EPA-5207 5-77-1
EPA ASSESSMENT OF FALLOUT IN THE
UNITED STATES
FROM ATMOSPHERIC NUCLEAR TESTING ON
SEPTEMBER 26 AND NOVEMBER 17, 1976
BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Ann B. Strong
J. Michael Smith
Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility
P. 0. Box 3009
Montgomery, Alabama 36109
Raymond H. Johnson, Jr.
Environmental Analysis Division (AW-461)
Waterside Mall East
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20460
August 1977
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Radiation Programs
Waterside Mall East
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, DC 20460
-------
-------
FOREWORD
The Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a primary respon-
sibility to establish radiation protection guidance and to
interpret existing guides for Federal agencies. This respon-
sibility was transferred to the Administrator of EPA from
the Federal Radiation Council which was abolished by Reorgan-
ization Plan No. 3 of 1970. One of ORP's mandates in carrying
out this responsibility is to monitor and assess the impact
on public health and the environment of radiation from all
sources in the United States, both ionizing and nonionizing.
Therefore, ORP has initiated a radiological dose assessment
program to determine the status of radiation data nationwide,
to analyze these data in terms of individual and population
doses, and to provide guidance for improving radiation data.
In addition, this program will provide information to guide
the direction of ORP by the analysis of radiation trends,
identification of radiation problems, and support for estab-
lishing radiation protection guidance.
As a part of this program, ORP operates a system for
monitoring levels of radioactivity in the environment. This
system is called the Environmental Radiation Ambient Moni-
toring System (ERAMS) and is operated by EPA's Eastern
Environmental Radiation Facility in Montgomery, Alabama.
This monitoring program is designed to provide long-term
radioactivity assessment of trends and seasonal changes and
short-term early warning to establish the need for emergency
abatement actions or contingency sampling operations.
Sampling media included in this program are air particulates,
precipitation, surface water, drinking water and pasteurized
milk.
111
-------
Following the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests by the
People's Republic of China on September 26 and November 17,
1976, the ERAMS network was fully activated and frequent
samples of air particulates, precipitation, and pasteurized
milk were collected for several weeks after each event.
Population doses for the United States were calculated using
the levels of radioactivity measured in these samples.
Based on the calculated doses, health effects to the popula-
tion of the United States were estimated. This report is a
summary of EPA's assessment regarding the radiation doses
and potential health effects which may be attributed to
radioactive fallout from these nuclear weapons tests.
W. D. Rowe, Ph.D.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Radiation Programs
xv
-------
PREFACE
The Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility (EERF)
participates in the identification of solutions to prob-
lem areas as defined by the Office of Radiation Programs.
The Facility provides analytical capability for evalua-
tion and assessment of radiation sources through environ-
mental studies and surveillance and analysis. The EERF
provides technical assistance to the State and local
health departments in their radiological health programs
and provides special analytical support for Environmental
Protection Agency Regional Offices and other federal
government agencies as requested.
This report was generated to assess environmental
radiation contributions from the atmospheric nuclear tests
by the People's Republic of China on September 26 and
November 17, 1976.
Charles R. Porter
Director
Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility
-------
CONTENTS
Page
FOREWORD iii
PREFACE v
ABSTRACT xii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT xiv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Description of Fallout Incidents 1
Concerns for Fallout 2
EPA Responsibilities 2
Purpose and Scope of This Report 3
2. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5
Summary 5
Conclusions 6
3. EPA MONITORING PROGRAM 8
ERAMS 8
Airborne Particulates and Precipitation Sampling .... 9
Pasteurized Milk Sampling 11
4. MOVEMENT OF CONTAMINATED AIR MASSES 13
September 26, 1976 Detonation 13
November 17 3 1976 Detonation 16
5. EPA FALLOUT MONITORING RESPONSES 18
September 26> 1976 Detonation 18
November I?3 1976 Detonation 19
VI
-------
Page
6. COMMERCIAL AIR TRAFFIC CONCERNS ................. 21
7. AIR PARTICULATE AND PRECIPITATION MEASUREMENTS.. 23
September 26, 1976 Detonation ..................... 23
November 17, 1976 Detonation ...................... 29
8. PASTEURIZED MILK MEASUREMENTS ................... 32
September 26, 1976 Detonation ..................... 32
November 17, 1976 Detonation ...................... 32
9. RADIATION DOSE ASSESSMENTS ...................... 38
Dose Types and Pathways ......................... . 38
Dose Estimates for Individuals ..................... 40
Population Dose Calculations ...................... 46
10 . HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ....................... 57
EPA Policy Statement on Relationship Between Radiation
Dose and Effect ............................... 57
Projected Health Effects for September Event ......... 60
11. DISCUSSION. . ............................... ..... 61
Philosophy Regarding Calculation of Environmental
Doses and Effects .............................. gj_
Review of Calsulational Uncertainties for Population
Dose Calculations .............................. 62
Doses Calculated by Other Agencies .................. 54
Significance of Estimated Health Effects ............ 55
VI1
-------
Page
12. REFERENCES 66
13. APPENDICES A-l
A. Data for September 26, 1976 Detonation A-2
B. Data for November 17, 1976 Detonation B~l
C. Additional Information on Individual and
Population Dose Calculations C-l
Vlll
-------
List of Tables
Table Page
1. Dose commitment factors for critical organs and
critical receptors 44
2. Integrated milk and air concentrations and
individual doses for the stations with the
highest measured activity levels 47
3. Age distribution, absolute milk consumption and
milk consumption distribution for the U. S.
population , 54
A-l Results of air samples collected in response to
the nuclear test of September 26, 1976, by the
People's Republic of China... A-2
A-2 Gamma results of precipitation samples containing
significant amounts of radioactivity A-8
A-3 Results of Pasteurized milk samples collected in
response to the nuclear test of September 26,
1976, by the People's Republic of China A-ll
B-l Results of air samples collected in response to
the nuclear test of November 17, 1976, by the
People ' s Republic of China B-2
B-2 Results of Pasteurized milk samples collected in
response to the nuclear test of November 17,
1976, by the People's Republic of China B-6
C-l Integrated milk concentration by station for the
September event C-3
C-2 Estimated milk consumption C-9
C-3 Milk utilization for 1975 and estimated marketing-
to consumption times for various milk
products (8 , 9) C-12
C-4 Food groups for population dose calculations C-13
IX
-------
List of Figures
Figure Page
1. Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System
(ERAMS) airborne particulates and precipitation
sampling locations 10
2. ERAMS Pasteurized milk component sampling
locations 12
3. Post facto analysis of path of debris at 300
millibar level (approximately 30,000 ft.).
Approximate path of leading edge of upper tropo-
spheric debris (30,000 ft.) from the Chinese
nuclear detonation of September 26, 1976 14
4. Approximate path of leading edge of lower tropo-
spheric debris (approximately 20,000 ft.) from
the Chinese nuclear detonation of September
26, 1976 15
5. Predicted movement of air mass containing radio-
active debris across the United States and
possible areas of rainout from this air mass
following the Chinese nuclear detonation of
November 17 , 1976 I7
6. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particu-
lates. Maximum daily laboratory measurements -
October 1-9, 1976 (pCi/m3) 24
7. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particu-
lates. Maximum daily laboratory measurements -
October 10-16, 1976 (pCi/m3) 25
8. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particu-
lates. Maximum daily laboratory measurements -
October 17-23, 1976 (pCi/m3) 26
9. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particu-
lates. Maximum daily laboratory measurements -
October 24-30, 1976 (pCi/m3) 27
10. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particu-
lates. Maximum daily laboratory measurements -
October 31-November 5, 1976 (pCi/m3) 28
x
-------
(Continued)
Figure Page
11. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particu-
lates. Maximum daily laboratory measurements -
November 18-24, 1976 (pCi/m3) 30
12. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particu-
lates. Maximum daily laboratory measurements -
November 25-December 1, 1976 (pCi/m3) 31
13. Distribution of iodine-131 in milk. Average con-
centrations October 1-9, 1976 (pCi/£) 33
14. Distribution of iodine-131 in milk. Average con-
centrations October 10-16, 1976 (pCi/£) 34
15. Distribution of iodine-131 in milk. Average con-
centrations November 1-16, 1976 (pCi/£) 35
16. Distribution of iodine-131 in milk. Average con-
centrations December 4-10, 1976 (pCi/£) 37
17. Net iodine-131 concentration in milk as a func-
tion of date for Baltimore, Maryland 43
18. Integrated milk concentration of iodine-131
(pCi-d/£) by State, for the period October 1 -
November 12, 1976 51
19. Estimated milk consumption (million pounds) by
State, for the period October 1 - November
12, 1976 53
20. Population thyroid dose (man-rad) by State, for
the period October 1 - November 12, 1976 56
XI
-------
ABSTRACT
The People's Republic of China conducted atmospheric
nuclear weapons tests over the Lop Nor testing area in
Southwest China on September 26, and November 17, 1976.
Based on past experience, EPA expected that radioactive
fallout from these events should be barely measurable in
the United States. However, for several weeks following
both events, EPA monitored for fallout by fully activating
the Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System
(ERAMS) network even though no significant radioactivity
levels were expected. Rainstorms in parts of the eastern
United States following the September test resulted in
radioiodine levels on pasture grass and in cow's milk which
were easily detectable and higher than expected. Slight
elevations of radioiodine levels in milk above background
were also observed at the other milk sampling locations
across the U. S. Radionuclide levels in air particulates
and precipitation were also elevated. Radionuclide levels
in all sampling media and at all sampling locations were
only slightly above background following the November test.
EPA reviewed the potential for aircraft related exposures
due to fallout following the November detonation and has
concluded that there were no significant exposures to pas-
sengers or to commercial airline employees following the
detonation.
A review of the environmental levels of radioactivity
following both events indicated that radionuclide levels
following the November event were so low that dose calcu-
lations would not be meaningful. Maximum individual doses
for all nuclides detected in air and milk following the
September event were calculated to obtain an indication of
the relative importance of the various dose pathways. The
highest dose was for the *3^-milk-thyroid pathway which
was at least a factor of 7.5 higher than for any other
pathway. After reviewing these maximum calculated indi-
vidual doses, it was decided to calculate a U. S. thyroid
population dose for the first event using 131i levels
measured in the ERAMS milk samples and U. S. Department of
Agriculture milk production data. A U. S. population thy-
roid dose of 68,000 man-rads was calculated. Using EPA's
current best estimate for risk for thyroid health effects
(63 excess thyroid cancer cases per 106 man-rads), it is
predicted that 4.3 excess thyroid cancer cases could poten-
tially occur in the United States during the next 45 years
XI1
-------
due to the 131i in milk following the September event.
This number of potential thyroid cancers calculated for
the U. S. population are small and will be undetectable
when compared to the estimated 380,000 cases of thyroid
cancer which might be expected in the United States from
all causes during the next 45 years.
xnz
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their appreciation
to Christopher B. Nelson and J. David Lutz, Environmental
Analysis Division/ and to Jon A. Broadway and Charles R.
Phillips, Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, for
their many comments and suggestions used in the compilation
of this report.
xiv
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Description of Fallout Incidents
During the fall of 1976, the People's Republic
of China detonated two nuclear devices in the atmo-
sphere over the Lop Nor testing area in Southwest
China. The first explosion occurred on September 26,
1976, and was rated as a low yield nuclear device with
an explosive power equivalent to 20-200 thousand tons
of TNT. The second device detonated on November 17,
1976, had a high yield of about four million tons TNT
equivalent. This was the largest device yet tested by
the People's Republic of China.
Since both detonations were above ground, it was
expected that radioactive materials would be injected
into the atmosphere. The prevailing air currents over
China move in an easterly direction. Therefore,
within 4 to 7 days these airborne radioactive materials
would be expected to arrive over the North American
Continent. The fastest moving of these air currents of
initial interest generally move at altitudes of 20 to
40 thousand feet. Normally, the materials carried by
these air currents pass over the United States and
Canada within 2 to 4 days after arrival at the west
coast. The radioactive materials usually remain at
the higher altitudes until slowly dropping down to the
earth's surface as fallout over a period of several
months or years.
The Environmental Protection Agency's experience,
and that of its predecessor organizations, with atmo-
pheric nuclear testing by the People's Republic of
China (18 tests since October 1964) indicated that
radioactive fallout should be barely measurable in
the United States. Consequently, EPA was prepared to
monitor for any fallout which might occur although no
significant radioactivity levels were expected.
The movement of air masses carrying radioactive
materials from the September 26, 1976, nuclear test,
however, encountered a storm system causing it to
behave differently from normal. During passage over
the United States at about 30 thousand feet, turbu-
lence brought the radioactive materials down to alti-
tudes where rainfall was occurring over the eastern
-------
part of the United States. Subsequently, these
materials were carried downward by rain (rainout)
and deposited on the ground. This rainout did not
occur following the November 17, 1976, nuclear test
which was more in accordance with fallout behavior
of previous tests.
Concerns for Fallout
Airborne radioactive materials produced by atmo-
spheric nuclear weapons testing may cause radioactive
exposures to people in several ways. The primary con-
cern is when the radioactive materials come down from
the atmosphere as fallout. Then people may potentially
be exposed by inhalation of radioactive dust particles
or more importantly by ingestion of foods which may
contain fallout materials. Milk is the main food of
concern because there is a possibility of radioactive
deposition on grass being transferred into cow's milk.
Fallout of dry materials or more significantly rain-
out of radioactive materials could deposit on large
areas of land including pastures for dairy cattle.
Cows consume large quantities of grass and some of the
radioactive materials which may be on this grass are
transferred within a day or two to the cow's milk.
Times involved in milk production, transport, process-
ing and bottling are such that normally several days
would be required for any such potential contamina-
tion to reach pasteurized milk for retail sales to
consumers.
An additional concern for airborne radioactive
materials is for potential exposures to people aboard
aircraft flying at altitudes where these materials are
being carried by air currents. There is also some
possibility that radioactive particles may be picked
up on aircraft surfaces such as engine air intake
ducts. Such contaminated surfaces could potentially
cause exposures to aircraft maintenance personnel.
EPA Responsibilities
EPA has responsibility through its Office of
Radiation Programs to evaluate exposures to the public
from all sources of radiation, and to issue guidance
for control of these exposures or to set appropriate
-------
exposure standards. Inherent in this responsibility
is the determination of the impact of radiation doses
from radioactive fallout. To assess the radiation
doses from radionuclides in the general ambient envi-
ronment, EPA maintains a monitoring program known as
the Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System
(ERAMS). This system was alerted for special radia-
tion measurements prior to and during the times of
anticipated fallout from the September and November
nuclear tests. ERAMS is described in detail later in
this report.
In addition, EPA has the responsibility to notify
State agencies of the possibility of radioactive fall-
out. EPA also keeps these State agencies informed on
the national and regional radiological picture and
advises these agencies regarding surveillance or pro-
tective actions which they may pursue.
EPA collects information from its own monitoring
system, from State monitoring programs, and from other
Federal agencies to assess the national radiological
situation. This information is then relayed to the
public by means of press releases during the time of
potential fallout. Other Federal agencies are also
informed of the situation as appropriate.
Purpose and Scope of This Report
This report represents EPA's assessment of radia-
tion doses due to radioactive fallout from both atmo-
spheric nuclear tests during the fall of 1976. This
assessment is based upon data from EPA's national
monitoring program for fallout. Primarily, this as-
sessment focuses on the potential for radiation expo-
sures due to fallout materials in pasteurized milk
after the September 26, 1976, nuclear test. The poten-
tial doses from inhalation of radioactive aerosols fol-
lowing this test were very small. Also, fallout levels
after the November 17, 1976, nuclear test were below
or barely at measurable levels. Consequently, the
only potential doses of significance were attributed
to consumption of pasteurized milk after the September
26 nuclear test.
-------
To simplify reporting of EPA's assessment for
the combined nuclear tests, this report is organized
to present information from each test in series within
each section of the report. For example, the follow-
ing section on movement of contaminated air masses
presents the September 26 information first and then
follows with information for the November 17 nuclear
test.
Detailed data on EPA1s monitoring measurements
are included as an appendix to this report. These
data were used to assess individual and population
doses as discussed in section 9. The assessment of
population health effects is given in section 10.
Each of these sections briefly outlines the assess-
ment approach and modelling parameters. The inter-
pretation of dose and health effects is presented in
the discussion in section 11.
In particular, this report is intended to present
information on the following items:
(a) description of fallout incidents
(b) movement of contaminated air masses
(c) EPA's general monitoring program
(d) EPA's specific fallout monitoring efforts
(e) EPA's monitoring results
(f) population dose assessment
(g) potential health effects
(h) interpretation of dose and health effects
and conclusions
-------
2. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary
EPA has assessed the short term impact on public
health in the United States which may be attributed to
radioactive fallout from the two atmospheric nuclear
tests during the fall of 1976.
The first detonation occurred on September 26 and
the initial pass of the cloud was calculated to reach
the western coast of the U. S. on October 1. EPA acti-
vated the standby air particulate and precipitation
stations of ERAMS on September 29 and September 30.
Routine nationwide pasteurized milk samples were col-
lected during the week of October 4 which was early in
the buildup cycle of levels in milk. EPA continued
frequent sampling until levels of fallout radionuclides
in all sampling media returned to normal background
levels.
Detectable levels of fresh fission products were
documented in air, precipitation and milk samples from
the ERAMS program following this test. Although radio-
activity levels in air particulates were quite low,
fresh fission products were detected geographically
throughout most of the U. S. The heaviest concentra-
tions of radioactive fallout were apparently deposited
in rainfall with the most significant concentration
along the east coast. Subsequently the highest con-
centrations of 131I and ^"Ba in milk were detected in
that area.
The second detonation occurred on November 17 and
the initial pass of the cloud was predicted to reach
the western coast of the United States on November 20.
ERAMS air particulate and precipitation stations were
fully activated on November 18. Special nationwide
pasteurized milk samples were collected beginning
November 24. EPA continued the special sampling until
* Over the long term of many years most of the fallout will
be deposited over the earth, contributing to a slight in-
crease in background levels. This long term impact is not
assessed in this report.
-------
it was obvious that there was not going to be a sig-
nificant buildup of radionuclides in the environmental
samples as a result of this event. No fresh fission
product activity from the test of November 17 was de-
tected in the air particulate and precipitation samples
and only two milk samples contained measurable amounts
of 131I. This activity in milk is probably attribut-
able to the September 26 test since slightly elevated
levels of activity remained in air samples through the
first part of November. There were special concerns
following the November 17, 1976, detonation regarding
potential aircraft related exposures. EPA has re-
viewed these concerns and has concluded that there were
no significant exposures to passengers or to mainte-
nance personnel as a result of commercial air traffic
following the November detonation. Press releases were
issued frequently during the sampling period after both
events to keep the public informed.
For both events, the only potentially significant
increase in radioactivity in environmental samples was
131I in milk following the September event. A popula-
tion thyroid dose for this event was calculated to be
68,000 man-rad. Using EPA's best estimate for health
effects, this population dose translates to an estimate
of 4.3 excess thyroid cancers which could potentially
occur in the 45 years following this event. These esti-
mates of potential excess thyroid cancers and deaths
are a factor of 88,000 below the spontaneous natural
occurrence of thyroid cancers projected for the same
time period. EPA's assessment of potential health ef-
fects resulting from short term fallout from the
September and the November events indicates that these
events will not significantly affect the health of the
United States population.
Conclusions
The conclusions that can be drawn from this eval-
uation of potential radiological health effects of the
fallout from the September and November 1976 nuclear
weapons tests by the People's Republic of China are:
(a) These two nuclear weapons tests will not
contribute significantly to thyroid cancer
deaths in the United States.
-------
(b) There were no significant exposures to
commercial airline passengers or employees
as a result of flights following the
November detonation.
(c) ERAMS data can be used to make reasonable
estimates of doses to the population of the
United States due to radioactivity in the
environment.
-------
3. EPA MONITORING PROGRAM
ERAMS
Continuing surveillance of radioactivity levels
in the United States is maintained through EPA's
Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System
(ERAMS). This system was formed in July 1973 from
the consolidation and redirection of separate monitor-
ing networks formerly operated by the U. S. Public
Health Service prior to EPA's formation. These pre-
vious monitoring networks had been oriented primarily
to measurements of fallout levels. They were modified
by changing collection and analysis frequencies and
sampling locations and by increasing the analyses for
some specific radionuclides. The emphasis of the cur-
rent system is toward identifying trends in the accu-
mulation of long-lived radionuclides in the environment.
However, the ERAMS is flexible in design to also pro-
vide for short-term assessment for large scale events
such as fallout.
ERAMS normally involves over 7000 individual
analyses per year on samples of air particulates, pre-
cipitation, milk, surface and drinking water. Samples
are collected at about 150 locations in the United
States and its territories mainly by State and local
health agencies. These samples are forwarded to ORP's
Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility (EERF) in
Montgomery, Alabama for analyses. ERAMS data are tabu-
lated quarterly and issued to the groups involved in
the program.*
* An indepth analysis summary of ERAMS data will be pre-
sented in each year's publication of EPA's Radiological
Quality of the Environment. This publication is available
from the Office of Radiation Programs, USEPA, 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. Previously, ERAMS data were
published monthly in Radiation Data and Reports. This pub-
lication was terminated in December 1974.
-------
Airborne Particulates and Precipitation Sampling
The air monitoring program of ERAMS consists of
21 continuously operating stations and 46 standby
stations located throughout the United States, Puerto
Rico, and the Canal Zone (figure 1). At the continu-
ously operating stations, airborne particulates are
collected continuously on filters which are changed
twice weekly. Aliquots of precipitations are also
collected twice weekly and are submitted to EERF for
analysis with the air particulate samples. When the
possibility of fallout occurs, the 46 additional
standby stations are alerted and daily sampling is
started at all stations. The air particulate samples
are important for estimating the potential population
dose from inhalation of fallout materials. Precipi-
tation samples are collected to indicate rainout of
radioactive materials which may contaminate pasture
and crop lands.
High efficiency, charcoal impregnated, cellulose
filters are used for air particulate collection.
Field gross beta measurements are made with a G-M survey
meter at 5 hours and 29 hours after collection to allow
subtraction of naturally occurring radon and thoron
daughter products. Field estimates are reported to the
Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility (EERF) via
telephone if the activity level is twice the normal
reading for the sampling area.
The filters are then sent to the EERF for more
sensitive gross beta measurements in the laboratory.
If the laboratory gross beta activity exceeds 1 pCi/m3,
a sodium iodide (Nal) gamma analysis is performed to
identify and quantify the following radioisotopes:
11MtCe, 131I, ?06Ru, 137CS, 95Zr-Nb, 232Th, 65Zn, 60Co,
""K, 1"*°Ba/ and 21l*Bi. Due to the similarity of gamma
energies and resolution of the Nal crystal, Ce maty
be present with the 1%ltCe, and 103Ru, and 7Be may be
reported with 106Ru.
Precipitation samples from the 21 continuously
operating stations are sent directly to the EERF for
gamma analysis whereas aliquots of the precipitation
from the 46 standby stations are evaporated to dryness
and gross beta field estimates are made prior to ship-
ment to the EERF.
-------
LEGEND
A ACTIVE SAMPLING STATION
• STANDBY SAMPLING STATION
Figure 1. Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS) airborne
particulates and precipitation sampling locations.
-------
Pasteurized Milk Sampling
The milk monitoring program of ERAMS is a co-
operative program between EPA, ORP, and the Milk
Sanitation Section of the Food and Drug Administration.
Pasteurized milk samples are collected the first week
of the month by FDA representatives at 65 sampling
sites with one or more located in each State and in
Puerto Rico and the Canal Zone (figure 2). These are
composite samples based on the volume of milk sold by
the various milk processors in the sampling station
area and represent more than 80 percent of the milk
consumed in major population centers of the United
States. Additional samples may be collected upon re-
quest to respond to events, such as fallout from nu-
clear weapons testing.
Gamma analyses are performed on the milk samples
as soon as they arrive at the EERF and results for
131I, llt0Ba, ll7Cs, and "°K are available within hours
after receipt. If samples have 131I and lif°Ba activity
levels greater than 10 pCi/liter or abnormally high
137Cs values, then a9Sr, 90Sr analyses are performed.
The radiostrontium data are usually available within
two weeks after sample receipt at EERF.
The radioisotopes 131I, 140Ba, 137Cs, 90Sr, and
89Sr have been shown in previous fallout episodes to
be sensitive indicators of fission product radio-
activity from nuclear detonations. Pasteurized milk
consumption is important in determining population
dose resulting from radionuclides which rapidly trans-
fer from the environment through food chains to man.
The food chain of interest starts with particulate
deposition on grass forage. The grass forage is con-
sumed by grazing dairy cows. The metabolized radio-
nuclides in cows are rapidly transferred to milk which
is processed by the dairy and is ready for public con-
sumption within one to four days after deposition.
11
-------
Hartford
rkCily
Trenton
•Wilmington
.Baltimore
0 MO MO MOM.Ui
0 HO 100 JOD 400 I ,(•*.(•,
Figure 2. ERAMS pasteurized milk component sampling locations.
-------
4. MOVEMENT OF THE CONTAMINATED AIR MASSES
Since both detonations by the People's Republic
of China were above ground, large amounts of radio-
active materials were injected into the atmosphere
and were carried in an easterly direction toward the
United States. These radioactive materials (which
are normally invisible to the eye) will begin dis-
persing laterally and vertically depending on particle
sizes and shapes, temperature, and wind velocity. At
each particular altitude, there is a forward region
where contaminated air begins mixing with uncontami-
nated air. This area is called the "leading edge" of
the contaminated air mass and can be detected by
instrument-carrying aircraft. The movement of con-
taminated air masses at various altitudes can be pre-
dicted on the basis of meteorological data.
September 263 1976 Detonation
Figure 3 shows the initial trajectory of the
radioactive debris from the Chinese nuclear detonation
on September 26, 1976. This detonation was a relatively
low-powered explosion, consequently, the majority of
the radioactive material did not penetrate into the
stratosphere but remained in the troposphere (i.e.
below approximately 35,000 ft.). It took approximately
5 days for the leading edge of the radioactive air mass
in the upper troposphere (30,000 ft. level) to reach
the west coast of the United States and about 2 more
days to cross the United States.
A lower altitude segment of the contaminated air
mass at approximately the 20,000 foot level crossed
the Pacific more slowly than the first segment and
reached the west coast of the United States on October
6, 1976, 9 days after the nuclear detonation. Figure
4 shows the approximate path of the leading edge of
this segment as it crossed the United States. This
segment took 3 days to cross the United States in a
sweep across the Western,Southern, and Northeastern
States.
13
-------
Figure 3. Post facto analysis of path of debris at 300 millibar level (approxi-
mately 30,000 ft.) Approximate path of leading edge of upper tropo-
spheric debris (30,000 ft.) from the Chinese nuclear detonation of
September 26, 1976.
-------
115 USCOMM-MMA-DC 110
75
ffl Ml
Figure 4. Approximate path of leading edge of lower tropospheric debris (approx-
imately 20,000 ft.) from the Chinese nuclear detonation of September
26, 1976.
-------
After passing across the United States, the radio-
active air mass circled the world and passed over the
United States again by October 15. After this pass
the contaminated air mass became very diffuse and the
radioactivity had decayed to the point where further
passes could not be positively detected.
November 17, 197G Detonation
The November 17, 1976, nuclear detonation by the
People's Republic of China was a much larger explosion
than the one in September. Because of the much larger
size of the detonation, a hotter thermal column was
created which caused the majority of the radioactive
debris to be injected high into the stratosphere
where it is expected to remain over a period of
several years. This long residence time in the strato-
sphere allows the short-lived radionuclides to decay
away and spreads out the length of time the longer-
lived radionuclides will take to reach the ground.
The predicted path across the United States of
the first pass of the radioactive air mass from the
November 17 detonation is shown in figure 5. The
radioactive air mass was moving very rapidly and the
leading edge reached the west coast of the United
States only 3 days after detonation. One day later,
the leading edge had crossed the east coast. The
rain clouds that occurred along the east coast ap-
parently did not reach up into the stratosphere and
the rain that occurred during passage of the contami-
nated air mass did not bring down any radioactive
materials by rainout.
16
-------
?am Sat. EST
Nov. 20
7pm Sat. EST
7am Sun. EST
Figure 5. Predicted movement of air mass containing radioactive debris across
the United States and possible areas of rainout from this air mass
following the Chinese nuclear detonation of November 17, 1976.
-------
5. EPA FALLOUT MONITORING RESPONSES
September 26, 1976 Detonation
The Energy Research and Development Administration
(ERDA) on Monday September 27, 1976, informed the EPA
of the nuclear detonation and also made a public an-
nouncement of the test. The ERDA has the responsi-
bility in the Federal government of announcing both
domestic and foreign nuclear detonations along with
other pertinent information about the detonations.
On September 29, 1976, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) made the first pre-
diction of the trajectory of the leading edge of the
contaminated air mass. These predictions were revised
daily as more information became available to them.
The NOAA has the Federal responsibility for predicting
the airborne trajectory of the contaminated air masses
and the time of potential radioactive fallout across
the United States.
Based on the above information, the EPA began
notifying the States and the ERAMS air particulate and
precipitation sampling stations on September 29 to
activate the standby portion of the network and to in-
crease the sampling frequency for the other sampling
stations. The entire network was in full operation by
Thursday, September 30.
The leading edge of the contaminated air mass
entered North America late on September 30 over British
Columbia. The southern portion of this air mass passed
over the northern portions of Washington, Idaho,
Montana, North Dakota, and Minnesota on October 1. On
the night of October 1, a low pressure center formed
over Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, and caused a severe
atmospheric disturbance that intersected the southern
portions of the fallout cloud. Subsequent rainout re-
sulted in radioactive particles being brought down to
ground level in northeastern Maryland, southeastern
Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, southeastern New
York, western Connecticut, and western Massachusetts.
The rainout was first detected late on Saturday,
October 2, at Chester, N.J. by the ERDA's Health and
Safety Laboratory. On Sunday, October 3, radioactivity
18
-------
was detected at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station
in southeastern Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia
Electric Company, which operates this station, issued
a press release on October 4 concerning the elevated
levels of radioactivity. By Tuesday, October 5, it
became apparent, as more analyses were completed,
that the rainout pattern extended northeast to
Massachusetts. Measurements of airborne radioactivity
and measurements of milk samples consequently indi-
cated that low levels of fallout were also present in
other areas of the country. These measurements will
be discussed in more detail later in this report.
Based on the radioactive measurements in the pre-
cipitation samples, the EPA requested that the FDA
collect additional milk samples from all sampling sta-
tions. Normally, samples are collected from all sta-
tions the first week of the month. After October 15,
special milk samples were also collected from those
stations that previously reported fallout or those
that might potentially have received fallout from
rainout of radioactive particles.
The EPA monitored the concentrations of radio-
activity in air particulates, precipitation, and in
pasteurized milk into November 1976, until the con-
centrations returned to normal. Overall EPA's
monitoring program for the September 26 detonation
resulted in collection of 293 pasteurized milk
samples, 1,124 air particulate samples, and 95 pre-
cipitation samples. Over 1,700 radiation measure-
ments were made on these samples at EPA's Eastern
Environmental Radiation Facility in Montgomery,
Alabama. Information based on these measurements was
issued through seven press releases from October 5 to
October 15. These press releases indicated that at
no time did EPA evaluate the fallout situation as
warranting any protective actions on a broad basis
and no such actions were suggested.
November 17, 1976 Detonation
The ERDA notified the EPA of the nuclear deto-
nation on Wednesday, November 17, and the first
trajectory information was received from the NOAA on
November 19. The leading edge of the contaminated
19
-------
air mass was expected over the United States on
Saturday, November 20, but would have a much wider
north-south dispersion than the previous fallout
cloud. The air mass passed southeasterly over about
3/4 of the United States and on out to sea by November
21. There was no interaction with weather fronts to
bring the fallout to ground level.
As with the previous test, the EPA activated the
standby portion of the ERAMS air particulate and pre-
cipitation network on Thursday, November 18, and
special milk samples were collected in November and
December until it was apparent that no fallout would
be detected from this nuclear detonation. For this
event, the ERAMS program collected 180 milk samples,
793 air particulate samples, and 51 precipitation
samples for a total of over 1,000 analyses. From
November 17 to December 2, the EPA issued 9 press
releases on the fallout trajectories and EPA data.
The EPA also maintained close contact with the States
and other Federal Agencies during this potential fall-
out episode for data exchange.
Following the November 17 detonation, EPA also
responded to concerns for potential exposures related
to commercial aircraft. This is discussed in the next
section.
-------
6. COMMERCIAL AIR TRAFFIC CONCERNS
There were special concerns following the November
17, 1976, detonation regarding potential aircraft re-
lated exposures. One concern was for potential expo-
sures to people aboard aircraft flying at altitudes
where the airborne radioactive materials were being
carried. As expected, there were no real problems at
normal commercial air traffic altitudes (up to 40,000
feet). Measurements aboard aircraft indicated that
exposures from radioactive materials at altitudes of
30 to 35 thousand feet would only be increased by
about two percent over the exposures normally received
at these altitudes from cosmic radiation. Exposures
at lower altitudes were even smaller. The slightly
increased exposures due to fallout debris were roughly
the equivalent of increased cosmic radiation when fly-
ing at 32 thousand feet compared to 30 thousand feet.
EPA consulted with the Federal Aviation Agency
(FAA), ERDA, and the Air Force in assessing the impact
of airborne radioactive materials on aviation. All of
these agencies agreed that there would be no problem
with passenger exposures at normal altitudes. There-
fore, no recommendations were made to divert flights
around the path of the fallout debris. EPA advised
that business should be continued as usual for regular
jet air travel.
One new potential problem was identified concern-
ing aircraft passenger exposures. Namely, with the
advent of high altitude commercial aircraft (above
50,000 feet) there might be possibilities of interac-
tion with the more highly contaminated air masses at
such stratospheric altitudes characteristic of high
yield atmospheric detonations. Since commercial air-
craft did not operate at these high altitudes during
high yield nuclear testing of previous years, there
was little experience from which to determine poten-
tial problems. Because the higher altitude air masses
move very slowly, there was no immediate problem fol-
lowing the November 17 detonation. However, pre-
cautions were taken such as installing monitoring
equipment aboard aircraft to assure the avoidance of
radiation exposures. This monitoring indicated either
none or barely detectable exposures which could be at-
tributed to the radioactive materials from nuclear
testing.
21
-------
The other concern regarding aircraft was that
radioactive particles may be picked up on aircraft
surfaces such as air intake ducts during high alti-
tude flights. Such contaminated surfaces could poten-
tially cause exposures to aircraft maintenance per-
sonnel. Therefore, plans were made for decontamina-
tion of aircraft if that might be necessary. Subse-
quent monitoring of aircraft indicated only limited
contamination on certain parts of aircraft. It was
concluded that such limited contamination would not
result in significant exposures to either passengers
or maintenance personnel.
22
-------
7. AIR PARTICULATE AND PRECIPITATION MEASUREMENTS
September 263 1976 Detonation
Laboratory gross beta measurements are performed
on all air particulate samples, usually within 3-5
days following collection, after the decay of naturally
occurring short-lived radon and thoron daughter products,
These measurements are used as screening mechanisms to
determine the need for additional specific isotopic
analyses. Gross beta measurements alone are not suffi-
cient for dose estimates which require data on concen-
trations of individual isotopes. However, the beta
measurements are useful for determining trends and pat-
terns of fallout in the United States.
The geographical distribution of maximum gross
beta radioactivity in laboratory measurements of air-
borne particulates in the weeks following the September
26, 1976, test are presented in Figures 6-10. The con-
tours denoting separation of radioactivity levels were
arrived at mathematically with interpolation of con-
centrations between sampling stations. Variations
within the two lower levels are normally seen as am-
bient gackground variations. These concentrations are
rarely exceeded without the intrusion of a contaminat-
ing source such as the Chinese atmospheric nuclear
tests.
During the first week of sampling, the air partic-
ulate radioactivity was concentrated in the eastern
section of the United States, but by October 10, most
of the airborne radioactivity levels had fallen below
1.0 pCi/m3, the exception being the extreme southwest.
During the week of October 17-23, with the second
passage of the radioactive cloud, levels again began
to increase with the higher levels (>1.0 pCi/m3) being
in the west, southwest, and Florida. Radioactivity
then declined until the end of the alert status on
November 5 at which time only Denver, Colorado and
Pierre, South Dakota, reached the 1 pCi/m3 level. A
detailed summary of the airborne particulate data is
given in Table A-l, Appendix A, including the specific
gamma results, for samples with the maximum gross beta
radioactivity.
23
-------
LEGEND
ACTIVE SAMPLING STATION
STANDBY SAMPLING STATION
CN
Figure 6. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particulates. Maximum daily
laboratory measurements - October 1-9, 1976 (pCi/m3).
-------
to
LEGEND
ACTIVE SAMPLING STATION
• STANDBY SAMPLING STATION
Figure 7. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particulates. Maximum daily
laboratory measurements - October 10-16, 1976 (pCi/m3).
-------
ACTIVE SAMPLING STATION
STANDBY SAMPLING STATION
vo
Figure 8. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particulates. Maximum daily
laboratory measurements - October 17-23, 1976 (pCi/m3).
-------
to
LEGEND
ACTIVE SAMPLING STATION
STANDBY SAMPLING STATION
Figure 9. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particulates. Maximum daily
laboratory measurements - October 24-30, 1976 (pCi/m3).
-------
LEGEND
A ACTIVE SAMPLING STATION
• STANDBY SAMPLING STATION
CO
Figure 10. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particulates. Maximum daily
laboratory measurements - October 31-November 5, 1976 (pCi/m3)
-------
Precipitation samples were collected together
with the air samples at most locations. Gamma re-
sults from samples containing detectable levels of
radioactivity are presented in Table A-2, Appendix A.
Radioactivity in precipitation was highest on
the eastern seaboard during the first 10 days of
October probably as a result of turbulence causing
rain clouds to intermingle with the airborne radio-
active debris in the 30,000 ft. upper tropospheric
trajectory. The highest overall levels were recorded
in the deep south October 18-20 and are attributed to
the second pass of the contaminated air masses which
interacted with rain storms.
November1 17 , 1976 Detonation
Figures 11 and 12 depict the geographical distri-
bution of maximum gross beta values for air particu-
lates collected the first 2 weeks following the
November 17 event and may be considered as represen-
tative of background fluctuations of gross beta radio-
activity. Only three sampling sites had values ex-
ceeding the two lower distribution levels and these
were generally attributed to stagnant air masses which
produced unusually high ambient radioactivity. These
data are in contrast to those shown in Tables 6-10 fol-
lowing the September 26 event when almost all of the
stations were influenced by fallout and at some time
had levels exceeding 0.3 pCi/m3.
A summary of the data from air particulate samples
collected November 20 - December 10 is given in Table
B-l, Appendix B. None of the samples had a laboratory
gross beta values greater than 1 pCi/m3, therefore,
there was no need for gamma analyses. However, several
of the samples with the highest gross beta values were
scanned for gamma emitters and were not found to con-
tain fresh fission products such as 131i or llf()Ba. The
precipitation samples collected during this same time
period were also devoid of fresh fission products.
29
-------
A ACTIVE SAMPLING STATION
• STANDBY SAMPLING STATION
o
n
Figure 11. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particulates. Maximum daily
laboratory measurements - November 18-24, 1976 (pCi/m3)
-------
Ul
LEGEND
A ACTIVE SAMPLING STATION
• STANDBY SAMPLING STATION
Figure 12. Distribution of gross beta in airborne particulates. Maximum daily
laboratory measurements - November 25-December 1, 1976 (pCi/m3).
-------
8. PASTEURIZED MILK MEASUREMENTS
September 26, 1976 Detonation
Results for pasteurized milk samples collected
October 1 - November 16 are presented in Table A-3,
Appendix A. For the first 2 weeks following the ar-
rival of the fallout in the U. S. on October 2, 1976,
all stations were requested to provide additional
samples. Beyond that time only those stations pre-
viously reporting fallout radioactivity or those
suspected to have received significant amounts of fall-
out in rainfall deposition from the second passage of
the contaminated air mass were asked to submit samples.
Figures 13 - 15 show the geographical distribution of
average 131i concentrations in pasteurized milk samples
for October 1-9, October 10-16, and November 1-16,
respectively.
The highest 131i value obtained for an ERAMS
pasteurized milk sample was 155 pCi/liter in the sample
collected at Baltimore, Maryland, on October 8. This
level was far below that at which any type of protec-
tive action was warranted. Several state agencies
reported raw milk sample radioactivities as high as
1,000 pCi/liter; however, these were for individual
dairies and did not generally represent the composited
milk as it appeared in grocery stores. In the States
of Connecticut and Massachusetts, where some of the
highest individual results were reported, the concerned
State agencies ordered that dairy herds be switched to
the use of stored feed only. This was a prudent action
since at this time of the year, most large dairy herds
were already primarily on stored feed and stored feed
was readily available. The fact that most dairy cattle
were not on outdoor pasturage was significant in keep-
ing the radioactivity in milk at low levels.
November 17, 1976 Detonation
Pasteurized milk sample data collected following
this second test are presented in Table B-2, Appendix
2. Only two samples contained levels of 131i above
10 pCi/liter. It is believed that this radioactivity
is probably traceable to the September 26 test since
32
-------
U)
OJ
Figure 13. Distribution of iodine-131 in milk. Average concentrations
October 1-9, 1976 (pCi/l).
-------
CO
Figure 14. Distribution of iodine-131 in milk. Average concentrations
October 10-16, 1976 (pCi/£).
-------
Ul
Figure 15. Distribution of iodine-131 in milk. Average concentrations
November 1-16, 1976 (pCi/l).
-------
these samples were collected in the south and south-
west where slight elevations in air radioactivity
had persisted through the first week of November.
Figure 16 shows the average distribution of 131I
concentrations in milk for the time period December 4
10 when levels were reduced to essentially background
fluctuations. This figure may be compared to Figures
13-15 to show the influence of the fallout 131I.
36
-------
U)
-J
Figure 16. Distribution of iodine-131 in milk. Average concentrations
December 4-10, 1976 (pCi/£).
-------
9. RADIATION DOSE ASSESSMENT*
Dose Types and Pathways
Radiation doses to humans from fallout radio-
nuclides occur as a result of external and internal
radiation. Skin and total body external radiation
doses occur due to submersion of people in the air
containing fallout radionuclides and due to irradia-
tion of the body from radionuclides deposited on the
ground and on vegetation. Normally, the external
doses due to ground and vegetation contamination are
much lower than the submersion doses (1). For this
reason, the only external doses considered in this
report are submersion doses. Internal doses result
from inhalation of air or ingestion of food or water
containing fallout radionuclides. Vegetation con-
taminated by direct fallout or uptake of deposited
radionuclides from the soil may be consumed either
directly by humans or by animals (such as dairy cows)
which provide human food. Thus the fallout radio-
nuclides find their way into the human body by inges-
tion of foods directly by the vegetation pathway or
indirectly by a vegetable-to-animal pathway. Histori-
cally, consumption of 131i in cows milk(13^I - milk -
thyroid dose pathway) has been the most significant
contributor to doses to humans from fallout radio-
nuclides.
* In this report, the term "dose" is used broadly to mean
"absorbed dose" (rads) or "dose equivalent" (rems) and ap-
plies only to radiation protection. The term "dose" refers
to either internal or external pathways. For internal path-
ways, dose refers to the dose committed during the integra-
tion period and for external pathways, dose refers to the
dose delivered during the integration period. Population
dose is calculated in man-rads and the health effects data
is expressed as health effects per man-rad which is consis-
tent with the population dose. However, in comparing doses
for different pathways, and for the same pathway but calcu-
lated by different organizations, it has been assumed that
1 rad of dose is equal to 1 rem of dose equivalent.
38
-------
The internal doses calculated in this report are
for air particulate inhalation and for milk ingestion.
Doses for the leafy vegetable and meat pathways were
not calculated for the following reasons:
(a) Considering the entire United States, it
is believed that the fraction of feed ob-
tained by beef cattle by direct grazing
would be low, and the growing season for
many fresh leafy vegetables has ended by
October and November.
(b) These pathways are generally less signifi-
cant than the 131I-milk pathway (1).
(c) The calculational accuracy of doses for
these pathways would be substantially less
than for the milk pathway, since samples
of beef and leafy vegetables were not col-
lected and analyzed. To calculate these
doses, one would have to use measured air
concentrations to predict leafy vegetable
and meat concentrations. Several uncer-
tainties would be encountered in calculat-
ing doses for these pathways which are not
encountered in the calculations summarized
in this report. These uncertainties include
predicting:
deposition onto grass and leafy
vegetables,
fraction of cattle feed represented
by fresh grass,
fraction of vegetable consumption
represented by fresh vegetables,
transfer coefficients to human food.
Data were available at some stations on radioactivity
in precipitation samples. However, doses were not cal-
culated for these data since precipitation does not
represent a direct dose pathway to man.
39
-------
Dose Estimates for Individuals
A review of the quantities of radionuclides in
the ERAMS milk and air particulate samples collected
after the November detonation indicated that no mea-
surements were significant enough for meaningful dose
calculations. It appeared that the only potentially
significant population doses in the United States
were those attributed to the *3^-milk-thyroid dose
pathway following the September 26, 1976, nuclear
detonation. However, it was decided to calculate
individual doses for all radionuclides detected in
milk (89Sr, 90Sr, 131I, 137Cs, 1It0Ba) and air (95Zr,
95Nb, 106Ru, 131I, llt°Ba) after the September detona-
tion to give an indication of the significance of
these radionuclides and pathways with respect to the
13^-milk-thyroid pathway. These individual doses
were calculated for the network stations showing the
highest radionuclide levels.*
Equations
The equations used for the individual dose
calculations are:
ID = (Cj) (IR) (DCF)
ID =
24 (Cj) (DF)
(Eq. 1) milk ingestion and
air particulate
inhalation
(Eq. 2) air submersion
external exposures
* Since the pasteurized milk samples are composited from
several milk supplies in an area, it is possible that higher
doses could have been calculated for an individual who drinks
milk from a single dairy or who drinks unprocessed milk from
a single farm.
40
-------
where:
ID = individual dose for integration period (mrem)*
C- = integrated radionuclide concentration in milk
or air for highest station, corrected to sample
collection time (pCi-d/£ or pCi-d/m3)**
IR = intake rate for milk or air (£/d or m3/d)
DCF = dose commitment factor*** for critical
receptor (mrem/pCi intake)
24 = hours in one day
DF = skin or total body dose factor for critical
receptor (mrem/h per pCi/m3)
Age groups
For all of the calculations (individual and popu-
lation dose calculations) the receptors were divided
into four age groups to account for the variation of
dose with age. The age groups described in NRC
Regulatory Guide 1.109 (2) were used as follows:
Infant 0- 1 year
Child 1-12 years
Teenager 12-18 years
Adult 18 years and over
*1,000 mrem equals 1 rem. The rem is the product of
the absorbed dose (rads), an assigned quality factor,
and other necessary modifying factors specific for
the radiation considered.
** The Curie (Ci) is a measure of radionuclide transfor-
mation rate. One Ci equals 3.7 x 1010 transformations
per second. There are 1012 picocuries (pCi) per Ci.
*** Dose commitment is the dose which will be delivered
during the 50-year period following radionuclide intake,
41
-------
Milk pathway
For the milk pathway, the infant is the critical
receptor. An infant milk consumption rate of 1 £/d
was chosen based on information in ICRP #23 (3).
This consumption rate is for a 6-month-old male and is
the highest milk consumption rate listed in the ICRP
report. The consumption rates varied from 0.13 £/d
for a female over 60 to 1 t/d for a male 6 months old.
After examining the data on radionuclide levels in
pasteurized milk, it was obvious that radionuclide con-
centrations in milk started increasing in early October
and were approaching background again by early November.
Thus an integration period of October 1 - November 12,
1976 (43 days) was chosen for the milk samples.
Inhalation pathway
For the inhalation pathway, the child is the criti-
cal receptor. A breathing rate of 10.4 m3/d was chosen
based on information in ICRP #23 (3). There are large
variations in breathing rates depending on age and amount
of physical activity. There can be factors of 5 and 13
variation between breathing rate at rest and during max-
imal exercise for an adult and a child, respectively.
The number used (10.4 m3/d) is based on 16 hours per day
of light activity and 8 hours per day of rest. A review
of the radionuclide levels in air showed that the
highest air particulate concentrations occurred in a
period between October 1 and October 10, 1976 (10 days).
This was the integration period for the air particulate
pathway doses.
Dose commitment factors
The dose commitment factors used for the internal
dose calculations are an expression of the internal
dose which will be delivered for a unit quantity of
radionuclide ingested or inhaled. The dose commitment
factors for inhalation and milk ingestion are from NRC
Regulatory Guide 1.109 (2) except for 131I in milk.
These are from Kereiakes, et al., (4) and are based on
more recent 131i thyroid uptake fractions than the
factors in Regulatory Guide 1.109. The dose factors
used for external dose calculations are an expression
of the external dose rate per unit concentration of
radionuclide in air. The dose factors for submersion
42
-------
are from the FESALAP report (5) since they are not
given in Regulatory Guide 1.109. The dose commit-
ment factors and dose factors used in these analyses
are listed in Table 1. In general, the ratios of
the maximum to minimum values of dose commitment
factors or dose factors as reported in the literature
are less than 2.
Comparison of calculated doses
The integrated milk concentrations used in
equation 1 were obtained by plotting the radionuclide
levels measured in the ERAMS samples, extrapolating
these curves to November 12, and using a planimeter
to estimate the integrated milk concentrations. A
representative curve for 131i milk concentrations at
Baltimore, Maryland, is shown in Figure 17.
200
S 150
o
i
o
c
o
50
O1
Integrated Concentration --1845 pCi-d
1 5
October
10
15
20 25
Date. 1976
30 1 4
November
14
Figure 17.
Net iodine-131 concentration in milk as a
function of date for Baltimore, Maryland.
43
-------
Table 1: Dose commitment factors for critical organs and critical receptors.
Radionuclide
External exposure (5)
(mrem/h per pCi/m3)
DF
Inhalation (2)
(mrem/pCi inhaled)
DCF
Milk Ingestion
a. (mrem/pCi ingested)
b. (mrad/pCi ingested)
DCF
Skin
Total Body
95Zr, 95Nb 8.4(-7)f 6.8(-7)
89Sr £
90Sr
103Ru, 106Ru* 1.5(-6)** 4.1(-7)**
131I 4.9(-7) 3.1(-7)
5. 7 (-4) child-lung
3. 9 (-3) child-lung
4. 2 (-3) child-thyroid
2. 9 (-3) infant-bone (2) a
2. 5 (-2) infant-bone (2) a
1.0 (-2) infant-thyroid (4) b
1 37
Cs
Ba
La
***
4.4(-7) 2.2(-7)
2.7(-6) 1.9(-6)
1.2(-6)** 5.9(-8)
2.5(-4) teen-lung
2.7(-5) teen-lung
3.3(-3) child-lung
3.6(-3) child-thyroid (4) b
1.6(-3) teen-thyroid (4) b
1.1(-3) adult-thyroid (4) b
7.3(-4) infant-liver (2) a
1.7(-4) infant-bone (2) a
2.1(-8) infant-bone (2) a
-------
Table 1 (continued)
t 8.4(-7) = 8.4 x 10~7
* Both isotopes contribute to gamma peak in procedure used at EERF. The highest dose factor was used in the
dose calculations.
** Includes daughter products.
*** It was assumed that ll|0La was in equilibrium with 1
-------
The estimates for integrated air concentrations were
obtained in the same way. The integrated milk and
air particulate concentrations and the individual
doses, committed during the integration period and
calculated using equations 1 and 2, are listed in
Table 2. From a review of the information in this
table, it can be seen that the highest individual
dose (18.4 mrad to the infant thyroid) is for 131i in
milk. The next highest dose (2.4 mrem to the infant
bone) is for 89Sr in milk and is a factor of 7.5 lower
than the dose for 131i in milk. The inhalation dose
to the lung for all particulate radionuclides de-
tected in air is 1.8 mrem which is a factor of 10
below the dose to the thyroid for 131i in milk. The
submersion doses for skin and total body are insig-
nificant (<0.01 mrem). These individual doses sub-
stantiate the original opinion that the most signifi-
cant pathway was for 131i in milk. Therefore, it was
decided to carry out detailed population dose calcu-
lations only for the 131i - milk - thyroid pathway.
Population Dose Calculations
The population dose is computed by summing the
individual doses for all members of a population. It
has units of persons times dose (man-rad).
Equation for population dose
The equation used to calculate the thyroid popu-
lation dose is:
(Eg. 3)
(Cj) (MCj) (fm) (fi)
m=l
where:
PD = U. S. population dose to the thyroid from 131I in
milk during the period October 1 - November 12,
1976 (man-rads)
46
-------
Table 2. Integrated milk and air concentrations and individual doses for the stations with the highest
measured activity levels.
Integrated
Concentration
in milk or air,
Pathway
Milk
-j
Air- Inhalation**
Radionuclide
89Sr
90Sr
131I
137Cs
"°Baf '""La
95Zr, 95Nb
103Ru,106Ru
131Z
»°Ba,»°La
I*ICe,11"'Ce
Total
Location
Hartford, CT
Norfolk, VA
Baltimore, MD
Jackson, MS
Hartford, CT
Miami, FL
Miami, FL
Miami, FL
Miami, FL
Miami, FL
Miami, FL
Cj (pCi-d/1 or
pCi-d/m3)
8.0(+2)f
4.2(+l)
1.85 (+3)
2.0 (+2)
6. 5 (+2)
2.4
1.6(+1)
2.9
8.3
2.9(+l)
2.4
1.1
1.84 OH)
2.0(-1)
l.O(-l)
1.5 (-2)
7.0(-1)
l.O(-l)
4. 5 (-2)
1.0
1.8
Individual
Dose , ID
mrem infant-bone
mrem infant-bone
mrad infant-thyroid
mrem infant-liver
mrem infant -bone
mrem child-lung
mrem child-lung
mrem child-lung
mrem child-lung
mrem child-lung
mrem child-lung
-------
Table 2 (continued)
Air-Submersion*»** All Miami, FL Skin Total Body
isotopes mrem mrem
listed 2.1(-3) 6.8(-4)
under
inhalation
* 8.0(+2) - 8.0 x 102
* We assumed that the submersion doses would be the same for all age groups.
.u
** The doses for air inhalation and submersion are gross dose (no background subtracted). Background levels
for specific isotopes are not available.
-------
106 = conversion factor (Ibs/Mlbs)
j = summation index for state (51 states; including
all states and D.C.)
i = summation index for age group (4 age groups)
m = summation index for food group (2 food groups)
Cj = integrated net milk concentration for state
corrected to sample collection date, pCi-d/£
MCj = total fluid milk and fluid milk products consumed
in state during integration period
(Mlbs. consumed or committed for consumption)
fm = fraction of milk used for food group m
(dimensionless)
f^ = fraction of total milk consumption used by age
group i (dimensionless)
= ingestion dose commitment factor for age group i
(man-rads committed/pCi 131i ingested)
Xr = 131i radioactive decay constant (d"1)
tm = time between sample collection and consumption (d)
43 = days in period of integration
p = milk density (lbs/£)
State milk oonoentvations
The pasteurized milk portion of the ERAMS network
includes 63 sampling locations within the United States.
There is at least one sampling location in each state
and the District of Columbia. In general 131i concen-
trations in milk were available for one or more samples
per week for each of the 63 U. S. locations. The data
*For population dose calculations where the collective dose
to a large group of people is desired, the units on the dose
commitment factor are defined as man-rad/pCi 131i ingested.
The man-rad dose actually results from the group of persons
collectively consuming all the milk represented in the term
MCj.
49
-------
for each location were corrected for background,
plotted, extrapolated and integrated as described
earlier to estimate an integrated concentration (Cj)
for each location (see Appendix C). For states with
only one sampling location, the integrated milk con-
centration for that location was used as the value of
Cj for the entire state. For states with more than
one sampling location, an arithmetic average of the
data for each location was used for Cj.* There is a
limitation in the accuracy of these calculations since
it was assumed that one, or at most three, milk sam-
pling locations were representative of an entire state.
Obviously, the accuracy could be improved by substan-
tially expanding the milk sampling network to include
several locations and wider geographical coverage in
each state. However, while this may be the largest
uncertainty in these calculations a substantial ex-
pansion of the ERAMS sampling network would signifi-
cantly increase the cost of the program. The use of
a single sampling location to represent milk consumed
in each state is supported by the following:
(1) The milk samples are a weighted composite
of milk from each major milk processor
supplying an area. The samples are repre-
sentative of locally consumed milk whether
the processor obtained it from local or
remote supplies.
(2) Many processors supply the smaller cities
and towns in a state as well as the metro-
politan areas where these milk samples were
taken.
The integrated milk concentrations for each state are
shown in Figure 18.
State milk products consumption
The total U. S. milk production of 13,434 million
pounds for the integration period was obtained by using
the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) milk pro-
duction rate data for October 1976 (6) for the entire
* For New York State, the data for New York City were given
increased weighting based on population (see Appendix C).
50
-------
ALASKA
Figure 18. Integrated milk concentration of iodine-131 (pCi-d/£) by State, for
the period October 1 - November 12, 1976.
-------
integration period of October 1 through November 12
(see Appendix C). It was assumed that the entire
domestic milk production would be consumed within the
U. S. The milk consumption within individual states
was estimated by taking the ratio of total state popu-
lation to total U. S. population (7) and multiplying
by the estimated milk production for the U. S. (see
Appendix C). These assumptions were discussed with
USDA personnel who agreed that they are reasonable
(8). The estimated milk consumption for each state
is shown in Figure 19.
Milk usage
The fraction of the total milk consumption going
into different dairy products was estimated using USDA
milk utilization data for 1975 (9). After discussions
with USDA dairy personnel (8) regarding the time between
marketing and consumption of various dairy products, it
was decided to establish two food groups (described
further in Appendix C) as follows:
Food Group 1: Includes butter, ice cream, cheese,
canned and condensed milk, dry milk, and other manu-
factured products. Fraction of total U. S. milk con-
sumption (fm) equals 0.52. Marketing-to-consumption
time (tm) equals 30 d.
Food Group 2: Includes fluid milk products, cot-
tage cheese and residual milk. Fraction of total U. S.
milk consumption (fm) equals 0.48. Marketing-to-
consumption time (tm) equals 1 d.
Age dependent milk oonsumpti-on
The NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109 age groups dis-
cussed previously were used for the population dose
calculations. U. S. age-dependent population data for
1968 and 1969 (10) were used to estimate the fraction
of the population in each age group (Table 3). Using
Equation 4, age-dependent per capita milk consumption
data (R£, Table 3) from ICRP #23 (3) were combined
with the age-dependent population fractions (Ai Table
3) to obtain the fractional milk consumption, f-^, for
each age group in the U. S. population (see Appendix C).
52
-------
Ul
HAWAII 52
ALASKA 21
Figure 19. Estimated milk consumption (million pounds) by State, for the period
October 1 - November 12, 1976.
-------
tn
Table 3. Age distribution, absolute milk consumption
and milk consumption distribution for the U. S. population
Age Group
Infant (0-1 y)
Child (1-12 y)
Teenager (12-18 y)
Adult (18 + y)
Age Distribution
Fractions
AI
0.02
0.21
0.12
0.65
Reference Man Milk
Consumption (3)
(£/d)
Ri
0.72
0.46
0.38
0.22
Milk Consumption
Distribution Fractions
f i
0.04
0.33
0.15
0.48
-------
fi =
(Eq. 4)
(Aj.) (Ri)
-x
f (Aj.) (R±]
i = 1
where:
AJ = age distribution fraction for age
group i (dimensionless)
R^ = reference man milk consumption rate
for age group i (£/d).
Other data
The food group fractions (fm) were applied to
all states and all age groups and the age group
fractions (fi) were applied to all states and to both
food groups. In reality, fm is probably a function of
state and age group and fi is probably a function of
state and food group. Information was not readily
available to define fm and fi as functions of these
quantities and, considering other uncertainties in the
calculation, it is believed that this interaction is
not significant.
The age-dependent dose commitment factors for
131I (DCFj.) given by Kereiakes, et al. (4) (Table 1)
were used. The radiological half-life for 131i is
8.05 d which yields a radioactive decay constant, Xr,
of 0.086/d. A milk density of 2.3 Ibs/t (11) was used.
Calculated dose
Using the methods, equation, and data discussed,
the thyroid population doses were calculated for each
State as shown in Figure 20. The total thyroid dose
to the U. S. population is calculated to be 67,850 man-
rad which is rounded to 68,000 man-rad.
55
-------
HAWAII 124 *
ALASKA 31 *
vo
m
Figure 20. Population thyroid dose (man-rad) by State, for the period October 1
November 12, 1976.
-------
10. HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT
EPA Policy Statement on
Relationship Between Radiation Dose and Effect
The need to assess environmental radiation impacts
in terms of health effects has led EPA to establish a
policy for relating radiation dose to health effects.
The following policy statement was published in the
Federal Register on July 9, 1976 (12):
"The actions taken by the Environmental Protection
Agency to protect public health and the environment re-
quire that the impacts of contaminants in the environ-
ment or released into the environment be prudently
examined. When these contaminants are radioactive mate-
rials and ionizing radiation, the most important impacts
are those ultimately affecting human health. Therefore,
the Agency believes that the public interest is best
served by the Agency providing its best scientific esti-
mates of such impacts in terms of potential ill health.
"To provide such estimates, it is necessary that
judgments be made which relate the presence of ionizing
radiation or radioactive materials in the environment,
i.e., potential exposure, to the intake of radioactive
materials in the body, to the absorption of energy from
the ionizing radiation of different qualities, and
finally to the potential effects on human health. In
many situations, the levels of ionizing radiation or
radioactive materials in the environment may be measured
directly, but the determination of resultant radiation
doses to humans and their susceptible tissues is gen-
erally derived from pathway and metabolic models and
calculations of energy absorbed. It is also necessary
to formulate the relationships between radiation dose
and effects; relationships derived primarily from
human epidemiological studies but also reflective of
extensive research utilizing animals and other bio-
logical systems.
"Although much is known about radiation dose-
effect relationships at high" levels of dose, a great
deal of uncertainty exists when high level dose-effect
relationships are extrapolated to lower levels of dose,
particularly when given at low dose rates. These un-
certainties in the relationships between dose received
57
-------
and effect produced are recognized to relate, among
many factors, to differences in quality and type or
radiation, total dose, dose distribution, dose rate,
and radiosensitivity, including repair mechanisms,
sex, variations in age, organ, and state of health.
These factors involve complex mechanisms of inter-
action among biological, chemical, and physical sys-
tems, the study of which is part of the continuing
endeavor to acquire new scientific knowledge.
"Because of these many uncertainties, it is nec-
essary to rely upon the considered judgments of ex-
perts on the biological effects of ionizing radiation.
These findings are well-documented in publications by
the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects
of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP), and the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP),
and have been used by the Agency in formulating a policy
on relationship between radiation dose and effect.
"It is the present policy of the Environmental
Protection Agency to assume a linear, nonthreshold
relationship between the magnitude of the radiation
dose received at environmental levels of exposure and
ill health produced as a means to estimate the potent-
tial health impact of actions it takes in developing
radiation protection as expressed in criteria, guides,
or standards. This policy is adopted in conformity
with the generally accepted assumption that there is
some potential ill health attributable to any exposure
to ionizing radiation and that the magnitude of this
potential ill health is directly proportional to the
magnitude of the dose received.
"In adopting this general policy, the Agency rec-
ognizes the inherent uncertainties that exist in esti-
mating health impact at the low levels of exposure and
exposure rates expected to be present in the environ-
ment due to human activities, and that at these levels,
the actual health impact will not be distinguishable
from natural occurrences of ill health, either sta-
tistically or in the forms of ill health present.
Also, at these very low levels, meaningful epidemio-
logical studies to prove or disprove this relationship
are difficult, if not practically impossible, to con-
duct. However, whenever new information is forthcoming,
58
-------
this policy will be reviewed and updated as necessary.
"It is to be emphasized that this policy has been
established for the purpose of estimating the poten-
tial human health impact of Agency actions regarding
radiation protection, and that such estimates do not
necessarily constitute identifiable health conse-
quences. Further, the Agency implementation of this
policy to estimate potential human health effects pre-
supposes the premise that, for the same dose, potential
radiation effects in other constituents of the biosphere
will be no greater. It is generally accepted that such
constituents are no more radiosensitive than humans.
The Agency believes the policy to be a prudent one.
"In estimating potential health effects, it is
important to recognize that the exposures to be usually
experienced by the public will be annual doses that are
small fractions of natural background radiation to at
most a few times this level. Within the United States,
the natural background radiation dose equivalent varies
geographically between 40 to 300 mrem per year. Over
such a relatively small range of dose, any deviations
from dose-effect linearity would not be expected to
significantly affect actions taken by the Agency, un-
less a dose-effect threshold exists.
. "While the utilization of a linear, nonthreshold
relationship is useful as a generally applicable policy
for assessment of radiation effects, it is also EPA's
policy in specific situations to utilize the best
available detailed scientific knowledge in estimating
health impact when such information is available for
specific types of radiation, conditions of exposure,
and recipients of the exposure. In such situations,
estimates may or may not be based on the assumptions
of linearity and a nonthreshold dose. In any case,
the assumptions will be stated explicitly in any EPA
radiation protection actions.
"The linear hypothesis by itself precludes the
development of acceptable levels of risk based solely
on health considerations. Therefore, in establishing
radiation protection positions, the Agency will weigh
not only the health impact, but also social, economic,
and other considerations associated with the activities
addressed."
59
-------
Projected Health Effects for September Event
The health effects projections used in this docu-
ment are those adopted by EPA. The current best esti-
mate for risk for thyroid health effects is 63 excess
thyroid cancer cases per 106 man-rads to the U. S.
population occurring over the next 45 years (13,14).
More information relative to EPA's position on calcu-
lating health effects is given in Reference 15. Using
the risk estimate stated above, it is predicted that
4.3 excess thyroid cancer cases could occur in the
U. S. during the next 45 years due to the 131i in milk
following the September event. This estimate of poten-
tial thyroid cancers is slightly higher than the ear-
lier estimate reported by EPA (14), which was based on
preliminary data. A comparison of these projected
health effects with the health effects due to sponta-
neous natural occurrence of thyroid cancer from all
causes lends perspective to these calculations. EPA
estimates that during the next 45 years, on the order
of 380,000 cases of thyroid cancer might be expected
in the United States from all causes (16) . Thus the
projected thyroid health effects for the September
event are 88,000 times lower than for spontaneous
natural occurrences.
60
-------
11. DISCUSSION
Philosophy Regarding Calculation
of Environmental Doses and Effects
A traditional philosophy in the health physics
profession is to estimate high for calculating doses
and health effects in order to develop conservative
criteria for protection of public health and safety.
However, in recent years there has been a movement
within the profession to establish a philosophy of
using the conservative calculational approach for
radiation protection, design, and criteria setting
calculations but to strive for realistic calcula-
tions when estimating doses and health effects result-
ing from an actual event. For the calculations in
this report the parameters were chosen to yield re-
alistic dose estimates.
Another philosophy, which is standard practice
in engineering calculations, has been applied in
these calculations. The philosophy is one of not
spending the time required to refine the value of one
parameter to a few percent uncertainty when there is
another parameter which cannot be refined within a
much larger percentage uncertainty. The most uncer-
tain numbers in these population dose calculations
are probably the integrated milk concentrations for
the states because they are based on only one (in a
few cases - 2 or 3) sampling location per state. It
is believed that the uncertainties in the other param-
eters in the calculation are less than for the inte-
grated milk concentrations and it would not be meaning-
ful to further refine these other parameters to reduce
their uncertainty.
61
-------
Review of Calculational Uncertainties
for Population Dose Calculations
For many of the parameters used in these dose
calculations, a range of values were reported in the
literature. Realistic values for parameters from
within the range of reported numbers have been chosen
instead of choosing the values which would lead to the
highest dose estimate.
Discussions of uncertainties in values chosen for
these parameters appear in Section 8. These parametric
uncertainties are summarized in the following dis-
cussion.
Laboratory data
The minimum detectable level (MDL) of 131i in milk
for the analytical procedures used at EERF is 10 pCi/£
at a 2-cr confidence level. However, in this report,
all of the available data were used for the dose calcu-
lations. Milk concentrations of 131i below 10 pCi/£
were used, when they occurred, as best estimates of
the actual concentration. For reported concentrations
below 10 pCi/£ the error may exceed the best estimate
concentration. At least two other methods are avail-
able for treating concentrations below 10 pCi/£.
These are to assume all concentrations below 10 pCi/£
are zero or 10. It is estimated that if all concen-
trations below 10 pCi/£ had been assumed to be zero,
the calculated population dose would have decreased
by 15 - 20 percent. It is estimated that if all con-
centrations below 10 pCi/£ had been assumed to be 10,
the calculated population dose would have increased
by 30 - 50 percent. It is believed that the best esti-
mate values, which are used in the calculations, are
preferable to either of these other methods since the
objective is to realistically estimate the dose. Use
of best estimate numbers keeps one from having to arbi-
trarily set concentrations below MDL to either 0 or 10
pCi/£.
In calculating net milk concentrations of 131I,
background concentrations were established using ERAMS
data for August and September 1976. These two months
were chosen because they immediately proceeded the
62
-------
weapons tests, and during these two months, no events
had taken place in the world which would have tended
to increase background levels of 131i in milk in the
United States. However, a longer time period for
establishing background would be preferable and EPA
intends to establish a more precise method for deter-
mining background for future calculations.
Sampling locations
It is assumed that one (and in a few cases two or
three) milk sampling locations, composited for major
metropolitan areas, were representative of an entire
state. These milk samples are composites of consumed
milk from several processors which makes them more
representative of the states than if the samples were
from only one processor. However, it is believed that
the small number of samples in each state may be the
most limiting factor regarding the accuracy of these
dose calculations. Without samples from additional
locations in each state, it is not possible to quantify
the magnitude of this uncertainty.
Milk consumption data
Actual USDA milk production data for October 1976
was used to estimate total consumption during the inte-
gration period. Use of the milk for fluid consumption
and for manufactured products was estimated using USDA
data for calendar year 1975. The milk consumption
values should be relatively free of uncertainty. A
slight conservatism was introduced into the calcula-
tion by establishing only two milk usage groups with
consumption times of 1 day for group 1 and 30 days for
group 2 since actual estimated consumption times for
some specific products in group 2 were as long as six
months. However, it is estimated that this conserva-
tism would cause the population dose to be high by less
than a factor of 1.5.
Dose oommitment factors
The dose commitment factors for I31I are age de-
pendent and are those recommended by Kereiakes, et al,
(4).
63
-------
These factors are based on more recent thyroid uptake
fractions than many of the factors in the literature
and, for this reason, are believed to be most repre-
sentative of realistic conditions. These dose commit-
ment factors are less than a factor of two below other
dose commitment factors reported in the literature.
A generic discussion will lend perspective to the
uncertainties encountered in population dose calcula-
tions. The basic mechanism involved in calculating
population doses tends to minimize uncertainty when
realistic parameters are used. Much of the uncertainty
involved in calculating a dose to a particular indi-
vidual within a population occurs because of the range
of reported values for an individual. For example, one
5-year old may drink substantially more milk than
another. With realistic data from the literature on
consumption of milk by a large group of five-year olds,
a mean which is very representative of the group may
be obtained. The significant point is that uncertain-
ties are a smaller problem in population dose calcu-
lations than in individual dose calculations as long
as several values for each parameter are available from
the literature to consider in determining a realistic
value.
Doses Calculated by Other Agencies
The reports issued by the ERDA Health and Safety
Laboratory (HASL) (17) and by Battelle's Pacific
Northwest Laboratories (PNL) (18) have been reviewed.
In the HASL report, the calculated individual dose for
an infant drinking milk from a dairy in Chester, New
Jersey, with an integrated milk concentration of 1300
pCi-d/£ is 15 mrad. Using the ERAMS integrated milk
concentration of 1245 pCi-d/£ for the dairies supply-
ing Trenton, New Jersey, a dose of 12 mrad was calcu-
lated. The individual dose calculations of HASL and
EERF are in very good agreement. In the PNL report,
a maximum individual dose to a child's thyroid (at a
location in New Jersey) was calculated to be 220 mrem.
This is a factor of 18 higher than the 12 mrad we cal-
culated. It is believed that there are at least two
reasons causing the PNL dose estimates to be substan-
tially higher than the HASL and EERF dose estimates.
First, PNL started with grass concentration rather than
64
-------
milk concentration. Generally there is conservatism
in the factors used to predict milk concentration from
grass concentration. Secondly, it appears that the PNL
dose is based on grass samples taken at a single loca-
tion. Since the HASL and EERF calculations use pro-
cessed milk concentrations, a dilution factor is in-
herent in these calculations (due to mixing of milk
from many locations) which would not be included in
the PNL calculations.
Significance of Estimated Health Effects
A prudent position for radiation protection is
that any amount of radiation exposure is potentially
harmful and that any unnecessary exposure to ionizing
radiation should be discouraged. With this in mind,
it would certainly be preferable to abolish atmo-
spheric nuclear testing in all countries and thereby
avoid this source of unnecessary population dose to
the world's population. However, the projected U. S.
health effects from these two nuclear tests are small
when compared to other sources of the health effects.
The health effects to the U. S. population from these
two tests will be undetectable because of the larger
influence of other sources of the same health effects.
65
-------
REFERENCES
1. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY. Environmental Report:
Phipps Bend Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. Volume 3,
Appendix II, (undated).
2. U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. Calculation of
Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor
Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance
With 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I. Regulatory Guide
1.109, Office of Standards Development, Washington,
DC (March 1976).
3. SNYDER, W. S.,et al. Report of the Task Group on
Reference Man. 1st edition, ICRP Report No. 23,
International Commission on Radiological Protection.
Pergamon Press, New York (1975).
4. KEREIAKES, J. G., et al. Pediatric Radiopharmaceutical
Dosimetry. Proceedings of the Radiopharmaceutical
Dosimetry Symposium at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, held
April 26 - 29, 1976. U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Food
& Drug Administration, Washington, DC, HEW Publication
(FDA) 76-8044 (June 1976).
5. U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION. Final Environmental
Statement Concerning Proposed Rule Making Action:
Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting
Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criteria As Low
As Practicable for Radioactive Material in Light-
Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents. Volume
2, Analytical Models and Calculations, WASH-1258,
Directorate of Regulatory Standards (July 1973).
6. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Federal Milk Order
Market Statistic. FMOS-186, Agricultural Marketing
Service, Dairy Division, Washington, DC (November 1976)
7. U. S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. Statistical Abstract of
the United States: 1973, 94th Edition, Washington, DC
(1973).
8. Personal communication with the Dairy Division,
Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.
66
-------
9. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Milk Production,
Disposition, Income 1973-1975. (Corrected Copy
Reissued May 4, 1976). Da 1-2 (76), Crop Reporting
Board, Statistical Reporting Service. Washington,
DC (May 1976).
10. U. S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. Statistical Abstract of
the United States: 1970, 91st edition. Washington,
DC (1970).
11. THE CHEMICAL RUBBER COMPANY. Handbook of Chemistry
& Physics, 50th edition. Cleveland, Ohio (1969).
12. U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Drinking Water
Regulations - Radionuclides. Federal Register, Vol. 41,
No. 133, WASH, DC (July 1976).
13. U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Memorandum, To:
Floyd Galpin From: Neal S. Nelson, Ph.D. 131I Risk
from Chinese Bomb Fallout - September 26, 1976. Office
of Radiation Programs, Criteria and Standards Division
(December 1976).
14. U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Interim Report
of EPA's Assessment Following the September 26, 1976,
Nuclear Detonation by the People's Republic of China.
Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, DC (December
1976).
15. U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Environmental
Analysis of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, Part II - Nuclear
Power Reactors. EPA-520/9-73-003-C,, Office of Radiation
Programs, Washington, DC (November 1973).
16. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH. Preliminary Report:Third
National Cancer Survey - 1969 Incidence. DHEW Publication
No. (NIH) 72-128. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda,
MD (1971).
17. ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION. HASL
Measurements of Fallout Following the September 26,
1976, Chinese Nuclear Test. HASL-314, Health and Safety
Laboratory, New York, New York (October 1976).
18. BATTELLE PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES. Preliminary
Report on Radioactive Fallout From Chinese Nuclear
Weapons Test of September 26, 1976. Radiological
Sciences Department, Richland, Washington (October 1976).
67
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
DetoMtlon
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l
RESULTS OF AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED IN RESPONSE TO THE NUCLEAR
TEST OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1976, BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
October 1 - November 5
Location
AK: Anchorage
AL : Montgomery
AR:Little Rock
N)
AZ: Phoenix
CA: Berkeley
Los Angeles
CO: Denver
CT:Hartford
DC Washington
Number
of
Samples
Submitted
13
24
14
10
33
25
29
28
19
Number of Samples
with Lab. Gross
Beta Measurement
> 1 pCi/m3
0
0
0
1
1
1
9
3
2
Maximum Lab. Gross
Beta Measurement &
Date Collected
pCi/m3 i>nt-ntiCi
.04 *
10/20/76
.42 *
10/26/76
.46 *
10/25/76
1.11 0.7
10/15/76
1.00 0.6
10/24/76
1.52 1.1
10/26/76
2.63 1.6
10/23/76
2.00 2.0
10/9/76
1.50 0.7
10/8/76
Gamma Activity for Sample with
Maximum Gross Beta Activity
PCi/m3
0.1 0.7 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.7 0.2 0.2
0.1 1.7 0.4 0.3
0.2 2.0 0.5 0.6
0.2 1.4 0.3 0.5
0.1 0.6 0.2 0.3
-------
TABLE A-l - CONTINUED
Location
DE: Wilmington
FL : Jacksonville
Miami
GA: Atlanta
I
u>
HI : Honolulu
LA: Iowa City
ID: Boise
Idaho Falls
IL: Chicago
IN : Indianapolis
Number
of
Samples
Submitted
32
33
29
16
22
21
25
10
17
12
Number of Samples
with Lab. Gross
Beta Measurement
> 1 pCi/m3
2
6
5
4
7
0
2
1
1
1
Maximum Lab. Gross
Beta Measurement &
Date Collected
pCi/m3 i"»t-miCi
1.60 2.2
10/9/76
3.70 3.0
10/8/76
13.3 13.4
10/6/76
8.40 6.2
10/6/76
5.45 2.3
10/19/76
0.40 *
10/13/76
1.16 0.8
10/25/76
1.19 0.9
10/26/76
2.60 0.3
10/13/76
1.10 0.2
10/5/76
Gamma Activity for
Maximum Gross Beta
PCi/m3
0.3
0.2
1.2
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.03
0.02
1.6
1.6
6.4
2.4
1.9
1.1
1.2
0.2
0.1
Sample with
Activity
9SZr-Nb
0.4
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.2
.06
l*°Ba
0.8
0.7
3.3
1.6
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.1
.06
-------
TABLE A-l - CONTINUED
Number Number of Samples Maximum Lab. Gross Gamma Activity for Sample with
of with Lab. Gross Beta Measurement & Maximum Gross Beta Activity
Samples Beta Measurement Date Collected PCi/m3
Location Submitted > 1 pCi/m3 pCi/m3 '^-^Ce 131I 106~103Ru 95Zr-Nb ll*°Ba
KS:Topeka
KY: Frankfort
LA: New Orleans
MA: Lawrence
i
ME: Augusta
MI: Lansing
MN : Mlnneapo lis
MO: Jefferson City
MS: Jackson
MT: Helena
26 0
21 2
10 0
24 2
11 0
21 1
17 0
25 0
27 0
19 1
0.60
10/14/76
1.80
10/6/76
0.31
10/21/76
3.00
10/9/76
0.50
10/8/76
2.50
10/5/76
0.44
11/2/76
0.66
10/14/76
0.79
10/25/76
1.27
10/22/76
*
1.1 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.7
*
2.3 0.3 1.5 0.5 0.8
*
2.5 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.5
*
*
*
1.0 0.1 1.3 0.3 0.4
-------
TABLE A-l - CONTINUED
Location
NC: Charlotte
Wilmington
ND: Bismarck
NE: Lincoln
I
en
NJ: Trenton
MM: Santa Fe
NY -.Albany
Buffalo
Syracuse
NV:Las Vegas
Numb e r
of
Samples
Submitted
25
21
26
25
26
24
15
21
26
23
Number of Samples
with Lab. Gross
Beta Measurement
> 1 pCi/m3
0
1
0
0
1
4
0
1
1
5
Maximum Lab. Gross
Beta Measurement &
Date Collected
pCi/m ~ Ci
0.70 *
10/5/76
1.06 0.8
10/8/76
0.70 *
10/29/76
0.53 *
11/2/76
1.20 1.0
10/8/76
1.60 0.3
10/15/76
0.80 *
10/7/76
1.20 0.8
10/6/76
1.10 1.0
10/7/76
2.55 1.5
10/22/76
Gamma Activity for Sample with
Maximum Gross Beta Activity
PCi/m3
0.1 0.6 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.7 0.2 0.4
0.1 0.5 0.1 0.2
0.1 0.6 0.1 0.2
0.1 0.6 0.2 0.3
0.2 1.8 0.4 0.6
-------
Location
OH: Columbus
Painesville
OK: Oklahoma City
OR: Portland
I
CTi
PA Pittsburgh
RI: Providence
SCrColumbia
SD:Pierre
TN:Nashville
TX:E1 Paso
Number
of
Samples
Submitted
19
20
19
26
14
15
26
24
23
24
Number of Samples
with Lab. Gross
Beta Measurement
> 1 pCi/m3
3
3
1
0
3
1
5
0
1
5
Maximum Lab . Gross
Beta Measurement &
Date Collected
PCi/m3 1^-1MC
6.31 4.1
10/5/76
3.70 2.1
10/6/76
1.19 0.7
10/22/76
0.47 *
10/22/76
3.40 3.4
10/6/76
1.00 1.9
10/8/76
5.02 4.2
10/5/76
0.99 *
11/1/76
1.81 1.5
10/5/76
1.44 1.2
10/25/76
Gamma Activity for
Maximum Gross Beta
PCi/m3
0.5 1.5
0.4 1.5 '
0.1 0.7
0.3 1.0
0.2 1.7
0.4 1.4
0.1 0.5
0.1 1.9
Sample with
Activity
95Zr-Xb l
0.6 1
0.5 0
0.3 0
0.4 0
0.4 0
0.5 0
0.2 0
0.3 0
^ 0 TJ ,
.1
.7
.1
.6
.7
.9
.3
.5
-------
TABLE A-l - CONTINUED
Location
Number
of
Samples
Submitted
Number of Samples Maximum Lab. Gross
with Lab. Gross Beta Measurement &
Beta Measurement
> 1 pCi/m3
Date Collected
pCi/m
Gamma Activity for Sample with
Maximum Gross Beta Activity
PCi/m3
131-]- 106-103
95Zr-Nb ll*°Ba
VA:Lynchburg
20
2.50
10/7/76
1.8
0.2
0.7
0.3
0.5
Norfolk
26
2.00
10/8/76
1.9
0.2
1.1
0.3
0.5
WI:Madison
23
0
0.30
10/13/76
*Gamma analysis performed on only those samples with gross beta activity greater than 1 pCi/m .
-------
TABLE A-2
GAMMA RESULTS OF PRECIPITATION SAMPLES
CONTAINING SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF RADIOACTIVITY
pCi/liter
Location
AL : Montgomery
CO : Denver
I
00
CT:Hartford
FL : Jacksonville
Miami
jjate
Collected
10/7/76
10/18/76
10/26/76
10/29/76
10/18/76
10/25/76
10/6/76
10/7/76
10/20/76
10/8/76
10/16/76
10/27/76
11/2/76
10/10/76
10/19/76
i«n,-f mice
374
194
88
226
835
836
176
186
111
61
159
131j
24
456
43
17
116
35
37
49
148
20
28
59
48
106-, 103Ru
3090
550
125
159
62
281
116
275
236
112
184
137Cs 95Zr-Nb
82
25
45
247
101
36
21
21
19
llt0Ba
261
35
17
62
25
263
344
125
31
21
16
17
97
-------
TABLE A-2 - CONTINUED
pCi/liter
Location
FL: Miami
GA: Atlanta
IL: Chicago
MA: Lawrence
ND: Bismarck
NJ: Trenton
I
VD
PArHarrisburg
uace
Collected
10/20/76
10/7/76
10/19/76
10/9/76
10/18/76
10/4/76
10/10/76
10/20/76
10/21/76
10/25/76
10/26/76
10/4/76
10/8/76
10/9/76
i^-, imce
236
386
298
39
654
112
73
52
3310
266
90
ISlj 106-, 103Ru
43
89 172
67 307
160 916
237
602
227
714
273
454 566
176 180
84 91
137Cs 95Zr-Nb
71
67
122
82
12
129
47
17
80 226
11
15
llt0Ba
42
177
58
112
93
342
193
168
372
348
63
-------
TABLE A-2 - CONTINUED
pCi/liter
Location
PAiHarrisburg
SC: Columbia
i
o
VA:Lynchburg
uace
Collected
10/10/76
10/20/76
10/21/76
10/7/76
10/19/76
10/21/77
10/26/76
10/4/76
10/11/76
10/18/76
i"*-, i*ice
183
389
428
273
175
166
100
131J 106-, 103Ru 137
125
90 230
24
137 196
116 204
45
172
20
105
'Cs 9SZr-Nb 14CBa
77 87
68 139
16
44 89
93 127
41 62
146
18
52
74
-------
TABLE A-3
RESULTS OF PASTEURIZED MILK SAMPLES COLLECTED IN RESPONSE TO THE
NUCLEAR TEST OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1976, BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
AK: Palmer
AL :Montgomery
>
I
H
I-1
AR:Little Rock
AZ: Phoenix
CArLos Angeles
uace
Collected
10/05
10/07
10/15
11/10
10/06
10/08
10/12
10/15
10/22
10/29
11/10
10/04
10/07
10/12
11/01
10/07
10/13
11/10
10/08
10/12
10/15
11/08
g/ .Liter i ^-sigma
Counting Error
1.46 ± .
1.49 ± .
1.46 + . .
1.45 ± .
1.54 ± .
1.43 ± .
1.42 ± .
1.40 ± .
1.37 ± .
1.38 ± .
1.40 ± .
1.41 ± .
1.39 ± .
1.44 ± .
1.45 ± .
1.38 ± .
1.46 ± .
1.30 ± .
1.44 ± .
1.45 ± .
1.47 ± .
1.40 ± .
12
12
12
11
12
11
12
11
11
11
11
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
11
137Cs
5 ± 7
4 ± 6
8 ± 7
7 ± 8
10 ± 7
0 ± 6
8 ± 7
7 ± 7
9 ± 8
13 ± 8
9 ± 8
4 ± 6
10 + 6
8 ± 7
12 ± 8
4 ± 7
4 ± 7
6 ± 8
7 ± 7
4 ± 7
0 ± 6
4 ± 8
8
- 2
8
8
- 2
2
- 3
11
13
3
7
6
8
7
3
11
10
- 1
8
4
4
12
mo
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Ba
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
12
9
9
9
9
9
10
9
11
9
9
9
9
9
2
4
5
_ 2
1
3
4
14
17
10
3
2
3
2
13
25
10
4
2
- 2
4
0
1 3
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
JI 90Sr
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7 3.6 ± 1.2
9 6.1 ± 1.1
7
7
7
7
7
8 6.1 ± 0.8
7 .8 + 0.6
9 .9 ± 0.6
7
7
6
7
7
89Sr
0 ± 5
3 ± 5
10 ± 5
0 ± 5
0 ± 5
-------
TABLE A-3 - CONTINUED
Radionuclide Concentration
pCi/liEer ±- 2-Sigma Counting Error (a)
Location
CA: Sacramento
San Francisco
DO: Denver
>
I
K>
CT:Hartford
CZ: Cristobal
DC Washington
uai_e
Collected
10/08
10/12
10/15
10/08
10/12
10/15
11/04
10/07
10/12
10/18
11/05
10/08
10/12
10/15
10/22
10/29
11/05
10/12
11/08
10/15
10/18
11/05
11/08
g/ -Liter i z-oigma
Counting Error l 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.44 ±
.53 ±
.47 ±
.44 ±
.54 ±
.41 ±
.37 ±
.32 ±
.45 ±
.43 ±
.38 ±
.52 ±
.44 ±
.43 ±
.40 ±
.53 ±
.44 ±
.47 ±
.52 ±
.39 ±
.37 ±
.50 ±
.49 ±
.11
.12
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
.12
.11
.12
.12
.11
.11
.12
.12
4
4
3
7
9
2
0
2
7
8
8
5
11
5
5
7
10
13
18
9
5
5
10
7Cs
± 7
± 7
± 6
± 8
± 7
± 6
± 8
± 6
± 7
± 8
± 8
± 7
± 8
± 7
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 7
± 8
± 8
± 7
i 8
± 8
l"°Ba 131I
9
11
3
4
10
10
- 2
0
4
4
6
20
36
23
28
9
5
10
1
34
24
4
9
± 10
± 10
± 9
± 9
± 12
± 10
± 9
± 9
± 9
± 9
± 9
± 11
± 11
± 11
± 12
± 11
± 9
± 12
± 9
± 21
± 11
± 10
± 9
4 ±
1 ±
3 ±
2 ±
16 ±
0 ±
1 +
5 ±
8 ±
1 ±
11 ±
114 ±
123 ±
61 ±
38 ±
15 ±
6 ±
18 ±
0 ±
73 ±
47 ±
13 ±
16 ±
7
7
8
7
10
7
6
7
7
7
7
10
11
9
10
9
7
10
7
20
9
9
7
90Sr
1.3 ±
1.1 ±
4.1 ±
3.6 ±
3.9 ±
3.4 ±
2.4 ±
2.1 ±
4.2 ±
5.1 ±
6.7 ±
2.4 ±
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.4
"Sr
0
4
14
36
15
26
16
4
19
15
11
21
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
-------
TABLE A-3 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
DE: Wilmington
FL:Tampa
>
H1
U>
GA: Atlanta
HI: Honolulu
IA:Des Moines
uaue
Collected
10/04
10/12
10/15
10/22
10/29
11/15
10/07
10/08
10/15
10/22
11/01
10/04
10/12
10/15
10/22
11/16
10/06
10/15
11/05
10/05
10/08
10/12
10/15
11/08
g/ .Liuer i .d-oigma
Counting Error
1.37 ±
1.41 ±
1.39 ±
1.42 ±
1.31 ±
1.39 ±
1.45 ±
1.46 ±
1.57 ±
1.45 ±
1.46 ±
1.43 ±
1.43 ±
1.43 ±
1.32 ±
1.43 ±
1.43 ±
1.34 ±
1.35 ±
1.42 ±
1.46 ±
1.40 ±
1.45 ±
1.42 ±
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
5
11
8
5
10
5
28
26
21
32
27
6
12
2
13
11
8
3
4
1
2
4
0
0
7Cs
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
±
±
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
6
7
7
8
8
8
7
7
7
9
8
7
7
8
8
8
7
6
8
6
6
7
6
8
11(0Ba
5 ±
14 ±
16 ±
20 ±
19 ±
15 ±
3 ±
16 ±
- 1 ±
7 ±
- 4 ±
- 1 ±
7 ±
5 ±
4 ±
6 ±
8 ±
6 ±
4 ±
6 ±
6 ±
10 ±
2 ±
5 ±
9
11
12
12
11
9
9
11
9
9
9
9
9
11
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
1 3 1
0 ±
93 ±
68 ±
31 ±
21 ±
5 ±
17 ±
17 ±
6 ±
6 ±
7 ±
8 ±
5 ±
17 ±
8 ±
. 4 ±
2 ±
6 ±
4 ±
- 1 ±
3 ±
4 ±
4 ±
1 ±
I 90Sr
6
10 6.6 ± 1.2
10 5.6 ± 0.6
11 6.2 ± 1.0
9 5.1 ± 0.6
7 3.5 ± 0.6
7 2.6 ± 0.7
9 4.2 ± 1.1
7
7
7
7
7
9 7.0 ± 2.1
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
7
89Sr
1 ± 5
21 ± 5
7 ± 5
18 ± 5
9 ± 5
2 ± 5
0 ± 5
3 ± 5
-------
TABLE A-3 - CONTINUED
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
ID: Idaho Falls
IL: Chicago
IN : Indianapolis
>
i
M
.fs.
rt^
KSrWichita
KY: Louisville
T A • WOTJ C\r~\ &ar\G
Date
Collected
10/14
10/15
10/04
10/07
10/12
10/15
11/01
10/04
10/08
10/12
10/18
11/08
10/11
10/12
10/15
11/01
10/04
10/08
10/12
10/19
10/21
11/02
-m/ri7
g/liter ±
Countin
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.50 ±
.45 ±
.41 ±
.47 ±
.43 ±
.47 ±
.36 ±
.35 ±
.39 ±
.40 ±
.40 ±
.33 ±
.42 ±
.46 ±
.41 ±
.41 ±
.43 ±
.30 ±
.23 ±
.35 ±
.44 ±
.50 ±
.34. +
2-Sign
g Erro
.12
.12
.11
.12
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.19
.19
.11
.11
.12
.1 1
na
r 13
8
1
7
4
2
3
8
- 4
7
2
3
6
3
5
5
4
9
1
- 4
8
6
- 1
7
pCi/Iiter ± ^-Sigma Counting Error (a)
7Cs
± 8
± 8
± 7
± 6
± 6
± 6
± 8
± 6
± 7
± 6
± 6
± 8
± 6
± 7
± 8
± 8
± 7
± 14
± 14
± 7
± 8
± 8
+ 7
1
2
4
1
2
0
0
4
2
6
7
1
13
0
7
3
0
8
2
10
5
1
9
7
4 0
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Ba
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
9
9
9
22
22
9
9
9
q
1 3 1
0 ±
3 ±
9 ±
6 ±
1 ±
- 2 ±
3 ±
3 ±
3 ±
5 ±
1 ±
2 ±
- 3 ±
0 ±
4 ±
6 ±
1 ±
- 5 ±
- 7 ±
4 ±
9 ±
8 ±
3 ±
I 90Sr 89Sr
7
7
7
7
6
6
7
6
7
7
6
7
6
7
7
7
7
16
16
7
7
7
7
-------
TABLE A-3 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
LA: New Orleans
MA: Bos ton
1
Ol
MD: Baltimore
ME: Portland
MI: Detroit
Date
Collected
10/12
10/15
10/22
11/05
10/05
10/07
10/12
10/22
10/29
11/09
10/01
10/08
10/15
11/05
10/05
10/12
10/25
11/02
10/08
10/12
10/21
11/10
g/liter ± 2-Sigrc
Counting Erroi
1.46 ±
1.38 ±
1.39 ±
1.39 ±
1.55 ±
1.44 ±
1.48 ±
1.46 ±
1.50 ±
1.40 ±
1.40 ±
1.54 ±
1.52 ±
1.43 ±
1.29 ±
1.40 ±
1.34 ±
1.46 ±
1.45 ±
1.44 ±
1.38 ±
1.40 ±
.12
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
.12
.12
.11
.19
.11
.11
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
T
)Ci/liter :!
:• z-Sigma c
>a
c 137Cs ll*°Ba 131I
8 ±
10 ±
10 ±
11 ±
5 ±
7 ±
8 ±
7 ±
0 ±
10 ±
3 ±
10 ±
3 ±
0 ±
1 ±
9 ±
11 ±
8 ±
5 ±
2 ±
4 ±
2 ±
7
7
8
8
7
7
7
8
8
8
6
7
7
8
14
8
8
8
7
6
8
8
14 ± 12
30 ± 12
10 ± 9
6 ± 11
3 ± 9
1 ± 9
11 ± 11
2 ± 9
6 ± 9
2 ± 9
0 ± 9
23 ± 11
19 ± 12
6 ± 11
- 8 ± 22
6 ± 15
9 ± 9
4 ± 9
7 ± 9
10 ± 9
0 ± 9
2 ± 9
5 ± 9
18 ± 10
1 ± 7
18 ± 9
6 ± 7
19 ± 9
18 ± 9
10 t 1
6+7
4 ± 7
1 ± 6
155 ± 11
38 ± 11
17 ± 9
-1 + 16
23 ± 14
7 ± 7
8 ± 7
5 ± 7
3 ± 7
3 ± 7
5 ± 7
ountu
ng brror
90Sr
7.8
8.8
5.4
6.0
4.8
6.1
5.5
5.5
5.2
± 1.4
± 1.8
± 0.9
± 1.4
± 1.2
± 0.6
± 0.6
± 0.7
± 0.9
u;
89Sr
1 ±
0 ±
16 ±
0 ±
1 ±
13 ±
18 ±
13 ±
3 ±
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
-------
TABLE A-3 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
MI: Grand Rapids
MN :Minneapolis
I
MO: Kansas City
St. Louis
MS: Jackson
JLJci l_C
Collected
10/04
10/08
10/12
10/15
11/01
10/04
10/08
10/12
10/15
10/08
10/12
10/15
11/10
10/05
10/12
10/15
11/10
10/04
10/08
10/12
10/15
10/25
10/29
11/01
g/xiLer .L *.— oxgma
Counting Error 137Cs
1.46 ±
1.41 ±
1.49 ±
1.42 ±
1.48 ±
1.45 ±
1.47 ±
1.48 ±
1.43 ±
1.47 ±
1.44 ±
1.49 ±
1.37 ±
1.35 ±
1.41 ±
1.29 ±
1.47 ±
1.37 ±
1.46 ±
1.42 ±
1.44 ±
1.31 ±
1.58 ±
1,34 ±
.12
.11
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.11
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
6
4
4
8
1
15
17
3
4
0
2
5
6
0
4
1
3
5
8
10
9
14
5
9
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
7
1
6
7
8
7
7
8
8
7
6
7
8
6
7
6
8
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
llt0Ba
0 ±
14 ±
1 ±
4 ±
1 ±
6 ±
19 ±
- 1 ±
13 ±
7 ±
4 ±
5 ±
3 ±
8 ±
0 ±
8 ±
4 ±
3 ±
- 2 ±
7 ±
3 ±
9 ±
12 ±
18 ±
9
9
9
9
9
9
11
9
9
9
9.
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
11
11
1311
3 ±
4 ±
4 ±
4 ±
8 ±
10 ±
31 ±
- 2 ±
3 ±
7 ±
3 ±
0 ±
4 ±
4 ±
5 ±
2 ±
4 ±
0 ±
2 ±
5 ±
6 ±
32 ±
19 ±
22 ±
: 90sr
7
7 4.6 ± 1.2
7
7
7
7
9 5.1 ± 1.5
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8 6.0 ± 0.7
9 7.6 ± 1.1
8 5.6 ± 0.9
89Sr
0 ± 5
0 ± 5
11 ± 5
8 ± 5
7 ± 5
-------
TABLE A-3 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
MT:Helena
NC: Charlotte
!~J
ND.-Minot
NE: Omaha
ua ce
Collected
10/06
10/07
10/12
10/15
11/01
10/04
10/07
10/11
10/15
10/22
11/01
10/07
10/11
10/15
11/01
10/07
10/08
10/12
10/15
10/19
11/12
g/j.j.ut;i -L t-— Digma
Counting Error
1.44
1.56
1.48
1.52
1.38
1.41
1.48
1.41
1.38
1.39
1.42
1.42
1.51
1.53
1.50
1.29
1.35
1.37
1.40
1.44
1.42
+
± .
+
+
± •
± .
+
+ .
+ .
+
± •
±
± .
+
+
+
+
± .
+
± .
± .
11
12
12
12
11
11
12
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
137Cs
7 ± 7
7 ± 7
6 ± 7
3 ± 6
1 ± 8
5 ± 6
10 ± 7
4 ± 6
5 ± 7
9 ±8
11 ± 8
10 ± 7
5 ± 8
4 ± 6
6 ± 8
0 ± 6
11 ± 7
3 ± 6
5 ± 6
2 ± 8
5 ± 8
i.
6
2
7
7
7
5
9
1
17
16
16
8
3
- 6
4
3
11
7
3
4
4
•°Ba
± 9
± 9
± 9
± 9
± 10
± 9
± 9
± 9
± 11
± 12
± 10
± 11
± 9
± 9
± 9
± 9
± 11
± 9
± 9
± 9
± 9
6
7
10
5
17
2
5
3
20
11
3
15
2
- 2
6
2
16
4
5
- 1
1
!1]
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
I 90Sr
7
7
7
7
8 2.0 ± 0.6
7
7
• 7
9 5.5 ± 0.8
10 6.0 ± 0.9
8 4.9 ± 1.0
9 3.9 ± 1.1
7
6
6
6
9 2.0 ± 0.9
7
7
6
7
89Sr
3 ± 5
' 6 ± 5
7 ± 5
13 ± 5
0 ± 5
0 ± 5
-------
TABLE A-3 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
NH : Manchester
NJ: Trenton
NM : Albuquerque
>
i— i
00
NV:Las Vegas
NY: Buffalo
New York City
jjai_e g/ -Liter i ^,— oj.gma
Collected Counting Error 137
10/04
10/15
11/03
10/22
11/01
10/07
10/12
10/15
10/12
10/15
11/02
10/08
10/15
10/21
11/04
10/05
10/15
11/01
1.52 ±
1.39 ±
1.37 ±
1.42 ±
1.41 ±
1.45 ±
1.37 ±
1.41 ±
1.43 ±
1.60 ±
1.42 ±
1.53 ±
1.49 ±
1.47 ±
1.54 ±
1.42 ±
1.43 ±
1.42 ±
.12
.11
• 11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
.12
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
.12
5
7
9
6
11
3
6
2
9
0
2
3
3
0
3
1
1
5
Cs
± 7
± 7
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 6
± 7
± 6
± 7
± 6
± 8
± 7
± 6
± 8
± 8
± 6
± 7
± 8
140Ba 131I 90Sr
4
5
12
22
8
4
7
6
12
2
11
15
- 2
9
2
3
22
10
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
jh
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
9
9
10
11
10
9
9
9
12
9
9
12
9
9
9
9
12
9
2
8
9
56
23
7
2
7
14
1
- 3
5
6
4
2
4
95
9
± 7
± 7
± 8
± 10 5.0 ± 0.5
±8 7.5 ± 0.9
± 7
± 7
± 7
±9 0.9 ± 0.6
± 7
± 6
±7 3.2 ± 1.0
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 12 5.8 ± 0.8
± 7
89Sr
24 ± 5
13 ± 5
0 ± 5
1 ± 5
9 ± 5
-------
TABLE A-3 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
pCi/liter ± 2-Sigma Counting Error (a)
Location
NY : Syracuse
OH Cincinnati
•p
I
H
VO
Cleveland
OK: Oklahoma City
OR: Portland
UciLt:
Collected
10/04
10/21
11/08
10/05
10/07
10/12
10/15
11/09
10/07
10/11
10/18
11/08
10/04
10/07
10/12
11/08
10/04
10/07
10/12
10/15
11/01
g/ liter i £.— aigma
Counting Error
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.48 ±
.43 ±
.33 ±
.44 ±
.36 ±
.33 ±
.38 ±
.34 ±
.30 ±
.44 ±
.54 ±
.40 ±
.35 ±
.44 ±
.45 ±
.46 ±
.46 ±
.48 ±
.50 ±
.44 ±
.37 ±
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
1 37
3
8
5
0
4
3
1
3
7
4
3
3
3
2
5
4
5
3
6
7
3
Cs
± 6
± 8
± 8
± 6
± 6
± 6
± 6
± 8
±6
± 6
± 6
± 8
± 6
± 6
± 7
± 8
± 6
± 6
± 7
± 8
± 8
1*
2
2
7
- 1
3
13
5
8
0
5
1
8
11
7
2
6
4
4
0
- 1
9
°B,
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
±
±
+
±
±
a
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
131Z
3 ±
2 ±
5 ±
8 ±
5 ±
10 ±
5 ±
4 ±
3 ±
9 ±
7 ±
3 ±
2 ±
8 ±
4 ±
5 ±
6 ±
2 ±
4 ±
1 ±
2 ±
90Sr 89Sr
7
7
7
7
7
7 3.3 ±1.6 2 ± 5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
-------
TABLE A-3 - CONTINUED
Radionuclide Concentration
pCi/liter ± 2-Sigma Counting Error (a)
Location
PA Philadelphia
>
I
to
o
PA:Pittsburgh
PR: San Juan
RI:Providence
jjaLe
Collected
10/04
10/08
10/12
10/13
10/15
10/22
10/29
11/08
10/03
10/08
10/12
10/18
10/22
10/29
11/09
10/07
10/12
10/13
10/15
11/10
10/07
10/12
10/15
10/22
10/29
g/j-j-cer z ^
Counting
1.39 ± .
1.42 ± .
1.43 ± .
1.46 ± .
1.45 ± .
1.40 ± .
1.36 ± .
1.38 ± .
1.44 ± .
1.41 ± .
1.33 ± .
1.46 ± .
1.45 ± .
1.42 ± .
1.38 + .
1.49 ± .
1.40 ± .
1.48 ± .
1.47 ± .
1.38 ± .
1.49 ± .
1.54 ± .
1.40 ± .
1.60 ± .
1.54 ± .
Error
12
11
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
11
11
11
12
11
12
12
11
12
12
11
12
11
137Cs
6 ± 7
12 ± 7
4 ± 7
5 + 6
3 ± 7
5 + 8
12 ± 8
3 ± 8
4 ± 8
8 ± 8
7 ± 7
6 ± 8
7 ± 8
9 ± 8
7 ± 8
7 ± 7
10 ± 7
6 ± 7
2 ± 6
10 ± 8
9 ± 7
7 ± 7
9 + 7
10 ± 8
11 ± 8
lk°Ba
7+9
19 ± 11
25 + 11
15 ± 11
17 ± 11
13+6
18 ± 12
15 + 11
1 ± 9
17 ± 26
14 + 11
17 ± 14
6 ± 13
9 ± 13
6 ± 9
0+9
4+9
2+9
7+9
6 ± 9
16 + 10
16 + 10
13 ± 12
12 + 12
18 ± 11
131r
1 ±
72 ±
46 +
68 ±
61 ±
40 ±
28 ±
16 ±
- 3 ±
60 ±
33 ±
33 ±
27 ±
24 +
5 ±
2 ±
6 ±
2 +
0 ±
3 ±
10 ±
36 ±
31 ±
18 ±
10 ±
7
10
9
9
9
16
10
9
6
34
8
14
11
11
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
8
10
10
9
9
4.6
4.3
4.1
3.2
4.1
5.5
5.1
8.3
5.7
5.7
4.8
5.3
5.1
4.7
4.1
5.3
4.9
°Sr
± 0.6
± 0.7
± 0.9
± 0.4
± 0.5
± 0.7
+ 0.7
± 1.4
± 1.0
± 0.9
± 0.6
± 0.7
± 1.2
± 0.9
± 0.6
± 0.8
± 0.6
8 9
8
8
12
17
15
12
10
0
4
9
11
13
2
4
8
9
13
Sr
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
+ 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
+ 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
± 5
-------
TABLE A-3 - CONTINUED
Location
Date
Collected
K
g/liter ± 2-Sigma
Counting Error
Radionuclide Concentration
pCi/liter ± 2-Sigma Counting Error (a)
1 3 7
Cs
JBa
131
9 0
Sr
8 9
Sr
RI: Providence
11/11
SC: Charles ton
I
IS}
^J
SD: Rapid City
TN: Chattanooga
Knoxville
10/08
10/12
10/21
10/29
11/10
10/07
10/12
10/15
10/14
10/04
10/08
10/12
10/15
10/22
11/08
10/08
10/12
10/15
10/21
10/26
11/10
1.53 ± .12
9 ± 8
7 ± 9
8 ± 7
1.42 ±
1.37 ±
1.40 ±
1.37 ±
1.41 ±
1.49 ±
1.36 ±
1.32 ±
1.45 ±
1.27 t
1.43 ±
1.41 ±
1.46 ±
1.37 ±
1.38 ±
1.37 ±
1.44 ±
1.48 ±
1.51 ±
1.41 ±
1.42 ±
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.19
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
15
9
9
12
10
2
8
- 2
2
8
7
6
2
8
6
7
5
6
10
5
6
± 7
± 7
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 6
± 15
± 6
± 8
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 6
± 8
± 8
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 8
± 8
± 8
4
1
6
9
8
4
20
13
3
5
6
12
8
4
8
5
16
6
6
4
5
± 9
± 9
± 12
± 9
± 9
± 9
± 23
± 9
± 9
± 9
± 9
± 11
± 12
± 9
± 9
± 9
± 10
± 12
± 9
± 9
± 9
3
12
21
7
10
4
2
4
5
2
12
19
15
7
7
8
15
17
7
6
6
± 7
± 8
± 10 3.3 ± 0.5
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 17 3.5 ± 1.4
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 8
±9 6.2 ± 1.3
±9 4.1 ± 0.9
± 7
± 7
± 7
±7 4.3 ± 1.0
±9 4.0 ± 0.9
± 7
± 7
± 7
0 ± 5
0 ± 5
0 ± 5
3 ± 5
2 ± 5
3 ± 5
-------
TABLE A-3 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
ua i_e
Location Collected
TNrMemphis 10/08
10/11
10/15
10/22
11/10
TX:Austin 10/04
> 10/08
I 10/12
< K 10/15
11/01
( Dallas 10/04
10/06
10/14
11/08
UT:Salt Lake City 10/04
10/07
10/12
10/15
11/01
VA:Norfolk 10/01
10/08
10/12
10/21
11/04
g/iii_t:r z ^— Sigma —
Counting Error 13
1.43
1.46
1.43
1.37
1.43
1.49
1.43
1.46
1.42
1.46
1.39
1.39
1.37
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.38
1.35
1.48
1.47
1.48
1.52
1.45
1.32
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
+
±
+
±
±
±
±
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
.12
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.11
10
5
3
11
3
3
1
6
1
6
3
11
1
5
2
4
9
7
2
3
1
4
10
9
7Cs
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
T
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
±
7
6
6
8
8
6
6
7
6
8
6
7
6
8
6
6
7
7
8
7
6
7
8
8
1<*0B ISlj 90g
-U d J_ J L
4 ±
2 ±
5 ±
5 ±
6 ±
4 ±
4 ±
2 ±
7 ±
19 ±
5 ±
6 ±
6 ±
7 ±
3 ±
1 ±
6 ±
8 ±
5 ±
1 ±
6 ±
11 ±
13 ±
6 ±
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
11
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
13
9
8 ±
10 ±
2 ±
6 ±
11 ±
- 2 ±
4 ±
3 ±
- 3 ±
15 ±
7 ±
5 ±
4 ±
5 ±
3 ±
1 ±
9 ±
4 ±
2 ±
6 ±
14 ±
12 ±
16 ±
5 ±
7
7
7
7
7 5.6 ± 0.9
7
7
7
6
9 0.4 ± 0.1
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
9 3.8 ± 0.9
8 5.0 ± 1.3
11 6.6 ± 1.3
7
"Sr
5 ± 5
14 + 5
1 ± 5
0 ± 5
0 ± 5
-------
TABLE A-3 - 'CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
VT: Burlington
WA: Seattle
*f
to
OJ
Spokane
WI : Milwaukee
WV: Charles ton
Ui± i_e
Collected
10/08
10/12
10/15
10/07
10/12
10/15
11/09
10/07
10/07
10/15
11/08
10/06
10/07
10/12
10/15
11/02
10/04
10/07
10/12
11/01
g/ liter z L— aigma —
Counting Error : ;
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.25 ±
.43 ±
.30 ±
.40 ±
.41 ±
.52 ±
.48 ±
.37 ±
.45 ±
.45 ±
.45 ±
.50 ±
.52 ±
.36 +
.41 ±
.43 ±
.44 ±
.41 ±
.45 +
.49 ±
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.12
.12
.11
.12
.11
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.12
4
7
6
7
3
10
10
2
9
2
11
- 1
0
2
5
3
- 1
5
7
7
!7Cs
± 6
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 6
± 7
± 8
± 6
± 7
± 6
± 8
± 6
± 6
± 6
± 6
± 8
± 6
± 6
± 7
± 8
ll)0Ba
5
5
7
5
7
3
3
- 2
13
2
4
8
7
6
6
4
5
3
5
3
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
9
1 3 1
1 ±
4 ±
5 ±
2 ±
- 2 ±
2 ±
3 ±
4 ±
4 ±
5 ±
6 ±
6 ±
0 ±
3 ±
- 2 ±
3 ±
- 1 ±
5 ±
20 ±
5 ±
I 90Sr "Sr
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
6 2.5 ±0.9 1+5
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
6
7
10 2.8 ±0.8 2+5
7
-------
TABLE A-3 - CONTINUED
Radionuclide Concentration
~-.- _/-,J^._ ^ o PJ pCi/liter ± 2-Sigma Counting Error (a)
Location
Collected Counting Error 137Cs llf0Ba ' 131I 90Sr
89Sr
WY:Laramie 10/07 1.32 ±.11 2 ± 6 8±9 5±7
10/13 1.39 ± .11 8 ± 7 11 ± 10 9 ± 7
10/15 1.50 ±.12 - 2 ± 6 3±9 2±7
11/16 1.42 ±.11 0±8 5±9 2±7
(a) Negative values may be obtained when the actual concentration
is at or near zero due to the statistical distribution of net
counting results both positive and negative around zero.
-------
APPENDIX B
Data for November 17, 1976, Detonation
B-l
-------
Location
TABLE B-l
RESULTS OF AIR SAMPLES COLLECTED IN RESPONSE TO THE NUCLEAR
TEST OF NOVEMBER 17, 1976, BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
November 18 - December 10, 1976
Number of Number of Samples Maximum Lab. Gross
Samples With Lab. Gross Beta Measurement &
Submitted Beta Measurement Date Collected
> 1 pCi/m3 pCi/m3
AK:
AL:
AR:
AZ:
CA:
CO:
CT:
CZ:
DC:
DE:
FL:
GA:
HI:
Anchorage
Montgomery
Little Rock
Phoenix
Berkeley
Los Angeles
Denver
Hartford
Ancon
Washington
Wilmington
Miami
Atlanta
Honolulu
12
13
16
13
22
18
21
23
15
20
23
10
9
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B-2 °
0
.09
12/3/76
.10
11/22/76
.24
11/18/76
.75
11/22/76
.16
11/27/76
.14
11/29/76
.26
11/25/76
.08
12/3/76
.06
12/9/76
.21
11/19/76
.15
11/19/76
.16
11/25/76
.27
11/20/76
.15
11/23/76
-------
TABLE B-l - CONTINUED
Location
IA:
ID:
IN:
KS:
KY:
LA:
MA:
ME:
MI:
MN:
MO:
MS:
MT:
Iowa City
Boise
Idaho Falls
Indianapolis
Topeka
Frankfort
New Orleans
Lawrence
Augusta
Lansing
Minneapolis
Jefferson City
Jackson
Helena
Number of
Samples
Submitted
17
18
14
7
16
7
6
19
9
17
17
17
16
17
Number of Samples
With Lab. Gross
Beta Measurement
> 1 pCi/m3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B-3 0
Maximum Lab . Gross
Beta Measurement &
Date Collected
pCi/m3
.13
12/3/76
.20
11/21/76
.23
11/20/76
.11
11/21/76
.15
11/18/76
.09
11/20/76
.12
11/19/76
.14
11/19/76
.08
11/20/76
.11
11/24/76
.13
12/1/76
.14
11/19/76
.19
11/19/76
.20
11/23/76
-------
TABLE B-l - CONTINUED
Location
NC:
ND:
NE:
NJ:
NM:
NY:
NV:
OH:
OK:
Charlotte
Wilmington
Bismarck
Lincoln
Trenton
Santa Fe
Albany
Buffalo
New York City
Syracuse
Las Vegas
Columbus
Painesville
Oklahoma City
Number of Number of Samples
Samples With Lab. Gross
Submitted Beta Measurement
> 1 pCi/m3
14
10
18
16
16
11
16
16
11
17
13
7
6
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B-4 o
Maximum Lab. Gross
Beta Measurement &
Date Collected
pCi/m3
.09
11/24/76
.09
12/16/76
.14
11/30/76
.15
11/19/76
.13
11/26/76
.15
11/18/76
.10
11/26/76
.20
11/18/76
.09
11/26/76
.12
11/19/76
.14
11/21/76
.13
11/18/76
.10
11/26/76
.17
11/20/76
-------
TABLE B-l - CONTINUED
Location
OR:
PA:
RI:
SC:
SD:
TN:
TX:
VA:
WA:
WI:
Portland
Harrisburg
Pittsburgh
Providence
Columbia
Pierre
Nashville
Austin
El Paso
Lynchburg
Norfolk
Seattle
Madison
Number of
Samples
Submitted
12
18
11
17
17
15
17
15
15
7
13
11
13
Number of Samples
With Lab. Gross
Beta Measurement
> 1 pCi/m3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Maximum Lab. Gross
Beta Measurement &
Date Collected
pCi/m3
.12
11/21/76
.10
11/18/76
.10
11/23/76
.12
11/19/76
.24
11/21/76
.25
11/21/76
.24
12/1/76
.31
11/29/76
.15
11/22/76
.14
11/22/76
.08
11/24/76
.11
11/22/76
.09
11/18/76
B-5
-------
TABLE B-2
RESULTS OF PASTEURIZED MILK SAMPLES COLLECTED IN RESPONSE TO THE
NUCLEAR TEST OF NOVEMBER 17, 1976, BY THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
K
Radionucllde Concentration
Location
AK: Palmer
AL: Montgomery
03
AR: Little Reck
AZ : Phoenix
CA: Los Angeles
Sacramento
San Francisco
Date
Collected
11/24
12/2
12/10
12/3
12/9
11/24
12/3
12/6
11/24
12/9
11/24
12/2
12/9
11/24
12/2
12/9
11/24
12/3
12/10
g/liter ± 2-Sigma
Counting Error
1.48 ±
1.42 ±
1.45 ±
1.51 ±
1.54 ±
1.45 ±
1.44 ±
1.51 ±
1.41 ±
1.43 ±
1.44 ±
1.39 ±
1.43 ±
1.51 ±
1.53 ±
1.57 ±
1.42 ±
1.44 ±
1.46 ±
.12
.11
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
.12
.11
.11
.12
.11
.11
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
.12
pCi/liter ±
137Cs
17
5
2
3
4
17
7
6
4
3
1
1
0
1
5
6
0
2
6
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
llt0Ba
12
2
8
5
- 2
6
0
1
3
1
6
- 2
11
4
6
2
8
7
7
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
H-
+
+
±
+
±
+
j;
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
i
4
9
- 1
3
5
8
5
6
2
2
2
5
- 2
- 4
2
2
0
4
1
2-Sigma Counting Error (a)
131Z 90gr 89Sr
±7 0.9 ± 0.8 4 ± 5
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
±7 1.2 ± 0.9 3 ± 5
± 6
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
-------
TABLE B-2 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
CO:
CT:
CZ:
DC:
DE:
FL:
GA:
HI:
IA:
Denver
Hartford
Cristobol
Washington
Wilmington
ta
-j
Tampa
Atlanta
Honolulu
Des Mbines
Date
Collected
11/22
12/2
12/9
11/26
12/3
12/10
12/7
12/3
11/24
12/1
12/9
11/23
12/2
12/9
11/24
12/2
12/10
11/26
12/2
11/24
12/2
12/9
g/liter ± 2-Sigma
Counting Error
1.46
1.41
1.48
1.47
1.34
1.45
1.45
1.48
1.49
1.39
1.46
1.46
1.53
1.44
1.39
1.34
1.39
1.39
1.37
1.41
1.43
1.35
+
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
.12
.11
.12
.12
.11
.12
.11
.12
.12
.11
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
pCi/liter ±
107 i u n
137Cs 140Ba
5
7
7
2
3
6
17
9
1
0
6
28
34
35
3
6
3
0
5
2
- 1
8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 9
± 9
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
5 ±
- 2 ±
1 ±
1 ±
14 ±
5 ±
7 ±
6 ±
8 ±
7 ±
4 ±
15 ±
- 4 ±
2 ±
5 ±
6 ±
7 ±
- 3 ±
2 ±
8 ±
7 ±
5 ±
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
i
4
1
3
2
5
2
- 3
0
5
0
0
5
5
0
8
5
5
0
2
4
6
3
2-Sigma Counting Error (a)
31I 90Sr 89Sr
± 7
± 6
± 7
± 7
± 7 4.0 ±0.6 8 ± 5
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
±7 3.0 ± 1.0 1 ± 5
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 6
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
-------
TABLE B-2 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
ID: Idaho Falls
IL : Chicago
IN : Indianapolis
KS: Wichita
W
I
00
KY: Louisville
LA: New Orleans
MA: Boston
MD: Baltimore
ME: Portland
Date
Collected
12/3
12/10
11/24
12/2
12/10
11/24
12/2
12/6
12/9
11/24
12/2
12/9
11/24
12/3
12/9
11/24
12/2
12/10
11/24
12/2
12/9
11/26
12/3
12/10
11/26
12/2
12/6
g/liter ± 2-Sigma
Counting Error
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.44 ±
.47 ±
.45 ±
.49 ±
.36 ±
.39 ±
.45 ±
.41 ±
.50 ±
.46 ±
.53 ±
.42 ±
.48 ±
.43 ±
.39 ±
.39 ±
.47 ±
.45 ±
.49 ±
.40 ±
.43 ±
.38 ±
.39 ±
.44 ±
.36 ±
.49 ±
.26 ±
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.12
.12
.11
.12
.12
.11
.11
.12
.11
.12
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
pCi/liter ± 2-Sigma Counting Error (a)
137 llifl 1 '
137Cs 140Ba :-
4 ±
7 ±
12 ±
7 ±
3 ±
6 ±
4 ±
5 ±
5 ±
5 ±
8 ±
1 ±
0 ±
3 ±
- 1 ±
8 ±
4 ±
5 ±
8 ±
9 ±
6 ±
1 ±
10 ±
8 ±
8 ±
12 ±
13 ±
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
7
- 2
2
5
7
0
- 2
10
6
4
7
10
3
2
8
1
7
9
7
2
2
14
5
8
- 1
3
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
2
3
7
9
2
6
2
3
5
1
1
6
1
3
1
5
1
- 1
8
0
2
2
- 1
- 1
6
3
5
!1I 90Sr 89Sr
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 6
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
±7 3.1 ± 0.7 7 ± 5
± 7
± 6
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
±7 5.8 ± 0.7 10 ± 5
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
-------
TABLE B-2 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
MI: Detroit
Grand Rapids
MN: Minneapolis
MO: Kansas City
Dd
I
vo
St. Louis
MS: Jackson
MT: Helena
NC: Charlotte
Date
Collected
11/24
12/2
12/9
11/24
12/3
12/10
11/24
12/1
12/8
11/24
12/2
12/9
11/26
12/2
12/8
11/24
12/1
12/6
11/24
12/3
12/6
11/24
12/6
g/liter ± 2-Sigma
Counting Error
1.46 ±
1.38 ±
1.45 ±
1.38 ±
1.43 ±
1.47 ±
1.45 ±
1.48 ±
1.48 ±
1.45 ±
1.49 ±
1.41 ±
1.50 ±
1.51 ±
1.40 ±
1.38 ±
1.28 ±
1.34 ±
1.55 ±
1.55 ±
1.49 ±
1.33 ±
1.41 ±
.12
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.11
.12
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
pCi/liter ±
137Cs
11
3
5
11
9
3
8
1
6
9
4
5
3
1
0
5
11
4
12
3
3
3
3
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
i
2
7
7
5
3
- 7
4
- 1
2
11
8
13
1
10
- 1
6
1
- 4
5
- 2
- 4
10
2
"°I
+
+
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
5a
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
i
6
2
1
2
2
3
5
3
1
4
0
2
7
- 1
0
6
2
3
10
- 3
2
5
5
2-Sigma Counting Error (a)
31
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
I 90Sr 89Sr
7
7
7
7
7
6
7
7
6
7 4.1 ±0.6 4 ± 5
7
7 3.9 ±0.7 5 ± 5
7
7
7
7
7
6
7 1.5 ±0.7 4 ± 5
6
7
7
7
-------
TABLE B-2 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
ND:
NE:
NH:
NJ:
NM:
NV:
NY:
Minot
Omaha
Manchester
Trenton
td
I
o
Albuquerque
Las Vegas
Buffalo
New York
Date
Collected
11/26
12/2
12/10
11/24
12/1
12/10
11/24
12/3
12/10
11/24
12/2
12/9
11/24
12/2
12/9
12/1
12/2
12/10
11/24
12/10
11/24
12/6
g/liter ± 2-Sigm;
Counting Error
1.43 ±
1.52 ±
1.50 ±
1.07 ±
0.84 ±
1.32 ±
1.47 ±
1.40 ±
1.62 ±
1.43 ±
1.44 ±
1.38 ±
1.38 ±
1.51 ±
1.54 ±
1.39 ±
1.62 ±
1.49 ±
1.45 ±
1.47 ±
1.36 ±
1.35 ±
.11
.12
.12
.11
.10
.11
.12
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.12
.11
.12
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
a
1 3
5
1
0
3
2
2
5
8
6
1
5
- 1
9
2
2
8
1
3
4
3
5
- 1
pCi
/lit
er ± :
7Cs lli0Ba i:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7 ±
8 ±
6 ±
8 ±
7 ±
- 2 ±
11 ±
10 ±
12 ±
- 1 ±
1 ±
5 ±
0 ±
0 ±
- 2 ±
- 3 ±
- 3 ±
1 ±
7 ±
5 ±
6 ±
- 1 ±
. 9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
6
0
0
3
2
2
- 1
1
0
8
- 1
1
2
4
2
0
0
5
7
5
- 2
3
2-Sigma Counting Error (a)
J1I 90Sr "Sr
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 6
± 6
±7 2.5 ± 0.9 3 ± 5
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 6
± 6
± 7
± 7
± 7
± 6
± 7
Syracuse
12/6
1.41 ± .11
3 ± 8 - 9 ± 9
5 ± 6
-------
TABLE B-2 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
OH : Cincinnati
Cleveland
OK: Oklahoma City
OR: Portland
W
1
PA: Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
PR: San Juan
RI : Providence
Date
Collected
11/24
12/3
12/9
12/2
12/8
11/24
12/2
12/6
12/9
11/24
12/2
11/26
12/3
12/10
11/24
12/3
12/10
11/26
12/2
12/8
11/24
12/2
12/9
g/liter ± 2-Sigma
Counting Error
1.44 ±
1.54 ±
1.50 ±
1.41 ±
1.41 ±
1.45 ±
1.49 ±
1.47 ±
1.45 ±
1.53 ±
1.45 ±
1.44 ±
1.42 ±
1.55 ±
1.49 ±
1.46 ±
1.50 ±
1.53 ±
1.46 ±
1.44 ±
1.52 ±
1.50 ±
1.43 ±
.11
.12
.12
.11
.11
.11
.12
.12
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.12
.11
.12
.12
.11
1 3
2
8
- 1
7
2
5
10
2
2
2
7
5
3
0
5
7
3
9
9
7
13
8
7
7Cs
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
pCi/liter ± 2-Sigraa Counting Error (a)
14
2
3
1
- 1
0
5
5
4
- 2
4
4
5
11
10
- 1
4
2
- 3
4
8
11
6
1
°Ba
+
±.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
±
±
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
1 3
8
1
4
3
1
3
- 2
4
3
5
4
- 1
0
- 1
8
0
1
1
1
- 4
7
3
5
ij
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
±
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
90Sr 89Sr
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7 5.0 ±0.7 8 ± 5
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
7 -4.4 ±0.9 4 ± 5
7
7
-------
TABLE B-2 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
SC:
SD:
TN:
TX:
UT:
Charleston
Rapid City
Chattanooga
Knoxville
W
I
1 •
Memphis
Aus tin
Dallas
Salt Lake City
Date
Collected
11/23
12/2
12/6
12/9
11/26
12/3
11/24
12/3
12/6
11/24
12/15
11/26
12/2
12/7
12/9
11/24
12/2
12/9
11/23
11/30
12/10
11/24
12/2
12/6
g/liter ± 2-Sigma
Counting Error
1.40 ±
1.45 ±
1.35 ±
1.43 ±
1.36 ±
1.42 ±
1.37 ±
1.43 ±
1.49 ±
1.40 ±
1.53 ±
1.39 ±
1.43 ±
1.34 ±
1.43 ±
1.36 ±
1.50 ±
1.34 ±
1.50 ±
1.39 ±
1.29 ±
1.52 ±
1.52 ±
1.32 ±
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
.12
.11
.11
.12
.12
.11
1 3
15
11
0
4
4
- 1
10
3
12
9
2
8
9
2
7
10
2
3
11
7
- 2
8
5
7
7Cs
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
± 8
pCi/liter ± 2-Sigma Counting Error
1 U 0 ri
4 ±
3 ±
7 ±
1 ±
- 7 ±
2 ±
20 ±
3 ±
- 1 ±
18 t
0 ±
11 ±
5 ±
10 ±
- 7 ±
10 ±
5 ±
3 ±
8 ±
2 ±
4 ±
9 ±
3 ±
0 ±
a
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
iaij
8 ±
- 4 ±
2 ±
- 3 ±
0 ±
1 ±
3 ±
5 ±
3 ±
18 ±
6 ±
- 2 ±
1 ±
- 2 ±
0 ±
17 ±
2 ±
3 ±
5 ±
5 ±
1 ±
1 +
0 ±
3 ±
! 90Sr
7
6
7
6
6
6
7 5.4 ± 0.8
7
7
7 4.0 ± 1.0
7
7 2.6 ± 0.6
7
6
6
7 2.8 ± 0.6
7
7
6
7
6
7
7
7
(a)
89Sr
3 ± 5
6 ± 5
5 ± 5
7 ± 5
-------
TABLE B-2 - CONTINUED
K
Radionuclide Concentration
Location
VA:
VT:
WA:
WI:
Norfolk
Burlington
Seattle
Spokane
ca
i
H1
U)
Milwaukee
Date
Collected
11/26
12/3
12/9
11/22
11/27
12/3
12/10
12/2
12/9
11/24
12/3
12/8
11/24
12/1
12/9
g/liter ± 2-Sigma
Counting Error
1.48 ±
1.50 ±
1.45 ±
1.37 ±
1.44 ±
1.41 ±
1.41 ±
1.42 ±
1.43 ±
1.44 ±
1.39 ±
1.32 ±
1.56 ±
1.47 ±
1.38 ±
.12
.12
.12
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.11
.12
.11
.11
.12
.12
.11
1 3
4
5
7
6
- 2
5
10
8
11
8
5
7
4
5
3
7Cs
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
pCi/liter ± 2-Sigma Counting Error (a)
1
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
Additional Information on Individual
and Population Dose Calculations
C-l
-------
This appendix provides details related to the dose calculation pre-
sented in this report.
Correction for Background for 131i in Milk and Integrated Milk Con-
centration by Station
To obtain net milk concentrations of I, a background milk
concentration of *I was established for each station by averaging
the milk concentrations reported for the August and September 1976
milk samples. This average was subtracted from the reported milk
concentrations (Appendix A) for the integration period. These net
milk concentrations were plotted for each station and extrapolated
to November 12, 1976. The resulting curves were integrated with a
planimeter to obtain the net integrated milk concentration for each
station. These net integrated milk concentrations are listed in
Table C-l.
C-2
-------
Table C-l: Integrated Milk Concentration by Station for the
September Event
Location Integrated Milk Concentration
C,
pCi
Montgomery, AL 260
Palmer, AK 126
Phoenix, AZ 291
Little Rock, AR 448
Los Angeles, CA 79
San Francisco, CA 103
Sacramento, CA 43
Denver, CO 294
Hartford, CT 1797
Wilmington, DE 1460
Washington, DC 1454
Tampa, FL 387
Atlanta, GA 217
Honolulu, HI 203
Idaho Falls, ID 86
Chicago, IL 39
Indianapolis, IN 83
Des Moines, IA 25
Wichita, KS 44
Louisville, KY 159
New Orleans, LA 331
Portland, ME 418
Baltimore, MD 1845
C-3
-------
Table C-l: Continued
Boston, MA 473
Grand Rapids, MI 322
Detroit, MI 99
Minneapolis, MN 675
Jackson, MS 572
Kansas City, MO 76
St. Louis, MO 77
Helena, MT 283
Omaha, NB 33
Las Vegas, NV 100
Manchester, NH 378
Trenton, NJ 1245
Albuquerque, NM 259
Buffalo, NY 148
New York, NY 1670
Syracuse, NY 32
Charlotte, NC 352
Minot, ND 193
Cincinnati, OH 7
Cleveland, OH 103
Oklahoma City, OK 150
Portland, OR 55
Pittsburgh, PA 1041
Philadelphia, PA 1406
Providence, RI 641
Charleston, SC 452
Rapid City, SD 176
Knoxville, TN 279
Chattanooga, TN 408
Memphis, TN 191
C-4
-------
Table C-l: Continued
Austin, TX 273
Dallas, TX 53
Salt Lake City, UT 20
Burlington, VT 101
Norfolk, VA 445
Seattle, WA 70
Spokane, WA 61
Charleston, WV 301
Milwaukee, WI 10
Laramie, WY 40
C-5
-------
Special Weighting for New York State Integrated Milk Concentration
Where there was more than one sampling station per state, the
integrated milk concentrations for the stations were arithmetically
averaged and applied for the state except for New York. There are
milk sampling stations at Buffalo, New York City, and Syracuse. The
integrated milk concentrations for these stations were:
Station Integrated Milk Concentration
pCi-d/l
Buffalo, NY 148
New York, NY 1670
Syracuse, NY 32
The New York City station is more than 10 times higher than either
of the other stations. For New York State, the following weighting
procedure was used:
1. The populations of the "large metropolitan areas"* in New
York State were summed as follows.
Area 1970 Population
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 722,000
Binghamton, NY - PA 303,000
Buffalo, NY 1,349,000
Nassau-Suffolk, NY 2,553,000
New York, NY 9,019,000
Rochester, NY 883,000
*See Table 21, Reference 7
C-6
-------
Syracuse, NY 637,000
Utica-Rome, NY 341,000
Total 15,807,000
2. The ratio of New York City population to the total "large
metropolitan area" population was calculated; i.e.,
Ratio = 9019/15807 = 0.571
3. The integrated milk concentrations for Buffalo and Syracuse
were averaged to obtain 90 pCi-d/£.
4. It was assumed that 57.1 percent of the people in New York
State drank milk of the integrated concentration of New
York City (1670 pCi-d/£) and that 42.9 percent of the
people drank milk of the average integrated concentration
of Buffalo and Syracuse (90 pCi-d/£). This technique
yielded a New York State integrated milk concentration of
992 PCi-d/£.
Estimation of Milk Consumption by State for Integration Period of
October 1 - November 12, 1976.
Milk production data for October 1976 was obtained from USDA (6) as
9685 Mlbs. This milk production was multiplied by the ratio 43
days/31 days to estimate the milk production for the total inte-
gration period as 13,434 Mlbs. It was assumed that all of this milk
was or would be consumed in the U. S. The 1972 population data
from Table 13 of Reference 7 was used to determine the fraction of
the U. S. population in each state. These fractions were multiplied
C-7
-------
by the total milk production of 13,434 Mlbs. to obtain the estimated
milk consumption for each state. This data is shown in Table C-2.
C-8
-------
Table C-2: Estimated
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DC
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Milk Consumption
1972 State
Population
(in thousands)
3,510
325
1,945
1,978
20,468
2,357
3,082
565
748
7,259
4,720
809
756
11,251
5,291
2,883
2,258
3,299
3,720
1,029
4,056
5,787
9,082
3,896
2,263
4,753
719
Fraction of
1972 U. S.
Population
0.0169
0.0016
0.0093
0.0095
0.0983
0.0113
0.0148
0.0027
0.0036
0.0349
0.0227
0.0039
0.0036
0.0537
0.0254
0.0138
0.0108
0.0158
0.0179
0.0049
0.0195
0.0278
0.0436
0.0187
0.0109
0.0228
0.0035
Estimated
Milk Con-
sumption,
Mlbs
226
21
125
128
1,320
152
199
36
48
468
305
52
49
721
341
186
146
213
240
66
262
373
586
251
146
307
46
C-9
-------
Table C-2: Continued
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
1,525
527
•e 771
7,367
1,065
18,366
.na 5,214
i 632
10,783
2,634
2,182
L 11,926
1 968
.na 2,665
L 679
4,031
11,649
1,126
462
4,764
3,443
.a 1,781
4,520
345
0.0073
0.0025
0.0037
0.0354
0.0051
0.0882
0.0250
0.0030
0.0518
0.0126
0.0105
0.0573
0.0046
0.0128
0.0033
0.0194
0.0559
0.0054
0.0022
0.0229
0.0165
0.0086
0.0217
0.0017
98
34
50
475
69
1,185
336
41
696
170
141
769
62
172
44
260
752
73
30
307
222
115
292
22
Total U. S.
208,232
C-10
-------
Estimation of Food Group Fractions and Marketing-to-Consumption
Delay Times
Table O3 lists USDA milk utilization data for 1975 (9). A verbal
estimate of the delay times between marketing and consumption of the
dairy products was obtained from USDA personnel (8). These times
are also shown in Table C-3. Based on a review of this data, it
was decided that sufficient precision would be maintained in the
calculations if two food groups were established. The food groups
established are described in Table C-4.
C-ll
-------
Table C-3: Milk Utilization for 1975 and Estimated MarketIsft-tff-
,(8, 9)
Product
Consumption Times for Various Milk Products
1975 Usage, Estimated Marketing-
Mlbs
6. Other manufactured
products
Fluid Products
7. Sold by dealers
& producers
821
51,400
8. Used for human consumption
where produced 1,654
to-Consumption Time,
d
Manufactured Products
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Creamery butter
Cheese
Cottage cheese
Evaporated and
dry whole milk
Ice cream & other
frozen dairy products
19,603
24,080
1,049
3,008
12,042
14 d min. , 30
average
d
30 d min. ,
1-6 mo . average
1 week
6 mo . average
14 d min . ,
1-6 mo. average
1 day
1 day
9. Residual
406
114,063
C-12
-------
Table C-4: Food Groups for Population Dose Calculations
Food Group Description
Fraction
for 1975
Usage
Estimated
Marketing-to -
Consumption
time, d
Includes creamery butter, cheese, 0.52
ice cream, canned and condensed
milk, dry milk, and other manu-
factured products (includes items
1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 for a total of
59,554 Mlbs)
Includes cottage cheese, and all 0.48
fluid milk products (includes
items 3, 7, 8, & 9 for a total
of 54,509 Mlbs)
30 d
1 d
C-13
*U.S.GOVERNMENTPRINTINGOFFICE:1977 .743 -6 k 1 / k 2 9 0 REGION NO. 4
-------
------- |