed by the AECB in operations result in the routine release of sewer discharge were from natural or fallout 1976 (8). The refining of U308 concen- uranium dust into the atmosphere. origin (16). Medical and industrial dis- trate from 1953 to 1983 generated about Monitoring studies have been conducted charges of radionudides to municipal sewer 25 TBq of 226Ra, most of which was by Health Canada to estimate the impact systems from licensed facilities have little deposited at Port Granby (2). of these emissions on human health. impact on the basin. Due to the absence of regulations, Estimated doses from inhaled dust result- Certain technologies and industrial disposal of radium wastes in Port Hope ing from 1 year of refinery operation were processes make naturally occurring radionu- before 1948 was not well controlled. Many 0.044 mSv at the nearest monitoring sta- clides more accessible to the environment. of the waste sites were exposed at the sur- tion in 1988 to 1989 and 0.16 mSv in The combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal face, and significant quantities of these 1981 to 1982 (20,21). These doses, while for electric power generation, releases 238U wastes were used as fill material for con- below the guideline dose of 1 mSv/year and 232Th decay series radionuclides and struction and landscaping activities. The recommended by the International 40K in fly ash. Normal environmental lev- main radioactive contaminants are uranium, Commission on Radiological Protection els of uranium and thorium are sufficiently 230Th, and 226Ra. Wastes that represented (ICRP) for public exposure (22), may con- high that changes due to emissions from an immediate health hazard were removed tribute a significant fraction of the normal

94 Environmental Health Perspectives - Vol 103, Supplement 9 * December 1995 RADIONUCUDES IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN

background radiation of 2.6 mSv/year. No waste, 164 tons of uranium from spent fuel biologic behavior in the environment, and health effects would be discernible at these reprocessing, 3,900 m3 of spent fuel com- the distance ofthe reactor from human pop- levels. Health Canada is currently in the ponents, and 66,000 m3 of low-level waste ulations. In the case of the 1986 Chernobyl process of reconstructing total cumulative (9). Studies on the local watershed have accident, the small contribution to the gross doses to Port Hope residents resulting shown that Cattaraugus Creek water and beta activity in the basin is identifiable in from all current and historical operations sediment have been affected by releases Figure 2 only because the weapons fallout and waste management practices. from the facility. Radionuclides released activity had decreased to levels that were Serpent River Basin, Lake Huron. during former reprocessing operations in no longer detectable. Similarly, '37Cs from The Serpent River basin, located on the 1969 to 1971 resulted in average 90Sr levels Chernobyl was identified in milk in 1986 North Channel of Lake Huron and drain- that were above the U.S. Environmental and 1987 because the fallout from weapons ing the Elliot Lake uranium mining region, Protection Agency's drinking water stan- testing was almost undetectable (Figure 3). has received elevated levels of natural dards and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory radionuclides since the mid-1950s. Radio- Commission's technical specifications for Transport, Behavior, and logic monitoring by the Ontario Ministries the facility. Radionudides released from the Distribution of of Environment and Labour has shown low-level waste sites have been detected in increased concentrations of 226Ra from Lakes Erie and Ontario. These radionu- Selected Radionuclides mining activities. Remedial measures clides reside mainly in Lake Ontario sedi- The radiologic impact of a particular implemented in 1966 reversed this trend; ment and indicate that any accidental radionudide in an ecosystem is a function of however, until 1977, average annual con- release from the facility could be transported its environmental, biologic, and radiologic centrations of 226Ra in the Serpent River to the lakes (2). properties. Environmental availability and exceeded both the Ontario Criterion for behavior are dependent on complex interac- Public Surface Water Supply and the target Nudear Emergencies tions between physical, chemical, and bio- concentration of the Canadian Drinking Although the probability of occurrence of a logic parameters. Radioactive decay results Water Quality Guidelines in effect at that severe accident is small, the impact of a in the depletion of the radionuclide in the time. In 1985, the Great Lakes Water nuclear emergency must be considered in a environment or body. However, due to the Quality Objective for 226Ra in water was radiologic assessment of the basin environ- general movement of radionuclides through met. Levels of radionuclides in sediments ment. It is unlikely that any catastrophic the biosphere, the effective half-life of a first measured in 1975 have been steadily radiologic event would occur for the phases radionuclide in a particular medium may be declining as a result ofimproved waste man- of the fuel cycle that deal with unirradiated much less than its radioactive half-life. agement practices. Concentrations in sedi- fuel. Materials present before placement in The major pathways -by which exposures ments in 1984 were 40% of the 1975 levels. the reactor are generally found in nature to specific radionuclides occur are identified Continued monitoring of the watershed is and have low specific radioactivity. A as critical pathways. Radionuclides that are carried out by provincial agencies (2). major accident at a conversion or fuel fab- in soluble form and chemically analogous to West Valley Reprocessing Plant and rication facility, while resulting in releases essential nutrient elements will tend to fol- Waste Disposal Facility, Lake Erie. The substantially larger than normal, would not low pathways similar to their nutrient ana- Western New York Nuclear Service Center yield a significant number of radiologic logues. As a result, they will be extensively at West Valley, New York, 65 km upstream health effects to the area's population. and rapidly transferred through the food of Lake Erie on the Cattaraugus Creek, was Estimation of both the probability and chain. For example, 90Sr, 140Ba, 226Ra, and the first commercial nuclear fuel reprocess- consequence of a severe accident during 45Ca behave like calcium and are therefore ing facility in the United States. As a result nuclear power generation is difficult. bone-seeking elements; 129I and 131I behave of reprocessing activities, the site contains Estimates for some of the more common like stable iodine and accumulate in the high-level liquid waste tanks, a high-level events, such as stuck control rods or loss of thyroid. Radionudides distributed through- solid waste disposal area, and a spent fuel coolant, are in general relatively low in con- out the body include 40K, 137Cs, and 86Rb storage pool. In 1962, the site was licensed sequence insofar as individual exposures are (which follow the general movement of to receive low-level radioactive waste. concerned. For the less probable but more potassium), 3H (which resembles stable These operations ceased in 1975 when severe accidents that would result in an hydrogen and is found as tritiated water), water was found seeping from some of the uncontrolled release ofvolatile radionudides, and 14C (which is part ofthe carbon cycle.) low-level waste trenches, although con- the local consequences could be significant Water samples collected from the Great trolled releases of radioactivity to the local in terms of the health, social, or economic Lakes between 1973 and 1981 indicate a watershed have continued. No spent fuel implications. However, risk assessments have general decrease in radionuclide levels at a has been reprocessed since 1972. The facil- shown that the probability ofcausing a given rate of 2 to 5% per year (2) due to radio- ity is currently being used to investigate number of fatalities from a nudear accident logic and physical removal. The radionu- methods of encapsulation of on-site high- is orders of magnitude lower than other clides of greatest concern in the basin, from level waste as part of the West Valley man-made or natural hazards (10). a health perspective and in terms of the Demonstration Project. A massive radionuclide release from a potential for normal or accidental release Although reprocessing and waste burial reactor beyond the basin could affect the from nuclear fuel cycle facilities, are 3H, operations have ceased, the current inven- Great Lakes ecosystem as a result of long- 14C, 90Sr, 1311, 137Cs, and 226Ra. Short tory ofwastes at the site present a long-term range atmospheric transport of airborne descriptions of the more important radionu- problem of disposal and contamination. radioactivity. The impact of an accident clides that may be found in the basin Radioactive wastes stored at the site include would be dependent on the amount and environment are given below. about 2.32 x 106 liters of high-level liquid type of material released, its chemical and

Environmental Health Perspectives - Vol 103. Supplement 9 - December 1995 95 AHIER AND TRACY

Tritium. Tritium with a half-life of 12.3 with reactor type; 14C released in liquid or recorded in the Winnipeg, Ottawa, and years, exists in the environment mainly as gaseous effluent may be present as CO, St. Lawrence Rivers and on Lakes Huron water; from water it enters the hydrologic C02, or CH4. and Ontario near the Bruce and Pickering cycle and all components of the biosphere. Carbon-14 is of interest because of its stations from 1 to 12 It is generating ranged produced naturally in the upper long half-life (5730 years) and its availabil- mBq/l in 1988 (6). These levels are essen- atmosphere and artificially in nuclear deto- ity in the environment. Once released, 14C tially all due to nuclear weapons fallout. nations and nuclear reactors. Nuclear enters the global carbon cycle, eventually The effective half-live for removal of 90Sr weapons tests conducted in the atmosphere giving rise to increased levels in humans. from the lakes is of the same order of since mag- 1945 have produced quantities of 3H Intake of carbon and subsequent exposure nitude as its radioactive half-life, indicating far exceeding the natural inventory. to 14C is primarily through ingestion, with that radioactive decay is the major mecha- Tritium produced during nuclear reactor almost complete absorption by the body. nism in the removal of 90Sr from the lake operation is released in liquid and gaseous Inhalation intake accounts for about 1% of environment (30). effluent as tritiated water. total carbon intake of which very little is Radioiodine. As a volatile element, Exposure to environmental 3H occurs retained in the body. The mean residence radioactive iodine has received extensive primarily through the critical pathway of time in the body is about 53 days (23). study in view of its mobility and its selec- ingestion, with additional contributions Measurements of 14C in the leaves of tive irradiation of the thyroid gland when from inhalation and absorption through maple trees growing in Gatineau Park 20 taken into the body. It is found in the the skin. Following ingestion, tritiated km northwest of Ottawa, Ontario, reveal a environment mainly as a result of nuclear water is completely absorbed from the gas- smooth decrease in excess 14C produced by explosions and nuclear reactor operation, trointestinal tract and is rapidly distributed nuclear detonations (29). These decreases although 129I and 131I are naturally present throughout the body via the blood. The are occurring at a rate much quicker than as a result of spontaneous fission of natural majority of this amount is removed from that based on radioactive decay alone, and uranium. Of the 15 isotopes of iodine pro- the body with a biologic half-life ranging by the turn of the century, 14C levels will duced by fission in nuclear reactors, the from 2.4 to 18 days, which represents the not be measurably elevated above natural ones of interest are 129I = turnover radiologic (t1/2 of body water. The remainder is levels (7). Since the main significance of 1.6x107 years) and 131I (t1/2 = 8.04 days). removed with a half-life of one month to 14C results from its entry into the global Although i291 is produced in significantly one year, representing the turnover of 3H carbon cycle, releases from nuclear reactors smaller amounts and is not identified in incorporated in organic compounds (23). in the basin will give a more or less uni- routine discharges from reactors, practically Average 3H concentrations in Canadian form radiation exposure to the world pop- all of it is still present in the environment, surface waters are approximately 5 to 10 ulation over a number of generations. whereas virtually all of the short-lived i311 Bq/L due primarily to residual fallout from Strontium-90. Strontium-90 has has decayed. Releases of 1311 from reactors pre-1963 weapons tests. Average levels in received extensive monitoring in the envi- are widely variable and depend on the reac- the Great Lakes ranged from 7 to 10 Bq/l ronment and in human food chains. It tor coolant leakage rate. Since it is a volatile during 1982 to 1984 (24) and from 9 to decays with a half-life of 29 years through element, 1311 is readily released to the 11 Bq/l during 1991 to 1993 (25). 90Y, which is also radioactive, to form sta- atmosphere in the event of an accident. Radioactivity concentrations in community ble 90Zr. Strontium is metabolically similar On consumption, uptake of iodine by water supplies near all Ontario nuclear reac- to calcium, barium, and radium and fol- the blood from the gastrointestinal tract is tors ranged from 12 to 35 Bq/l , which are lows calcium through the food chain from complete and rapid. Iodine is an essential slightly elevated with respect to back- the environment to man. Both 90Sr and component of the thyroid hormone and, as ground levels (26). By comparison, the calcium are retained largely in the bone. a result, is selectively taken up and concen- proposed Canadian federal guideline for Strontium is produced by nuclear detona- trated in the thyroid gland. The ICRP 3H in drinking water has been set at 7000 tions and nuclear power generation. The transfer model assumes that 30% of the Bq/l, based on an annual dose of 0.1 mSv majority of environmental 90Sr has come iodine entering the blood is transferred to and a water consumption rate of 2 1/day from weapons fallout; discharge rates from the thyroid; from there it is cleared with a (27). Tritium is detectable in air in the nuclear reactors are very small and indistin- half-life of about 120 days (31). The vicinity of CANDU reactors although the guishable from fallout. The deposition of absorbed dose in the thyroid is about levels are low. Concentrations decrease 905r on land and the transfer to humans by 1000-fold that in other organs and tissues. from about 2 to 3 Bq/m3 at a distance of 3 ingestion of contaminated food is the most The most significant exposure route for km to background values of about 0.1 to important exposure pathway. Significant environmental radioiodine is the air-vege- 0.2 Bq/m3 at 40 km (6). The yearly transfer occurs via the air-vegetation-live- tation-livestock-milk pathway. Fresh milk increase in 3H levels in Lake Ontario due stock-milk pathway. Ofless importance are dominates as the major source of 1311 to routine CANDU operations has been the aquatic pathways, and contributions intake in areas where milk is a major com- projected to be about 0.12 Bq/l (25). from drinking water are always less than 5% ponent of diet as a result of the large areas Carbon-14. In addition to natural of the total ingestion intake (23). Upon scavenged by cows and the short storage production in the stratosphere and upper ingestion, absorption of 90Sr by the body is period of milk. The 1311 content of milk troposphere, 14C is produced by nuclear relatively high. The mean residence time in samples collected monthly from farms near weapons detonations and nuclear reactor bone tissue ranges from 3.4 to 6.7 years. nuclear generating stations in Ontario are operations. The 14C injected by nuclear Mean activities of 90Sr in the Great usually less than the minimum detectable tests roughly doubled the natural steady- Lakes during 1981 to 1982 ranged from radioactivity of approximately 0.15 Bq/l state radioactivity in the atmosphere (28). 15 mEq/l in Lake Superior to 29 mBq/l in (26). As a result of its short half-life, 1311 is Production of 14C in nuclear reactors varies Lake Ontario (1). Average concentrations only of concern immediately following a

96 Environmental Health Perspectives - Vol 103, Supplement 9 * December 995 RADIONUCLIDES IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN

significant release from a reactor. Releases intake is small when supplies are drawn products are known to have been at of long-lived 1291 could potentially have an from surface water, which typically display increased risk for lung cancer under past impact in terms of committed doses to a narrow range of concentrations. Concen- conditions of exposure. Because radon gas present and future generations, but this trations in groundwater sources, however, is also naturally found in indoor air, ques- effect is far less than that from 14C, which are highly variable and result mainly from tions about the potential lung cancer risks is routinely monitored in the environment. the interaction between the groundwater as a consequence on residential exposure Cesium-137. Cesium-137 is one of the aquifer and radium-bearing materials such have been raised. These studies have more important fission products due to its as rock, soil, and ore deposits. When taken yielded conflicting results in terms of corre- relatively high yield and its ability to bio- into the body, its metabolic behavior is lations between risk and residential expo- concentrate in some food chains. It has a similar to calcium, and an appreciable frac- sures, which are typically much less than radioactive half-life of 30.17 years and is tion is deposited in bone. The remainder is occupational exposures. produced in nuclear explosions with a distributed more or less equally in soft tis- A rigorous case-control study on the 137Cs/90Sr ratio of 1.6. Cesium-137 is sues. Following the decay of 226Ra to 222Rn risk of lung cancer from radon in indoor air released during normal reactor operations in bone, approximately 70% of 222Rn was conducted in Winnipeg, Canada, primarily in aqueous effluent. As in the case diffuses to the blood and is exhaled (3). between 1983 and 1990 (33). Winnipeg of 90Sr, weapons fallout over land is the Radium-226 concentrations in water was chosen as a study site because it has most important source as far as committed samples measured at various sites across indoor radon levels that are elevated with doses to man are concerned. On land, it is Canada between 1981 and 1984 ranged respect to other Canadian cities, including strongly affixed to soil, which limits both its from about 1 to 13 mBq/l (24). Radium those in the Great Lakes basin. The study downward mobility and its availability for levels in water samples from Port Hope, consisted of 738 individuals with confirmed root uptake in plants. Fixation by sedi- Ontario, and Regina, Saskatchewan, aver- primary lung cancer and 738 controls ments in aquatic environments is similar to aged less than 5 mBq/l in 1988. Levels matched on age and sex. Radon dosimeters soil and reduces its concentration in the recorded during the same period in Elliot were place in all residences in which the water column. Direct atmospheric deposi- Lake, Ontario, ranged from 8 to 18 mBq/l study subjects had reported living in within tion is the primary mode of contamination (6). Radium levels measured in selected the Winnipeg metropolitan area for at least for vegetation. fruits and vegetables from Port Hope 1 year. After adjusting for cigarette smoking Cesium- 137 metabolically resembles ranged from 0.04 to 40 Bq/kg (32). In and education, no increase in relative risk potassium and is bioconcentrated in a num- general, higher levels of 226Ra can be for any lung cancers was observed among ber of food chains including the air-vegeta- expected in areas containing uranium min- the identified cases in relation to cumula- tion-livestock chain, the air-lichen-caribou ing and milling operations or where rock tive exposure to radon. Although there are chain, and the freshwater-fish chain. The containing high concentrations of the nat- areas within the basin in which radon con- main contributions to dietary intake are ural radionuclides is in contact with water. centrations are slightly higher than the grains, meat, and milk. Cesium-137 ingested Radon-222. Radon-222 is a chemically mean concentrations in Canada and the by man is readily absorbed and becomes uni- inert gas with a radioactive half-life of 3.82 United States (34 Bq/m3 and 46 Bq/m3, formly distributed in soft tissues, with mini- days which is produced through the decay respectively), there are no regions of abnor- mal uptake by bone tissue. The biologic of 226Ra. Its decay products form a series of mally high concentrations that would lead half-life of 137Cs is a function ofage and sex, short-lived radionuclides that decay within to health implications (4,34,35). with a representative retention rate of 110 hours to 210Pb (t112 = 22 years). The princi- Uranium. Uranium normally found in days for 90% ofthe body burden (23). pal dose is to the lung due to the inhala- nature consists of three long-lived isotopes Measurements of 137Cs in milk samples tion and accumulation within the of mass numbers 234, 235, and 238, with around Bruce generating station on Lake respiratory system of the short-lived decay half-lives of 2.45 x 105, 7.04 x 108, and Huron do not show levels elevated above products attached to inert dust normally 4.47xi09 years, respectively. Uranium- the national average. Concentrations of present in the atmosphere. The radiation 238 accounts for 99.28% by weight of nat- 137Cs measured in surface waters of the dose following inhalation constitutes the ural uranium and is usually in equilibrium Great Lakes averaged about 0.5 mBq/l in main portion of the natural radiation dose with 234U in soils. Uranium-238 and 235U 1992 (6). No enhancement in concentra- to man. Ra-226 in the earth's crust is the are, respectively, the parent radionuclides tion was observed in the vicinity of reactor major source of 222Rn. Although most of of the uranium and actinium radioactive installations. Removal times of 137Cs from the radon produced in soil is retained in decay series. Both 226Ra and 222RRn are part the Great Lakes are less than 1 year, with a the earth where it decays, a small portion of the uranium decay series. longer component of 5 to 20 years, suggest- diffuses into the air. Indoor radon results Uranium is both chemically and radio- ing re-entry into the water column from from emanation of the gas from the soil logicly toxic. In general, chemical damage sediments (30). Great Lakes fish were found under buildings and from water, building to the kidneys following acute ingestion of to contain concentrations of 137Cs several materials, and domestic gas. Enhanced lev- natural uranium is more important than thousand times higher than in ambient els are also found in the vicinity of ura- radiation damage; radiation injury becomes water (2,30). nium mine, mill, and tailings operations, more important if exposure occurs as a Radium-226. Radium-226 occurs nat- and less importantly, in the vicinity of result of chronic ingestion or inhalation. urally in soils as a decay product of the phosphate industrial operations. Inhaled uranium compounds may be 238U series. It decays with a half-life of A substantial body of literature exists retained in the lungs or transferred to other 1600 years to form 222Rn. Uptake in food on the risks associated with radon expo- parts of the body where they become incor- is the major pathway into the body. The sure. Miners of uranium and other miner- porated in bone tissue (31). Decay of the contribution of drinking water to total als occupationally exposed to radon decay

Environmental Health Perspectives - Vol 103, Supplement 9 - December 995 97 AHIER AND TRACY

uranium isotope and its decay products can from ongoing epidemiologic studies. The produced risk estimates consistent with result in cancers in these locations. lifetime risk estimates for fatal cancer fol- BEIR V, UNSCEAR, and ICRP. For Uptake in food is the principal route of lowing high dose and high-dose rate radia- these reasons, the authors have chosen to exposure, although uranium is one of the tion are given as 8%/Sv in BEIR V and use the 1990 ICRP recommendations of more important natural radionuclides that 1 1%/Sv in UNSCEAR. 7.3%/Sv for their estimate of risk because may be found in water supplies. In general, Both organizations state that their risk it represents a convergence of international levels of uranium in both surface and estimates should be reduced for low dose scientific opinion. ground waters are low, typically less than 1 exposures protracted over several months Effects other than cancer, such as neu- jig/l; uranium concentrations in Lake or years to account for a reduced effective- rologic, developmental, and immunologic Ontario averaged about 0.7 pg/l during ness of the cell damage mechanism. Using damage, have been observed only at 1981 to 1984 (24). However, substantially a maximum reduction factor of 2, extremely high doses of radiation and are higher concentrations have been measured UNSCEAR (4) recommends a lifetime risk generally assumed to be threshold effects. in both private and community groundwa- estimate of 5%/Sv for fatal cancer following There is no substantial evidence to support ter sources across Canada (6). Elevated air- a protracted whole-body exposure of low the occurrence of health effects other than borne concentrations exist only in the dose and low dose rate radiation. The ICRP the increased risk of cancer in individuals vicinity of uranium milling and refining (22), while relying mainly on the assessment exposed to low levels of radiation. These operations; in this case, inhalation becomes of the Japanese survivors by organizations effects will therefore not be considered a critical pathway of exposure. Concen- such as UNSCEAR and BEIR V, has taken further. trations of airborne uranium in Port Hope into consideration the entire body of litera- Having established the coefficient of risk ranged from 0.02 to 76 ng/m3 in 1988. ture in their estimate of risk. The lifetime to be used in the assessment, the total, or Background values in southern Ontario are risk estimate for low-dose exposures as collective, dose received by the exposed pop- ofthe order of0.1 ng/m3 (20). given in the 1990 recommendations of the ulations from the various radiation sources ICRP is 5%/Sv for the entire population, can now be estimated. The collective dose Risk Assessment in the based on a linear, no-dose threshold model. allows an assessment of detriment in terms Great Lakes Basin On the basis of copious and on-going of a predicted number of health effects that Radiologic risk assessments, while contain- research in human epidemiology, animal may occur in the total exposed population. ing many uncertainties and simplifying studies, and cell biology, these organiza- It is obtained by multiplying the average assumptions, nonetheless allow a compari- tions conclude that the risk estimates at low effective dose by the number of people son of the impact of human activities with doses are likely conservative. exposed. For example, an average effective the effect of natural background radiation. Supplemental to the lifetime risk esti- dose of 2.6 mSv/year from natural back- These assessments require an estimation of mate for fatal cancer, the ICRP has also ground radiation will result in a collective the risk of an attributable health effect as a derived a risk for nonfatal cancers weighted dose of 9.36 x 104 man Sv/year to the basin function of dose. While the purpose of this for severity. In addition, an allowance has population of 36 million. Once the collec- paper is to determine the relative contribu- been made for hereditary disorders, tive dose has been evaluated, the number of tion of the various sources in the Great although no direct evidence supporting health effects theoretically attributable to the Lakes basin, a risk assessment based on these effects has been found in human off- exposure can be estimated using the derived internationally recognized radiation protec- spring. The total risk coefficient for fatal lifetime risk coefficient. tion methodologies and risk coefficients and weighted nonfatal cancers, and heredi- Collective doses to local and regional has also been carried out. Because all read- tary effects, based on all epidemiologic populations from nuclear fuel cycle activi- ers may not agree with the choice of the data, has been estimated to be 7.3%/Sv. ties must be evaluated from environmental risk coefficient used in this assessment, a This risk coefficient accounts for all cancer exposure models since the radioactivity con- brief discussion on the estimation of risk types in the entire exposed population, centrations resulting from fuel cycle effluent for low-dose exposures has been included. including women and children. Although are very low in environmental samples. The If the reader wishes to use a higher the risk of occurrence for some cancer types environments receiving the modeled releases coefficient of risk than the one used in this may be higher in either females (e.g., breast are chosen to represent broad averages con- assessment, then a greater number of cancer) or males (e.g., prostate cancer), at taining typical features of existing sites. attributable health effects will be predicted; present, the uncertainties involved in the Based on worldwide emission data and however, the relative contribution of the estimation of risk preclude such specific population distributions representative of various sources will not change. lifetime risk factors. facilities sited in northern Europe and the Extensive epidemiologic analysis has The authors recognize that a number of northeastern United States, UNSCEAR (4) been carried out on populations exposed recent studies have indicated higher risks to has obtained a collective dose for the global to various levels of radiation dose. The populations exposed to low doses than nudear fuel cycle, normalized to total power main sources of epidemiologic data are the would be expected from the above risk output, of the order of 3 man Sv/GW/year. populations exposed to high doses of radi- coefficients (37-40). While some of these While indicative of the overall nudear pro- ation, primarily the Japanese atomic bomb require further consideration, many are gram, this normalized value is not repre- survivors. Estimates of risk for these flawed by serious methodological errors. sentative of any one site; in fact, large groups have been derived by both the On the other hand, some studies have variations may be expected between differ- Committee on the Biological Effects of shown a possible beneficial or "hormetic" ent reactor types or management practices. Atomic Radiations, known as the BEIR V stimulating effect from small doses of radi- To provide a more realistic assessment of Committee (36), and by UNSCEAR (3) ation. The vast majority of epidemiologic the effect of fuel cycle activities, collective based on lifetime risk projections calculated studies, both past and present, have doses have been calculated based on

98 Environmental Health Perspectives - Vol 103, Supplement 9 - December 1995 RADIONUCUDES IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN

measured releases from basin facilities fallout. The average fallout dose to an indi- years of exposure centred on the present. between 1985 and 1989 (4) and on a popu- vidual is based on an incomplete dose to This standardization allows the risks from lation density more representative of the the year 2050 for radionuclide deposition all sources to be expressed on a common basin, which indudes the sparsely populated in the North Temperate Zone, which basis, since not all doses are given as an areas of northern Ontario. provides a measure of the total radiation annual rate. It is assumed that current Using UNSCEAR model values for col- hazard from fallout presented to those liv- annual values for natural background radi- lective doses per unit release of specific ing during the period of intensive atmos- ation and nuclear fuel cycle exposure are radionuclides from typical facilities, doses pheric weapons testing before 1963. It is representative of this period. Based on in the basin can be estimated from mea- expressed as an integrated dose rather than ICRP risk coefficients and assuming a con- sured emission data. Collective doses from an annual dose rate since most of the expo- servative, linear, no dose-threshold model, mining and milling facilities are based on sure from weapons fallout has already been theoretical limits of risk can be estimated radon releases from uranium mines in the received, and the dose from several other for the various radiation exposures in the Elliot Lake area; doses from reactor opera- fallout radionuclides will have largely been basin over this period. The total number of tions are derived from the measured emis- completed by the end ofthe decade. theoretical fatal cancers, nonfatal weighted sions for all reactors in the Great Lakes Estimated doses to individuals in the cancers, and hereditary disorders over the basin (4). Doses for conversion facilities critical group from fuel cycle operations lifetime of the current basin population are minor and are therefore taken directly occur in the vicinity of operating mines theoretically attributable to a 50-year expo- from UNSCEAR values normalized to and are approximately 0.6 mSv/year (14); sure to natural background radiation is global energy production. A factor of 0.5 although these estimated doses are below approximately of 3.4 x 105. By comparison, was applied to all collective doses to the ICRP dose limit of 1 mSv/year, they the total number of theoretical health account for the smaller population density are nevertheless a significant fraction of this effects attributable to radioactive fallout around the basin as compared to that used limit. The maximum allowable dose to from all weapons tests to date would be in the UNSCEAR models. critical groups in the vicinity of nuclear approximately 5.0 x 103. Theoretically, In addition to the collective dose for reactors is 0.05 mSv/year based on the attributable health effects due to 50 years the entire exposed population, the impact design objective imposed by the AECB for of operation of the nuclear fuel cycle at cur- of anthropogenic sources is also assessed in public exposure at the boundary of rent levels would be approximately 2 x 102. terms of the dose to the maximally exposed Canadian nuclear generating stations. These numbers are hypothetical values or critical group. The critical group dose Actual estimated doses to the most exposed based on conservative exposure models, provides an indication of the greatest detri- individuals in the vicinity of CANDU reac- rather than predictions of actual effects ment that may occur to those individuals tors based on Ontario Hydro monitoring from either natural or artificial sources. who live near a facility, and who derive all programs were in the range of 0.01 to 0.04 However, they show that the impact in the their food and water from local supplies. mSv/year between 1991 and 1993 (41). basin from man-made sources are very Estimates ofcritical group and collective Collective doses derived from measured small compared to the effects of normal doses for the various natural and anthro- emissions are several orders of magnitude background radiation. pogenic sources are shown in Table 5. The less than that from natural background The risks associated with a severe nuclear greatest contribution to total exposure, in radiation and are due mainly to radon emergency are more difficult to predict. terms of both individual and collective releases from mining activities and tritium Although the probability of a severe acci- dose, comes from natural background radi- and 14C discharged by heavy water reactors. dent has been shown to be extremely small, ation. Of significantly less importance is Also shown in Table 5 are estimates of serious health effects could occur near the the dose resulting from nuclear weapons collective dose and risk committed by 50 accident site if a massive release of radioac- tivity resulted from a breach in the reactor containment. Long-range transport and dis- Table 5. Maximum individual and collective doses and risks from radiation sources in the Great Lakes basin. persion of the radioactive plume could result Annual dose 50-Year collective dose and riska in the exposure of many people to margin- Source lndividualb, Collective, Collective dose, Riskc ally or significantly elevated levels of radia- mSv/year man Sv/year man Sv (health effects) tion. Additional future deaths due to cancer Natural 2.6 94,000 4.7 x 106 3.4 x 105 could occur as a result of increased collective Fallout 1.gd 6.8 x 104 5.0 x 103 doses. However, due to the engineered safe- Nuclear fuel cycle guards in North American reactors, it is Mining, millinge 0.65 15 expected that the social and economic conse- Conversionf 0.044 0.1 quences of an accident would predominate Reactor operation9 0.01-0.04 40 Low-level waste <0.1 over actual health effects. Total fuel cycle 55 2.8 x 103 2 x 102 Concentrations of important radionu- clides in Great Lakes waters that would "Collective dose and risk for natural and fuel cycle exposures are integrated over 50 years based on current dose result in a 50-year committed effective dose rates and integrated to the year 2050 for weapons fallout exposures; collective doses for nuclear fuel cycle are based equal to the proposed Canadian federal on dose per unit release and measured emissions for basin facilities from 1985 to 1989.b Individual dose is the aver- age population dose for natural and fallout exposure; for nuclear cycle exposures, it is the dose to individuals of the drinking water guideline of 0.1 mSv from a critical group. cRisk is defined in terms of theoretically attributable fatal and weighted nonfatal cancers and heredi- single year's consumption ofdrinking water tary disorders, using the ICRP risk coefficient of 7.3%/Sv. dmSv to 2050. "Maximum dose for mining activities form (730 1) are shown in Table 6 (27). These -NCRP estimates; from NCRP (14); fMaximum dose for conversion from Health Canada estitnates; from Ahier and are compared with actual measured concen- Tracy (20). UMaximum dose for the reactors based on Ontario Hydro estimates; from Ontario Hydro (41). trations, which are well below the derived

Environmental Health Perspectives * Vol 103, Supplement 9 - December 1995 99 AHIER AND TRACY

Table 6. Comparison of proposed Canadian federal guideline concentrations for radionuclides in water and actual Conclusions concentrations in the Great Lakes. The human population within the Great Observed concentration, Bg/l Lakes basin is continuously exposed to Guideline ionizing radiation in the environment Radionuclide concentration, Bg/l Superior Michigan Huron Erie Ontario from both natural and anthropogenic 3H 7000 5.4 6.6 9.1 12 8.7 sources. The greatest contribution to total 9OSr 5 1.5x1O-2 1.9x10-2 2.7x10-2 2.3x10-2 2.9x102 exposure is the natural background radia- 137Cs 10 1.7x10-3 1.4x10-3 1.1 x103 0.6x10-3 1.Ox10-3 tion that originates from both cosmic and 226Ra 0.6 0.7x10-3 1.2x10-3 terrestrial sources and results in an average 239,240pu 0.2 4.4x10-7 4.8x10-7 1.8x10-7 1.7x10-7 dose of about 2.6 mSv/year to every resi- U, pg/Ia 150 0.08 0.38 0.39 0.59 0.42 dent of the basin. Global fallout from Maximum allowable concentrations in water are based on an annual exposure limit of 0.1 mSv and an annual weapons tests has resulted in the largest water consumption of 730 liters. Water concentrations from International Joint Commission (1) and Joshi (2). input of anthropogenic radioactivity into "Uranium concentration given in micrograms per liter; the guideline concentration corresponds to approximately 4 the lakes, although the moratorium on Bq/l and the limit based on chemical toxicity is 100 pg/I. atmospheric detonations has resulted in declining levels since the mid-1960s. The Table 7. The 50-year committed effective dose from the ingestion of Great Lakes water for 1 year. total committed dose to the year 2050 to an average individual in the basin from all 50-Year committed effective dose, jSv Radionuclide Superior weapons tests has been estimated to be Michigan Huron Erie Ontario about 1.9 mSv. The small but routine 3H 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.2 0.1 input from the large number of facilities 90Sr 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 comprising the nuclear fuel cycle is of 137Cs 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 increasing importance. Almost every stage 226Ra 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 of the fuel cycle is active in the basin, U (natural) 0.04 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 including mining, conversion, power gen- eration, and waste management. Although Total dose, pSv 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 the potential exists for a serious accident Average risk is three theoretically attributable health effects per year. The dose is based on concentrations from resulting from the large inventories of Table 6 except for 226Ra for which a concentration of 1 mBq/l is assumed. The average basin risk is based on a radionuclides contained in the reactor core committed effective dose of 1.2 pSv for a population of 36 million. and spent fuel bays, the probability of a such an occurrence is extremely small because of strict design and operational maximum concentrations. The effective result in three theoretically attributable regulations. Serious accidents outside of doses from drinking water for each lake fatal and weighted nonfatal cancers and the basin may also impact on local ecosys- are shown in Table 7. The total average hereditary disorders per year based on the tems as a result of long-range atmospheric dose received from drinking Great Lakes maximum effective dose to the entire transport of radioactive plumes. An area of water is estimated to be about 1.2 1xSv for basin population. As with other estimates importance over the next few decades will Lakes Ontario, Erie, and Huron and 1.0 of risk, this estimate is an upper limit be the management of the substantial pSv for Lake Michigan. These are well based on the conservative assumption of a amounts of high-level wastes generated by below the ICRP exposure limit and would no-threshold dose model. the many reactors in the basin.

REFERENCES 1. IJC. 1983 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, Appendix on fallout monitoring in Canada. Environ Int 20:665-673 (1994). Radioactivity. Windsor, Ontario:International Joint 8. AECL. Inventory of Waste Quantities. Report to the Siting Commission, 1983. Process Task Force on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal. 2. Joshi SR. Radioactivity in the Great Lakes. Sci Total Environ Catalogue M39-51/1-2E. Ottawa:Atomic Energy of Canada 100:61-104 (1991). Limited, 1987. 3. UNSCEAR. Sources, Effects and Risks of Ionizing Radiation. 9. IJC. Great Lakes Water Quality 1978, Appendix D, Radioactivity New York:United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects Subcommittee Report. Windsor, Ontario:International Joint ofAtomic Radiation, 1988. Commission, 1979. 4. UNSCEAR. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation. New 10. Eisenbud M. Environmental Radioactivity. 3d ed. Orlando, York:United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of FL:Academic Press, 1987. Atomic Radiation, 1993. 11. NRC. Radioactivity in the Canadian Aquatic Environment. 5. NCRP. Exposure of the Population in the United States and Rpt NRCC 19250. Ottawa:National Research Council Canada from Natural Background Radiation. NCRP Rpt 94. Canada, 1983. Bethesda, MD:National Council on Radiation Protection and 12. Eaton R. A Bibliography of Published Data with Evaluations Measurements, 1987. and Recommendations. Port Hope Radiologic Impact 6. Health Canada. Environmental Radioactivity in Canada; Assessment, Great Lakes Health Effects Program Report. Radiologic Monitoring Programs. Ottawa:Health Canada, Ottawa:Health Canada, 1992. 1959-1993. 13. AECL. Management of Radioactive Fuel Wastes: the Canadian 7. Ldtourneau EG, Meyerhof DP, Ahier BA. A retrospective of Disposal Program (Boulton J, ed). Pinawa, Manitoba:Atomic

100 Environmental Health Perspectives - Vol 103, Supplement 9 * December 1995 RADIONUCUDES IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN

Energy of Canada Limited, 1978. Document. Ottawa:Health Canada, in press. 14. NCRP. Public Radiation Exposure from Nuclear Power 28. UNSCEAR. Ionizing Radiation: Sources and Biological Effects. Generation in the United States. NCRP Rpt 92. Bethesda, New York:United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects MD:National Council on Radiation Protection and ofAtomic Radiation, 1982. Measurements, 1987. 29. McNeely R. Long-term environmental monitoring of 14C lev- 15. AECL. Environmental Impact Statement on the Concept for els in the Ottawa region. Environ Int 20:675-679 (1994). Disposal of Canada's Nuclear Fuel Waste. AECL Research Rpt 30. Tracy BL, Prantl FA. 25 years of fission product input to Lakes AECL-10711, COG-93-1. Chalk River, Ontario:Atomic Superior and Huron. Water Air Soil Pollut 19:15-27 (1983). Energy of Canada Limited, 1994. 31. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Limits 16. Durham RW, Joshi SR. Concentrations of radionuclides in for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers. ICRP Publ 30. Lake Ontario water from measurements on water treatment Annals of the ICRP 2(3-4). Oxford:Pergamon Press, 1979. plant sludges. Water Res 15:83-86 (1981). 32. Tracy BL, Prantl FA, Quinn JM. Transfer of 226Ra, 210Pb and 17. Tracy BL, Prantl FA. Radiological impact of coal-fired power uranium from soil to garden produce: assessment of risk. generation. J Environ Radioact 2:145-160 (1985). Health Phys 44:469-477 (1983). 18. IJC. 1987 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, Appendix B, 33. Letourneau EG, Krewski D, Choi NW, Goddard MJ, Great Lakes Surveillance. Vol III (Rathke DE, McRae G, eds). McGregor RG, Zielinski JM, Du J. Case-control study of resi- Windsor, Ontario:International Joint Commission, 1989. dentiaf radon and lung cancer in Winnipeg, Manitoba, 19. McKee PM, Hart DR, Burt AJ. Benthological, chemical, radio- Canada. Am J Epidemiol 140:310-322 (1994). logic and chronological evaluation of sediments in Port Hope 34. Letourneau EG, McGregor RG, Walker WB. Design and Harbour. Mississauga, Ontario:Beak Consultants, 1985. interpretation of large surveys for indoor exposure to radon 20. Ahier BA, Tracy BL. Uranium Emissions in Port Hope, daughters. Radiat Prot Dosim 7:303-308 (1984). Ontario: Report to the Atomic Energy Control Board. 35. Cohen BL, Stone CA, Schilken CA. Indoor radon maps of the Ottawa:Health Canada, 1993. United States. Health Phys 66:210-215 (1994). 21. Tracy BL, Meyerhof DP. Uranium concentrations in air near a 36. BEIR V. Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Canadian uranium refinery. Atmos Environ 21:165-172 Radiation. BEIR V Report, Committee on the Biological (1987). Effects of Atomic Radiations, National Academy of Sciences. 22. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Washington:National Academy Press, 1990. Recommendations of the International Commission on 37. Kendall GM, Muirhead CR, MacGibbon BH, O'Hagan JA, Radiological Protection. ICRP Publ 60. Annals of the ICRP Conquest AJ, Goodill AA, Butland BK, Fell TP, Jackson DA, 21(1-3). Oxford:Pergamon Press, 1991. Webb MA, Haylock RGE, Thomas JM, Silk TJ. Mortality and 23. WHO. Selected Radionuclides, Environmental Health Criteria occupational exposure to radiation: first analysis of the 25. Geneva:World Health Organization, 1983. National Registry for Radiation Workers. Br Med J 24. Baweja AS, Joshi SR, Demayo A. Radionuclide Content of 304:220-225 (1992). Some Canadian Surface Waters: Report on the National 38. Beral V, Fraser P, Carpenter L, Booth M, Brown A, Rose G. Radionuclides Monitoring Program, 1981-1984. Scientific Mortality of employees of the atomic weapons establishment, series no 156. Ottawa:Environment Canada, 1987. 1951-1982. Br Medj 297:757-770 (1988). 25. Chant LA, Workman WJG, King KJ, Cornett RJ. Tritium 39. Kneale GW, Stewart AM. Reanalysis of Hanford data: Concentrations in Lake Ontario. AECL Research Rpt RC- 1944-1986 deaths. Am J Ind Med 23:371-398 (1993). 1149, COG-93-484. Chalk River, Ontario:Atomic Energy of 40. Wing SW, Shy CM, Wood JL, Wolf S, Cragle DL, Frome EL. Canada Limited, 1993. Mortality among workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory: 26. Ontario Hydro. Annual Summary and Assessment of evidence of radiation effects in follow-up through 1984. J Am Environmental Radiologic Data for 1990. Rpt HSD-HP-91- Med Assoc 265:397-1402 (1991). 20. Toronto:Ontario Hydro, 1991. 41. Ontario Hydro. Annual Summary and Assessment of 27. Health Canada. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Environmental Radiological Data for 1993. Rpt N-03419- Quality. 6th ed. Radiological Characteristics Supporting 940035-P OUO. Toronto:Ontario Hydro, 1994.

Environmental Health Perspectives * Vol 103, Supplement 9 * December 1995 101