Radiological Quality Of The Environment In The United States, 1977

                                   EPA 520/1-77-009
                                 520177009
RADIOLOGICAL QUALITY OF
THE ENVIRONMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES, 1977
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
      Office of Radiation Programs

-------
The annual EPA report on Radiation Protection Activities in 1976
is now available.   Single free copies may be obtained by requesting
report number EPA-520/4-77-005 from:
                  Mr. Loren Zelsman, AW-460
                  Office of Radiation Programs
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  Washington, D.C.   20460

-------
                           520177009
RADIOLOGICAL QUALITY OF
      THE ENVIRONMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES, 1977
          SEPTEMBER 1977
 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         Office of Radiation Programs
           Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
                          Contributors
     The following individuals contributed to the writing of this
document.
                           Earl  A.  Ashton,  Jr.
                           T.  W. Athey
                           Jon A.  Broadway
                           Mary Anne Culliton
                           Philip A. Cuny
                           David L.  Duncan
                           Kurt L.  Feldmann
                           David E.  Janes
                           J.  David Lutz
                           Thomas Reavey
                           Charles Robbins
                           Ellery D. Savage
                        Acknowledgements


     I would like to express my appreciation to all  the Headquarters,
Regional and State personnel and the personnel  from  other Federal
agencies who assisted us in gathering the data  used  in this report
and review of the draft of the report.   Their assistance was
invaluable to the production of the report.   I  would also like to
acknowledge with appreciation the assistance of Mr.  Raymond Johnson,
Chief of the Surveillance Branch, ORP,  who as project officer kept
us moving in the right direction throughout the production of the
report.  I would also like to express my appreciation to Marianne  Bender,
Mazie Young, and all the others who assisted in the  typing of this
report.


                                  Kurt L. Feldmann,  editor

-------
                            Preface
     The Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) of the U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has a primary responsibility to establish
radiation protection guidance and to interpret existing guides for
Federal agencies.  This responsibility was transferred to the Admin-
istrator of EPA from the Federal Radiation Council which was abolished
by Reorganization 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 is continuing a
radiological dose assessment program to determine the status of radi-
ation 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 direc-
tion of ORP by the analysis of radiation trends,  identification of
radiation problems, and support for establishing radiation protection
guidance.  The general approach in this program is to make maximum use
of available data reported  by other Federal agencies, States and nuclear
facilities.

     This report is part of ORP's dose assessment program for evaluating
the radiological quality of the environment.  Special emphasis was
placed on acquiring and summarizing the most recent dose data available.
For some source categories, dose information was available for calendar
year 1976, for others the most recent data go back to the early 1970's.
No effort was made to calculate or extrapolate from existing data to
supply missing dose information.  Instead, the concern was for the
availability of data and what the existing data provide for individual
and population dose information.  However, gaps in data coverage and
areas of inadequate data coverage are identified when found.

      It is realized that the reported data are probably not all in-
clusive.  If the reader knows of other information on radiation source
categories that has not been included or which has not been given
adequate coverage, we would appreciate having this information brought
to our attention for future reports.
                                W.  D.  Rowe, Ph.D.
                         Deputy Assistant Administrator
                             for Radiation Programs

-------
                               Contents



                                                           Page

Preface	    i

Chapter 1  - Introduction	    1

Summary	    4

Conclusions	   10

Chapter 2 - Ambient Ionizing Radiation	   11

     Cosmic Radiation	   11

     Worldwide Radioactivity	   18

     Terrestrial Radiation	   25

     Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring
       System (ERAMS)	   35

Chapter 3 - Technologically Enhanced Natural  Radiation	   57

     Ore Mining and Milling	   58

     Uranium Mill Tailings	   58

     Phosphate Mining and Processing	   68

     Thorium Mining and Milling	   74

     Radon in Potable Water Supplies	   74

     Radon in Natural Gas	   85

     Radon in Liquefied Petroleum Gas	   85

     Radon Daughter Exposures in Natural Caves	   85

     Radon and Geothermal Energy Production	   89

     Radon Mines	   89

     Radioactivity in Construction Material	   90

     Radioactivity in Fossil Fuels	   90'

     Summary	   99


                                 iii

-------
                                                            Page

Chapter 4 - Fallout		  109

     Health and Safety Laboratory Fallout  Program	109

     United Nat-ions Scientific Committee on  the  Effects
       of Atomic Radiation	  126

     Summary	  129

Chapter 5 - Uranium Fuel  Cycle	  133

     Uranium Mining and Milling	  133

     Fuel Enrichment	  142

     Fuel Fabrication Plants	  142

     Power Reactors	  154

     Research Reactors	  161

     Transportation	  164

     Reprocessing Operations and Spent Fuel  Storage	173

     Radioactive Waste Management	  176

Chapter 6 - Federal Facilities	  199

Chapter 7 - Radiopharmaceuticals	  207

Chapter 8 - Medical Radiation	  209

Chapter 9 - Occupational  and Industrial Radiation	  219

Chapter 10 - Consumer Products	  259

Chapter 11 - Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation Exposure-  267

Chapter 12 - Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation	  275

Glossary					289

-------
                            List of Tables
                           Title                                 Page

Table 1-1.  Summary of dose data from all  sources.
            United States	   5

Table 2-1.  Individual external doses from cosmic radiation	  14

Table 2-2.  Estimated annual cosmic-ray whole-body doses	  17

Table 2-3.  Cosmic ray produced radioactive nuclides	  19

Table 2-4.  Estimated annual whole-body dose to the
            United States population from worldwide tritium	  19

Table 2-5.  Carbon-14 production rates in LWR facilities	  22

Table 2-6.  Maximum annual carbon-14 dose equivalent rates to
            individuals at LWR facilities-		  22

Table 2-7.  Carbon-14 100-year environmental dose commitment
            conversion factor for the world population	  25

Table 2-8.  Nonseries primordial radionuclides	  27

Table 2-9.  Estimated average annual internal radiation doses
            per person from natural radioactivity in the
            United States			  29

Table 2-10. Uranium (radium) series	  30

Table 2-11. Thorium series	  31

Table 2-12. Actinium series			  32

Table 2-13. Estimated annual external gamma whole-body doses
            from natural  terrestrial radioactivity	  36

Table 3-1.  Phase I inactive uranium mill  site reports	  65

Table 3-2.  Radiation dose rates for selected inactive
            uranium mill  tailings piles	  67

Table 3-3.  Natural radioactivity concentrations in Florida
            phosphate ore, waste, and fertilizer materials	  70

Table 3-4.  Estimated radioactivity distribution in the major
            States using  phosphate fertilizers during 1974	  72

-------
                                                                 Page

Table 3-5.  Estimated radioactivity in the major States
            using potash fertilizers in 1974	   72

Table 3-6.  Estimated radioactivity present in  phosphate
            fertilizers used during 1974 in States bordering
            the Mississippi	   73

Table 3-7.  Relative radioactivity of phosphate fertilizers	   73

Table 3-8.  Average indoor radon concentration  for a 16-day
            period in Houston, Texas (December  1976-
            January 1977)	   83

Table 3-9.  Estimated radiological impact from  the combustion
            of natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas in
            unvented appliances	   86

Table 3-10. EPA-est.imated radiological impact for a
            1,000 MW(e) coal-fired electric station--		   93

Table 3-11. Dose conversion coefficients for building
            materials	   97

Table 3-12. EPA-estimated radiological impact for a 1,000 MW(e)
            oil-fired electric station	   93

Table 4-1.  Annual cumulative worldwide 90Sr deposition	  115

Table 4-2.  Strontium-90 in the diet during 1975	116

Table 4-3.  Contributions of major food categories to average
            daily 90Sr intake	  118

Table 4-4.  Fallout 239Pu data-New York	120

Table 4-5.  Fallout 239,2foPu in food} New York-1974	122

Table 4-6.  Fallout 239,2^oPu dietary intake, New York-1974	  123

Table 4-7.  Fallout 239,?.40pu dietary intake, New York,
            1972-74		  125

Table 4-8.  Estimated dose commitment from strontium-90	  128

Table 4-9.  Dose commitments from nuclear tests carried  out
            before 1971	130

Table 4-10. Total annual whole-body doses from  global fallout—  131

Table 5-1.  Significant uranium areas of the United States	  134

Table 5-2.  U.S. uranium mills as of January 1, 1976	139

                                   vi

-------
                                                                 Page

Table 5-3.  Radiation doses to individuals due to inhalation
            in the vicinity of a model mill	 143

Table 5-4.  Collective dose to the general population in the
            vicinity of a model mill	 144

Table 5-5.  Summary of the estimated total body dose to adult
            individuals at locations of maximum exposure
            resulting per year of operation of 8.75 million
            SHU per year enrichment plants	145

Table 5-6.  Summary of the estimated contributions to
            individual total body and organ doses resulting
            from exposure to gaseous effluents released from
            a 8.75 million SWU per year enrichment plant during
            one year of operation	 146

Table 5-7.  Summary of the estimated total body dose to the
            population from all pathways per year of operation
            of 8.75 million SWU per year enrichment plant	 147

Table 5-8.  Summary of the estimated contributions to popu-
            lation total body and organ doses resulting from
            exposure to gaseous effluents released from 8.75
            million SWU per year enrichment plant during one
            year of operation	148

Table 5-9.  Estimated radioactive effluents from fuel fabri-
            cation operations	 149

Table 5-10. Collective dose estimates for release from fuel
            fabrication operations	 150

Table 5-11. Terrestrial pathways contributing to total-body
            population doses within 80 km of fuel cycle
            facilities	 151

Table 5-12. Estimated radiation doses to population within
            80 km of model fuel fabrication facility	152

Table 5-13. Percent contribution of radionuclides to total-
            body and organ doses of populations around model
            fuel fabrication facilities	 153

Table 5-14. Estimated doses from fuel fabrication facility
            operations			154

Table 5-15. Population dose, demographic and operational data
            for BWR's	 160

Table 5-16. Calculated doses from noble gas releases at
            operating plants (1972-74)	 162

                                  vii

-------
                                                                 Page

Table 5-17. Summary Table S-4.   Environmental  impact of trans-
            portation of fuel  and waste to and from one light-
            water-cooled nuclear power reactor	166

Table 5-18. Estimated average annual release of radioactivity— 168

Table 5-19. Standard shipments  for the nuclear industry	 171

Table 5-20. Summary of radiological  impacts of current
            shipments	 172

Table 5-21. Inventory of high-level  radioactive waste	178

Table 5-22. Principal long-lived waste constituents	179

Table 5-23. Volume of high-level radioactive wastes at
            ERDA production sites	 180

Table 5-24. Commercial waste burial  grounds	183

Table 5-25. Cumulative total volume and quantities of
            commercial waste buried through 1975	186
                                                        »
Table 6-1.  Boundary and 80-km doses around ERDA contractor
            facilities, 1974	 201

Table 6-2.  Boundary and 80-km doses around ERDA contractor
            facilities, 1975	 203

Table 8-1.  Estimated mean gonad dose per examination by type
            of radiographic examination and sex, United States,
            1964 and 1970	 211

Table 8-2.  Estimated annual genetically significant dose
            contributions by type of radiographic examination
            and sex, United States, 1964 and 1970	212

Table 8-3.  Mean active bone marrow dose to the adult popu-
            lation (1970)	 213

Table 8-4.  Mean active bone marrow dose to the adult popu-
            lation (1964)	214

Table 8-5.  Radiation doses to critical groups from cardiac
            pacemakers	216

Table 9-1.  Radiation protection guides	220

Table 9-2.  Total risk from various radionuclides per curie
            processed	223

Table 9-3.  Average occupational exposure to tritium	223

                                viii

-------
                                                                 Page

Table 9-4.  Distribution of annual  whole body dose equi-
            valents reported by NRC-covered 1icensees-1975	 226

Table 9-5.  Whole body dose accumulated by categories of
            NRC-covered licensees,  1975	 227

Table 9-6.  Summary of overexposures to external  sources of
            radiation reported by MRC licensees	228

Table 9-7.  Summary of exposures to excessive concentrations	 229

Table 9-8.  Exposure, personnel, and power generation summary
            for light water-cooled  power reactors, United
            States, 1969-1975	230

Table 9-9.  Dose received by occupationally exposed personnel
            at licensed nuclear power facilities-calendar year
            1975 whole body exposures	 237

Table 9-10. Dose summary of licensed nuclear power facilities,
            1969-1975	 241

Table 9-11. Average occupational radiation exposure per indiv-
            idual for licensed nuclear power facilities,
            1969-1975	242

Table 9-12. Overexposures at commercial power reactors	 243

Table 9-13. Number of personnel and dose by work  function at
            licensed nuclear power  facilities, 1975	244

Table 9-14. Percentages of personnel and exposure by work
            function at licensed nuclear power facilities,
            1975	245

Table 9-15. Whole-body radiation exposure history for ERDA
            and ERDA contractor employees	246

Table 9-16. Whole-body exposure history of ERDA and ERDA
            contractor employees	 247

Table 9-17. Occupational dose equivalent for 1974-1975 by ERDA
            Field Office	248

Table 9-18. Distribution of annual  whole body exposures for all
            ERDA and ERDA contractor employees	250

Table 9-19. Dose per facility type  for ERDA and ERDA contractor
            employees, 1975	 251

-------
                                                                 Page

Table 9-20. Summary of exposures resulting in internal  body
            depositions of radioactive materials for calendar
            year 1975 for ERDA and ERDA contractor employees	 252

Table 9-21. U.S. transuranium registry, 1976	253

Table 9-22. U.S. transuranium registry, 1975	254

Table 9-23. Plutonium systemic body burden estimates for
            selected Manhattan project plutonium workers at
            three different times--		255

Table 10-1. Uranium concentration in dental  porcelain	 263

Table 10-2. Annual dose from beta particle fluxes of
            porcelain teeth	264

Table 12-1. Antennas used for environmental  radiofrequency
            measurements	280

Glossary - International numerical multiple and submultiple
           prefixes			295

-------
                            List of Figures
                              Title                          Page

Figure 2-1.  Estimated world inventory of tritium in the
             atmosphere and in surface waters	   20

Figure 2-2.  Krypton-85 concentrations in ail	   24

Figure 2-3.  Gross beta in airborne particulates:
             network averages	   38

Figure 2-4.  Uranium-234 in airborne particulates:
             network averages	   39

Figure 2-5.  Uranium-235 in airborne particulates:
             network averages	   40

Figure 2-6.  Uranium-238 in airborne particulates:
             network averages	   41

Figure 2-7.  Plutonium-238 in airborne particulates:
             network averages	   42

Figure 2-8.  Plutonium-239 in airborne particulates:
             netv/ork averages	   43

Figure 2-9.  Krypton-85 in air (predicted and  observed
             levels)				-	   44

Figure 2-10.  Gross beta in precipitation:  network
             averages	   45

Figure 2-11.  Tritium in precipitation	   46

Figure 2-12.  Tritium in drinking water:   network averages—   47

Figure 2-13.  Tritium in surface water:  network averages	   48

Figure 2-14.  Iodine-131 in pasteurized milk:   network
             averages	   49

Figure 2-15.  Cesium-137 in pasteurized milk:   network
             averages			   50

Figure 2-16.  Strontium-90 in pasteurized milk:   network
             averages	   51

Figure 3-1.  All  United States' radon in water concen-
             tration data except New England  States	   76

                                  xi

-------
                                                             Page

Figure 3-2.   Percent of samples exceeding indicated
             radon-222 concentrations	   78

Figure 3-3.   Houston, Texas,  radon water-air transfer
             efficiency experiments	   79

Figure 3-4.   South Texas radon water-air transfer
             efficiency experiment	   81

Figure 3-5.   Estimated radon  in air	   82

Figure 3-6.   General cave configuration types determining
             natural airflows	   88

Figure 4-1.   Cumulative 90Sr  deposition	114

Figure 4-2.   Strontium-90 intake in New York City and
             San Francisco	  117

Figure 4-3.   Strontium-90 in  adult vertebrae	119

Figure 4-4.   Inhalation intake and burden in man of
             fallout 239Pu	  121

Figure 4-5.   Changes in 239,240pu concentrations in  food
             from 1972 to 1974	  124

Figure 4-6.   239,2ttOpu -jn tap water in New York	  126

Figure 5-1.   Geological resource regions of the United
             States	136

Figure 5-2.   Active uranium ore processing facilities	  138

Figure 5-3.   Uranium ore processing rates	140

Figure 5-4.   Uranium concentrate production	140

Figure 5-5.   Grade of uranium ore processed	141

Figure 5-6.   Recovery from ore processed	  141

Figure 5-7.   Trends in the release of mixed fission  and
             activation products from light-water-cooled
             nuclear reactors	  156

Figure 5-8.   Trends in the release of noble gases from
             light-water-cooled nuclear reactors	157

Figure 5-9.   Trends in the release of halogens and partic-
             ulates from light-water-cooled nuclear
             reactors	  158
                                 XT i

-------
                                                             Page

Figure 5-10.  Trends in the release of tritium from light-
             water-cooled nuclear reactors	159

Figure 5-11.  Annual average whole body population dose from
             transportation accidents in the nuclear power
             industry	 169

Figure 5-12.  Major generating, storage,  and disposal  sites
             for solid low-level  radioactive waste	184

Figure 5-13.  Waste volume generation projections for nonTRU
             wastes	 187

Figure 5-14.  Capacity of existing sites  to meet projected
             nonTRU waste generation	 189

Figure 12-1.  Percent of sites having values equal  to or less
             than a given total  power density in the
             frequency range from 54 to  900 MHz	281

Figure 12-2.  Fraction of population exposed as a function
             of power density	 282
                                XI11

-------
      Chapter  1  - Introduction,  Summary,  and Conclusions
Background

     Numerous studies have been conducted in  the  past  by  the  Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA)  and other agencies to evaluate the  impact
of individual radiation sources.   This  report represents  a  systematic
effort to evaluate the impact from all  sources of radiation,  both  ionizing
and nonionizing.  Such an evaluation requires the assembling  of  a  broad
data base on radiation exposures,  a responsibility unique to  EPA.  This
effort in determining the quality  of the radiological  environment  is one
part of the Office of Radiation Program's (ORP) overall Dose  Assessment
Program.
Objective

     This report is intended to fulfill  ORP's  responsibility  for deter-
mining individual  and total  United States  population  doses  from all
source categories  of radiation.  In addition,  this  information will
provide guidance for direction of programs in  ORP by  analysis of radi-
ation trends, identification of radiation  problems, and  support for
establishing standards.
Approach

     An effort was made in this report to identify  source  categories of
radiation.  The identified sources  have been  considered  in two  general
categories; (1) ionizing radiation,  and (2) nonionizing  radiation.  In
the ionizing radiation category, sources were further  grouped under the
headings of ambient environmental  radiation,  technologically enhanced
natural radiation, fallout, uranium fuel cycle,  federal  facilities,
radiopharmaceuticals, medical,  occupational-industrial,  and consumer
products.  The nonionizing radiation category is mainly  concerned with
the environmental  measurement of sources.

-------
     Literature searches were conducted for each  of these  categories  and
the data organized to provide the following information:

     1.  General information about each source category and  the avail-
         ability of data.

     2.  Data base description (includes who reports data  to whom,
         under what authority, and what data are  being  reported).

     3.  Status of data base analyses (to indicate what has  been done
         with the data).

     4.  A summary of dose data for each source category.

     5.  Comparison of actual dose data reported  with estimates from
         previous publications.

     6.  Discussion, evaluation of the adequacy of the  data  base and
         needed improvements, and conclusions.
Data acquisition

     It was considered that the most cost-effective way for EPA to
acquire the necessary data for the preparation of this report on the
radiological quality of the environment was to use the available data in
the literature as reported by government and nongovernment agencies.  It
is recognized that much of these data are indirectly related to the
interests of EPA as far as population dose and dose assessment are
concerned.  Nevertheless, in order to determine the need for acquiring
additional data by ORP, it was considered necessary first to review and
evaluate the available data and secondly, identify the gaps as areas of
concern for future investigation.   At the same time, source categories
were defined for which additional  data acquisition was considered to be
unnecessary because of the relatively small dose contribution from that
category.

     Special effort was made in this report to acquire data supported by
direct measurements in contrast to estimates made by extrapolations
involving numerous assumptions.  Most dose information falls in the
latter category due to the difficulty or cost of direct measurements.
Therefore, most of the data available represent the product of several
calculations involving an understanding of the source term and the
interaction of that source term with the environment and man.
Data validation

     Although it is cost effective for ORP to use data provided by
others, there must also be concern for the quality of that data.  Conse-
quently, ORP supports data validation activities on a continuing basis,

-------
and encourages radiation laboratories to participate in a national
quality assurance program.   EPA operates such a program for radiation
measurements at its Environmental  Monitoring and Support Laboratory in
Las Vegas, Nevada.  This laboratory provides standard radionuclide
sources, standard reference materials, and cross-check media for inter-
comparison measurements with any laboratory desiring to participate.

     In addition, EPA conducts special field studies at nuclear facil-
ities or other radiation sources in cooperation with government and non-
government agencies.  These studies are designed to characterize radi-
ation sources and environmental effects as well as to validate calcu-
lated doses and dose models.  The use of such models for calculation  of
doses represents the third activity for data validation.  Direct measure-
ments are used to validate the values obtained from models.
Scope

     This report is intended to include data as current as possible.
However, for some categories, the only available data are for the early
1970's.  Because of the time spread of available data, the latest data
available are compiled for each source, regardless of the year for which
they were determined.  Therefore, this report and those of future years
will represent a compilation of the latest data available at the time of
preparation.
Sources of -information

     The information for this report was primarily obtained from published
reports such as professional society journals, symposium oroceedings,
and other technical reports.  The EPA regional offices were instrumental
in obtaining reports of State monitoring activities.   Operating and
environmental surveillance reports from nuclear power reactors were
obtained from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).  Data for Energy
Research and Development Administration (ERDA) facilities were taken
from the contractors'  annual environmental  surveillance reports.  .Medical
x-ray and consumer product information was  taken from reports of the
Food and Drug Administration's Bureau of Radiological Health.


Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring  System (ERAMS) data

     In addition to the radiation data provided by other agencies, EPA
obtains ambient monitoring data from its own national networks.  This
program is conducted by the Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility
(EERF) in Montgomery,  Alabama, and involves the analyses of samples of
air, milk, and water.   The data from these  analyses are issued quarterly
in an environmental radiation data report.   A comprehensive analysis of
past ERAMS data is being carried out.  A brief summary of that analysis
is given in chapter 2  to complete that section on ambient ionizing
radiation.

-------
                                Summary


     The purpose of this report is to summarize the individual  and
population doses in the United States resulting from each category of
radiation source and to assess these data.   When the literature on radi-
ation sources was searched for information, it became readily apparent
that an immense amount of data had been published during the past 15
years.  It was therefore considered necessary, first to organize the
sources into the categories described in this report, and secondly, to
summarize, examine and interpret the data with respect to these categories.
In doing so, it was also necessary to assume that the data extracted
from the literature were valid.  Because of the many different purposes
for which environmental data were generated, the results are not only
expressed in different units, but they were accumulated over different
time periods and frequently were obtained without quality control.  For
this reason, many tables of data carry detailed notes and annotations.
Readers are cautioned that before data in this report are used for their
purposes, they should read the text and the notes to assure proper
interpretation.

     The individual and population dose data resulting from the various
categories of radiation sources discussed in this report are summarized
in table 1-1.  The information in this table is divided according to
whether the primary mode of exposure is external or internal.  Exposure
to direct radiation from radionuclides in the ground, water, buildings,
and air around us, or from radiation-producing machines, such as x-ray
equipment and particle accelerators, is considered to be external exposure.
Exposures of this type usually result in a radiation dose to the whole
body of the person exposed.  In contrast, internal exposures occur when
radioactive materials are inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the
skin.  Internal exposures result in radiation doses to specific organs
of the body, such as the lung, gastrointestinal tract, or bones.

     It is evident from this table that there are radiation sources for
which data are not available.  Consequently, the discussion and comments
that result are based upon the data which were available at the time of
writing.  Also, it is worth noting that although population doses from
the different source categories, in general, can be added together to
gain a perspective of overall impact, it does not necessarily follow
that individual doses can be added together because an individual in one
population group generally does not receive the radiation dose common to
another population group.  For this reason, the data in table 1-1 only
show totals for population doses in the various source categories.
Dose to United States population

     Based upon the limited data in table 1-1, it is apparent that the
source category of highest population dose is the external dose from
cosmic radiation.  An overall population dose from ambient ionizing

-------





















co
OJ
-M
ro
-M
OO
"O
OJ
•M
•r—
E
ID

ri
co

ra
-a

QJ
co
0
•o

M-
o

>>
S-
ro
p^
E
3
00


•
r—
1
r—

QJ
r—
.Q
ra
H-






























ro
S-
QJ
-M
E
i — i




















, —
ro
E
S-
CD
1 ^
-1-^
X
LU























































>>

o "E"
•r- OJ
-M QJ S-
ra co I
r— 0 E
3t3O
Q. co
0 S-
CL, QJ
a.


r—
ra •• s
3 >,
"O QJ ^-.
•r- CO E
> O QJ
•r- -a s-
-o E
E --^
i — i



>>

o "E
•i- QJ
-M QJ s-
ro CO 1
r— O C
3 T3 O
Q- CO
0 S_
Q. QJ
0.





p— , 	 N.
ro >,
3 ~-.
-a QJ E
•r- CO QJ
> 0 S-
••- -0 E
"O — '
r~
1— (


































QJ
O
S-
3
OO












co
CD
i —
X
1 1 1 1 CM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
O-i





CO
1
«>i- LO o *
i i i i o i CM i — 10 ir>
1 <£> X • 1 *
Or— CO r— *3- r— O CM r-^
r—







LQ IO LT5
0 0 0
I — r™* r—
IXXX Illlllllll
P-. CM cn
• • •
cn cn  i Ln Ln
^l- co co co cn r-^ coun
IIICO llOli — Illi — CM
•— 00 • -0
•>!- CM O ra CO























E >>
O -M
•1- •!- E
•M -M > O CO CO
ro E 4-> T- •!- QJ OJ
•r- QJ E -M -M •!-••-
-O E QJ 0 ro S- S-
raEOEro -r- QJO)
S- O O- O O "O coco
•r- E Q.T- ra O
cn-M o E "TS s-^- r-^ co CM
E ro O O ra Ln 1 COCOCO
•r-T- OS- >3- CO r— E •* 1 CM CM
NT3C7) r— | ra 3 r— Ell
•r-rOECQJE 1 E-r-T-E 1 3EE
ES--I-OT33EOS-C03E-1-33
O N $ *t~ *r~~ CD 4~^ ^ .> (j) . p_ Q "p"! •)— •_
•r- UT--M S-MJ3 Q.CO ra-M-QT- E J_
•i- E 3TD-1- S- >,QJ-MT- S-J3 ra O
-MEOQJr— S-rOS_S-OS-rO3S--E
E co i— 1:2: s-f— c_>^: S-D.I— <->a:rDi—
QJ O O QJ
•r-0 3 I—
^t
£=
> ra
r—
i— cn
r« E
O -r-
• i-~ f"
•r*" k—
cn-r-
0 E

O QJ
E S-
-E O
O
QJ
1—


O
0
O
O
r-^
i
LO 1 1
,
CM
O




0 -K
0 0
0 0
•* 0 1
^^ »>
1 U3
O-Q
'd-

Q







1 1 1











*
0
O
CO *
i i r^
0 •

„ — >
i —
ra
E
O
•p—
-M
ra
co a_
QJ 3
r— O
•i- O
a. o

co
cn cn
E E

i — CO
•i- CO
ra QJ
4-> 0
0
r— S_
r— a.
•r-
E «3

E cn
3 E

E E
ro -i-
S- E
3 S-
QJ QJ
QJ -M N
> ra •!-
•i- ^T r—
O CO 4->
ro O S~
E JZ QJ
t— 1 Q. U_








 E r—
ro O ro
CJ'i- -r-
-M S-
i — U QJ
rO 3 -M
S- "O ro
3 0 E
-M S-
ro Q. E
E 0
>>T-
E cn-M
•r- S- 0
QJ 3
Q) E S-
S- QJ -M
3 CO
CO r— E
O ro O
CL E O
X S-
QJ QJ E
.E •!-
S- -M
QJ O >,
-M QJ -M
-C cn-r-
cn >
3 "O •<-
ro E -M
~O ro O
ra
E E O
O O ••-
•a -a -a
rO ra ro
C£. CHL CtL



*
IO
O

X
CM
i
CM
1 1 i —
•
O






*
o
i i r^.
i
Ln











i i i



*

* S
---. OJ
S S-
QJ O
f 1
O O
1 0
0 0
o «
Ln r—

U3 0 1

CM CM








ODE
•r- -I- O
-M -M T-
E E -M
rO ra ra
i— r— -M
4-> 4-> CO
 > -M
O O rO
S-
Q. Q. OJ
•T- -r- E
S- S- QJ
•M -M cn

S- S- 0
QJ QJ -r-
Q. Q. S_
-M
i — « « (J
OJ-— ~^-^ OJ
> O O r—
ra T- T- QJ
S- E E
-P CO CO T3
O O QJ
QJ O O S_
ro "~^ C
r— -M h- 1
O. QJ GO r—
S- "-3 OO (O
•r- 0
«=c o










*
Ln
r—







*
•*
0

o'











1















1











E
0
•r—
-M
ro
-M
CO

cn
E
• r—
•M
ro
S-
QJ
E
QJ
cn

o

s-
+->
o
QJ

'QJ

"O
QJ
&-
4-

P_
•r—
O

-------
 to
 CD
4->
 05
4J
00

•a
 CD
 to
 CD
 U
 S_
 3
 O
 to
 03


 O
 s_
 03
4->
 03
 CD
 to
 o
-a
 03

 E
 c
 O
 o
 CD
JD
 03
c "E"
0 CD
•i— S—
4-> CD 1
03 oo C
•— O O
3 T3 to
O- S-
O CD
i— O- Q.
CD
4_>
C i —
i— i 03 *-^-
3 >,

•r- CD E
> to O>
••- o s-
-0 T3 E
i — t
—
C *^»
0 E
••- CD
40 CD S-
03 to 1
r— O C
3-OO
Q. to
i— o i-
03 O- CD
C Q.

CD
X i—
1 1 t n3 - — *
3 >>

•r- to "E"
> O CD
•i- T3 S_
•0 E
i — i

























CD
CJ
^_
3
0
CO









"3" to
LO to to
1 1 ... 1 1
CM O O
•r— '1—5




C\J
1
O «*
, — 1
X O
LO ro i —
1 1 • • X 1 1
•vT O CM
4- -c: •!->






si" *^t~
1 1 	 • 1 T— 1 tO
O • in i—
CM O i— CM
v E E






X X
fO (X5
CM i— E E
1 1 • 1
c? O to
CD v r»- «*
en _v -^















rs rS
3 3
CO CL.
cn
c:
CU •!- C
i— i— 4-> O
O i— C -r- to
^,-r- CD +-> S-
0 E E 03 0
-C O 4->
t— T3 O -i- O
O> E -i- S- 03
3 03 S- J3 CD
M- C (0 S-
O> CD 4-
4J E C i-
3 3 •!- i— ,— CD
O •!- C CD CD 2
i— C -r- 3 3 O

03 i-
Ll_ ZD
O
r~-
X
ro
i i i i i i i i i • i
oo
to







1*^
LT>
CM
II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
<^J-
i —
Q.
o to
0 O

O~i O O 'x
1 CO CO LD i— CO
CO CO ^3" t~~ to • •
1 O 1 — I O" 1 1 1 O 
Ol CD oo
2 Q.
0 0 i—
CL4-> CD i—
O 3 03
i- oo <+- oo
O3 "I— O
CD O 4-> Q-
r— -1- C 00 0)
U "O CU -i- oo
3 03 Q."O E
~Z. C£. oo CD to
00 CD oj_ , —
S_ I -a 4-> 00 CD (D
O C OO CD Q U C
4-1 c~ O3 O3 "r— •!— O
O O S 4-> Oj_ 40 . p.
03 -i- CD -r- O 3 4->
CD4-> CCDi — CD 03C
i- 03 T->T- 4-> 00 CJ T- O
40 oo-i-u cs- 03 -a -r-
x:s_ to4->o3 cuo E 0340
OO CDOLi- E4-> i- S-03
S-Q.U03 40o3 03 •!—
03OO OOi — S-i- -C i — TD
CDC S-'i-oS-sCosCD Q. O303
to 03 CL"O S- Q Q-i — O O S-
CUS- CDoSCDDiCDCD -r- •<-
Q£ t— QiD^-OUJdO -O T3X
CD O 03 CD
u_ ci cei s:




1 III










0
o
O III
LT>
V




o
o

1 II"
00
CM









ooo
1 OO COCO
CM O •
r-r— O
3 3 >

c:
o
•i —
4_>
03
•r-
T3
03
S_

r—
03
• r~
S-
[ ^
oo
3
00 "O
s_ c
CD -i-
-^ oo
03 T3 C
EC 0
CU 03 -r-
O 40
O3 i — 03
Q- 03 CL
C 3
O O U
03 T- O
•r- 4-> O
XJ 03
i- a_c£ air—
03 33 3-—
O U CO O_cC
O
O

-------













CO
cu
•p
ro
-P
OO

XJ
cu
-p
E
n
CO
cu
U
S-
23
o
CO

f—
t—
(O

E
O
S-

ro
-P
ro
XJ

CU
CO
O
XJ

4-
0
S-
to
OO
-p
E
0
o
1
cu
.a
ro

























'w
S-
a>
-p
E
i — i







E \
0 E
••- Oi
-p cu i-
ro co 1
r— O E
3 XI O
CL co
0 S-
Q- CU
CL


r—
,
XJ cu \
•r- CO E
> O CU
•r- XJ S-
XJ E
E — -
i — i










r—
to
E
S-
CU
-p
X
LU









E -\
0 E
•r- CU
-P CU i-
ro CO 1
i— 0 E
3 XJ 0
CL CO
0 i-
o_ cu
CL
V 	 *



, —
rO " ^
3 >,
x> cu ~\
•i- CO E
> O CU
•i- x> s-
X! E
E ^— •*
i — i



















cu
o
S-
o
OO










1 1 1 1 1







•K
O
Ol
OO
r-~
1 1 1 1 1
O

1 — •
to
ro


^
f^.
0 0
o o
1 r— . 1 1
i^) O
^
>^






OO
•fc *^J"
r^ o
* o
LO O O
1 • • 1 1
O C LO
V N CM
X 0
•
0
-Q
_a











CO -P
CO S- CU
•P O CU
U -P -P
XJ CO O) i —
O CU -P ro
s- o cu T-
CL CU XJ O
S- CL CU H-
a> cu ±t. •!-
E E 0 -P
3 •<- E S- >
CO 1— OO 
XJ
E
I — i



























































































E
0
•1 —
•p
to
• 1 —
XJ
to
S-

o
•r—
.p
CU
E
CO
ro
E
O
s_
-p
O
cu
r—
cu

CO
E
• r-
N
• 1—
E
O
•i —
E
O







































r—
1
r—
O •
r- O









CO
t_
to
XJ
rO
S-

-P
i_
O
Q.
S-
tO

XJ
E
rO

co
i-
CU
^
O
•P co
CU
-P 0
co S-
rO 3
O O
XJ CO
rO
O •—
S- i—
CQ et













co
E
0

-f_>
^
-p
• 1 —
-p
CO
E
•r—

LO


d)
S- CO
M- O
XJ
rO
-P O
ro CO
XJ Ol
r—
E
0 X!
CL CU
3 -p
ro
XJ £
CU •!—
co -P
rO co
CO LU
S- CO 4
1
CO
-p
r—
"•^
XJ

0
-p

cu
CO
o
X3

S
O

S-
ro
E

CU
E
O
_a

cu

•i —
-p
o
rO

E
to
CU
E

X!
cu
•p
rO
E

-P
co
LU
O








































>>

XJ
ro
S_
E









^
•
OO

o?3

CO
E
O
•i —
-P
>, ro
-\ Q.
CU 3
S- 0
3 U
CO O
0
a.!—
X i—
CU ro

\ — S-
ro o
E 4-
0
•i— CU
-p &—
ro 3
Q. co
3 O
O CL
0 X
0 CU

CU CU
CO CO
to ro
S- S-
a> cu
> >
e£ cH
3 >
co
cu
-p
ro
-P
OO
XJ
CU
-P

E


E
•r—

CO
E
O
CO
S-
0)
CL

0
O
O
i —
^•x CO
co CU
S- .E
cu o
-V -p
i- ra
o 3
S

E lO
O -P

-P CO
tO •!-
•r- X)
XJ
ro E
S- O
S-
• Lu




1
E
•i —
XJ
rO
S-

S-
0

E
3
• i —
-P
• r-
S-
-P

CO
E
•r—
E
•r—
ro
•P
E
O
U CO
i—-
iri to
CU T-
cj xj
cu
••- XJ
-CL a>
O) -P
E ro
•r- >
•P •!-
•P
E U
O ro
S-
LL.







































XJ
cu
-p
rO
E

-P
CO
LU









cu
^
co
CO
•i —
-P

q-
0 -E
	
i_ C£
CU E

ro 4-
•— 0

i — co
ro -p
•1 — •! —
U E
•i — 3
(4 —
i- • •*

cu (—
^r
-P E
0
0 S-
•P 4-

0) E
CO O
0
Q LO
X >i N ro J3
ro -Q
CU
O
to
cj —
£_
3
CO

E
•i —
SX
CO

O
-p
cu
co O>
O co
X! O
XJ
r—
ro i —
3 rO
X> -r-
•r- _E
> o
•r- E
XJ O
E S-
••- -Q
|
E ro
3 CU
E -E
•i- O
X fO
ro S-
^: h-




























>,

E
cu
S-
1
CO
E
3
_J


























ai
CO
o


c~
U
ro
E
0
-p
OO
E
0
o co
LO
E
>-) "I 	
O e
.(_>
XJ •' —
CU S
XJ
•r™ QJ
> CO
•r- O
XJ X>
-P CO
E E
cu 3
E r—

•i — i —
E ro
£^ ;3
O XJ
O T-

CU •!-
CO XJ
O E
XJ -r-

s- cu
ro CO
Ol ro
>> !-
1 CU
0 >
LO <:

-P
• i —
^~
•r—
O
rO


S-
CU
CL

CU CU
S- S-
CO CO
0 0
CL CL
X X
cu cu

r~ r—
to to

•p -p
E E
CU CU
-P -P
0 O
CL CL

E E

i i
•r— •!—
X X
ro ro

E
•r—
JE
-P
•f—
3.

>.
-P
•i —
r—
• 1 —
O
rO

S-
a>
CL

CU
S-
3
CO
O
CL co
X 3
cu -i-
XI
CU ra
> S-
•1 —
-P E
ro -*:

3 O
E CO

t_>







E


O
co

E
• r—
.E
-P
• r—
^

O)
co
0
XJ

CU
E
o
.a

XJ
OJ
-p
re
_E

•p
CO
LU
rO-ClOXJCU4-CO-E-i- "0-2















CU E
co .*:
0
XJ C2
oo
>>
S- 4-
ro O
XI
E CO
^ ^
0 •!-
f^ T3
ro
CU S_
E
•r- tO
! 	
E
CU -r-
O J^
E -P
CU •!-
U. 3


























cu
1 —
JD
ro
r—
• i_
rO
>
ro

ro
-P
ro


CU
CO
O
XJ

O
"^^

\












OO
f\
Ol
"~
i_
to
cu


cu
-C
•p

c
o


~^J
cu
-p
ro

•r-
•P
co
LU












E
0

-P
rO
E
S-
o
4 —
E
• i—

X)
CU
CO
• 1 —
;>
CU


S-
o

^
cu
E

CO
cu
-p
rO
U

XI
E
i — t
^

^
cu
t—
i —
rO


-P
CO
cu
3

•N
•P
E
tO
D-

CO
E
.,—
CO
CO
cu
o
o

a.
cu
o; ro
-P
00 ro
U. XJ

LO
i- **O
O CTi
U_ i—
^ E E CL cr

-------
radiation is not given because population doses from the worldwide
radiation and terrestrial  radiation components is not available.   Judging
from the figures given for individual  doses from these three categories,
it would appear that the population dose from terrestrial  radiation
might be equal to or greater than the 10 million person-rem dose from
cosmic radiation.  The second largest source of population dose is from
medical and dental radiology.  This dose was estimated to be about 14.8
million person-rem to the U.S. population.

     The third largest category of population dose for which data are
available is from the use of radiopharmaceuticals for medical  radiation
purposes, which is estimated to contribute an internal dose of approxi-
mately 3 million person-rem per year to the population dose.  The fourth
largest category of dose is estimated to be from technologically enhanced
natural radiation which contributes approximately 3 million person-rem
per year to the population dose.  Finally,  it is of interest to note
that all the population doses from all the other source categories for
which data are available are less than 0.1  percent of the total population
dose.

     It is important to mention that the population dose values noted
here are based upon the data available to us at this time.  It is possible
that these values, and thus the relative contributions of population
dose from the source categories considered, could change in the future
as more information on this subject becomes available.
Dose to individuals

     For individuals, the largest dose is derived from technologically
enhanced natural radiation.  It contributes internal doses as high or
higher than 100,000 mrem/y to the tracheobronchial surface tissue of the
lung as a result of the inhalation of radon daughter products from
uranium mill tailings.

     The second category contributing to a high individual dose is
medical radiation which contributes internal doses as high as 5000
mrem/y from radioactive cardiac pacemakers.  Artificial  teeth were found
to contribute a local tissue dose as high as 1390 mrem/y to the individual
due to their uranium content.  Occupational and industrial operations
were found to contribute a dose of 1230 mrem/y to the individual worker,
essentially to maintenance personnel working around boiling water nuclear
power reactors.  Finally, the next largest dose is that which might be
received by individuals at the boundary of federal facilities, 258 mrem/y.

     As has been mentioned above, the relative contributions from each
of the source categories are subject to revision as may be required by
new data.
Evaluation of the data base

      It  is apparent from table 1-1 that most of the results on indi-
vidual and population doses are based upon calculations which lead to

-------
estimated data.  It is customary to prefer measured data to calculated
data because of the assumption that they are more accurate and reliable.
However, frequently, in order to arrive at certain dose information,  it
is sometimes impractical  or impossible to perform dose measurements.
Consequently, under these circumstances, the only possible or cost-
effective way of determining the dose to an individual or a population
is through dose model  computation.   This type of calculation generally
involves experience and judgment to arrive at order of magnitude esti-
mates which are considered to be satisfactory for dose assessment.   For
example, it is impossible to measure the dose to an individual  from the
potassium-40 in the human body.   However, data on the potassium-40
concentration in the body, energies and types of radiations, half-life
of the radionuclide and mass of the body are available and can be used
to compute the dose.  Such doses may be considered to be reliable and
conservative estimates with the understanding that, in all probability,
the values for the actual doses are appreciably smaller than the estimated
values.

     In determining individual doses, it is important to appreciate the
fact that these doses  are for specific categories which are additive
only if it is reasonable to expect that the same individuals would  be
exposed to the sources in these categories.  For example, in general,
the individual dose from uranium mining and milling should not be added
to other source categories in the uranium fuel cycle because different
individuals are involved in these exposures.

     Finally, after searching the literature for individual and popu-
lation dose values and studying the manner in which many of these values
were determined, it became evident that frequently the number of signif-
icant figures representing the data could not be justified.  For this
reason, the data in table 1-1 are considered valid only to about 2
significant figures in spite of the fact that more figures are given in
the literature and used in this report.

     It is also evident from table 1-1 that many gaps appear in the
data.  This is due to  the fact that while some of the information
published is oriented  towards individual dose, most data are expressed
in terms of concentrations of isotopes in various environmental media.
For example, data concerned with phosphate mining and processing oper-
ations report that occupational  personnel in the industry are exposed to
uranium decay chain products which are present in ore with a concen-
tration of 4 to 10 picocuries per gram.  It is not possible to obtain an
estimate of population dose from these data without considerable supple-
mentary knowledge.  For this reason, no dose data are reported for  this
category.  It is hoped that these data gaps will be filled in future
reports.

     In addition to this evaluation of the data base, each chapter  in
the report contains a  more detailed evaluation of the data base pertinent
to that chapter.

-------
                               Conclusions
     1.  On the basis of the population dose data in this report,  the
four major source categories of radiation dose to the United States
population are ambient ionizing radiation, medical  and dental  radiation,
the application of radiopharmaceuticals in medicine, and technologically
enhanced natural radiation.   The reason for these relatively high  dose
values is due to the large populations that are exposed to the sources
in these categories.

     2.  On an individual basis, the largest sources of dose are from
technologically enhanced natural radiation, medical  radiation, ambient
ionizing radiation, consumer products, occupational  and industrial
operations and federal facilities.   The source responsible for high
individual doses in the category of technologically enhanced natural
radiation is uranium mill tailings  that had been used in the construction
of residences.  The risk to an individual from the dose received from
the use of a cardiac pacemaker must be weighed against the benefit
derived from this device.  It is quite conceivable that if dose from
other sources in this category were available, additional high individual
doses would be observed.

     3.  There are many gaps in the dose data of this report.   For this
reason, the resulting observations  and comments are necessarily restricted
to this data base.  There is a need to greatly improve the data base  for
dose assessment in the United States.
                                   10

-------
             Chapter  2  - Ambient  Ionizing Radiation
     The ionizing radiation dose received  from  the  ambient  environment
is considered to be composed of three parts:  1.  cosmic  radiation, 2.
worldwide radioactivity,  and 3.  terrestrial  radiation.
                           Cosmio Radiation
     Man's usual  environment,  the surface  of  the  earth,  is  continually
being bombarded by cosmic radiation.   This radiation  by  definition
originates in intersteller space or in the cosmos.  However,  from time
to time the "cosmic" component of our natural  radiation  exposure is
increased by injections of high-energy radiation  from our own  sun.

     The majority of the work  reported,  by necessity,  has been  the
characterization of cosmic radiation  and the  measurement of the flux  and
flux spectra.  This work in the United States  has been carried  out
directly by federal agencies,  such as the  U.S.  Atomic Energy  Commission,
the U.S. Air Force and the U.S.  Department of Commerce (National Bureau
of Standards); by laboratories such as the Health and Safety  Laboratory,
Argonne National  Laboratory, Pacific  Northwest Laboratories,  Holifield
National Laboratory (Oak Ridge); and  by  universities  such as  the Uni-
versity of California (Lawrence Livermore  Laboratory  and Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory), the California  Institute of Technology,  and other
groups such as the National Academy of Sciences.

     The research findings have been  reported  in  all  forms.   Special
committee reports, annual reports, project reports, symposium  proceed-
ings, and journals.  A partial list of journals include  Science, Journal
of Geographical  Research, Physics Review,  International  Physics Review,
Nuclear Instrumentation & Methods, Review  of  Modern Physics,  Journal  of
Applied Physics,  Nucleonics, and Health  Physics.

     The United Nations Scientific Committee  on the Effects of  Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR) reports of the twentieth,  twenty-first,  and twenty-
second sessions contained in the 1966 and  1969 publications were used to
produce the 1972 report.  These reports  provide excellent literature
reviews and state-of-the-art references.
                                  11

-------
     Reports of the dose equivalence (DE)  in the literature vary.   Even
recent dose rate measurements differed, as shown by Oakley (2.1),
from 30 to 40 percent and by 30 percent in UNSCEAR (1972)  (2.2).   Also,
much of the literature data is presented without any dose  equivalence or
quality factor (QF) information and one must infer that a  certain  QF was
used.  In some instances, the value after a QF is applied, seems  to be
reported consistently as mrad instead of mrem.
Variables measured

     Actual measurements of the incident radiation intensities have been
made for about 40 years; but research work has shown that the present
intensities have not changed appreciably for the last 40,000 years, and
probably this time is much longer (2.3).  In fact, the levels may have
remained fairly constant for 108 years with maximum increases of 10
percent occurring during the reversal of the earth's magnetic field;
the most recent field reversal occurring 700,000 years ago (2.1).
There are two components to cosmic radiation, the ionizing component and
the neutron component.  There are also four variables which affect these
two components that have been described.  These are variation in time,
latitude, barometric pressure, and altitude.
Time

     Changes with time over long and short periods have been observed
and reported.  There is what appears to be a fluctuation of a few
percent change over an 11-year period which is in phase with sun spot
activity and a large 7-fold increase for a few hours has been noted
(2.3); but in general, the integration of the exposure at the earth's
surface over a year's period makes the total contribution of such large
events small.
Latitude

     The latitude effect was the first variable to be described and the
overall effect causes about a 2 percent variation throughout the contig-
uous United States latitudes.  The latitude variation observed in the
neutron flux is about 15 percent for the United States, but neutrons are
a small component of cosmic radiation.
Barometric pressure

     The overall variation in barometric pressure has no effect on the
long-term estimation of cosmic radiation, but the barometric pressure
may vary by 3 percent from day to day.  Thus, the barometric pressure
variance can represent a source of error in comparing the different
values for cosmic radiation that appear in the literature.
                                  12

-------
Altitude

     Because there are many uncertainties in the various measurements
made to date, the only variable previously considered by Oakley (2.1)
was the altitude.  The other variables tended to be obscured by the
differences between measurement techniques.

     Most of the cosmic radiations, upon striking the earth's upper
atmosphere, produce secondary radiations.  Actually, very few of the
primary radiations penetrate as deep as the earth's surface; thus,  the
secondary radiations are the major source of man's exposure, and flux
intensities of the secondary radiation increase with increasing distance
from the earth's surface.
Neutron component

     The poorest knowledge is about the neutron component since this
component is more sensitive to time, latitude, and altitude.   At sea
level, the flux density is small and difficult to measure.   The 1972
UNSCEAR report utilized a fluence to dose conversion factor of 4.95
yrad/h for a flux density of 1 neutron/cm2/s.   This was based on aver-
aging the dose rates to a depth of 15 cm for a slab of tissue; 30 cm
thick; the maximum dose rate below 1 cm occurs at 1 cm and is 5.25
prad/h (2.2).

     Oacley, for his work, chose the UNSCEAR (1966) 0.7 mrad/y with a
quality factor of 8 (QF=8) or 5.6 mrem/y (2.1).  The later UNSCEAR
(1972) report adopts 0.35 mrad with a QF=6 or 2.1 mrem/y as the average
tissue absorbed dose rate at sea level, 40° latitude; but the report
cautions that the variations must be borne in mind and that no account
is taken of attenuation or buildup due to surrounding structures.
Shielding of 50 g/cm2 can provide a 30 percent reduction in the exposure
at sea level (2.4).  Also, a recent National Council on Radiation
Protection (NCRP) committee report indicates that a QF of 5 should be
applied to the neutron component (2.5).  The values reported are summar-
ized in table 2-1.
Ionising component

     The ionizing component does not vary greatly at sea level  but
differences between measurements exist.   Oakley (2.1) used the average
values reported at sea level in the United States (post-1956)  and
obtained a value of 2.44 ion pairs (I) per cm3 per second (s)  which was
equivalent to 4.0 yrem/h or 35.3 mrem/y.  The UNSCEAR (1966) value was
29 mrem/y (2.6).  The UNSCEAR (1972) report indicated that the work of
one researcher appeared inconsistent and adopted a value of 2.14 I/cm3/s
at normal temperature and pressure (NTP).  Assuming that each  ion pair
in air is equivalent to 33.7 eV, the dose in air/I/cm3/s would be 1.50
yrad/h; thus, the air dose rate adopted was 28 mrad/y or 3.2 yrad/h
(2.2).  If the radiation is very penetrating, the absorbed dose index

                                   13

-------









c
o
ra
-a
ra
S-
o
•r—
E
CO
0
(_)

£=
s_


CO
CO
CO
0
-a
ra
S-
ai
X
O>

r_
ro
33
• r—
•r—
-o

1 — 1

1
CM

O)

-O

I—
























S-
o
o
ra
<+- -o

4-> 3
ra
o-





4_>
c
cu
r™
fO *— s
-* >j
•r- "**-s.
3 E
O~ QJ
O) S-
E
a> —
00
o
Q





"^
CD ^-^
CO ~O
O ra
Q S-
£3
'









CD
O
c
CD
S-
01

CD


T3
C
ro

4-J
c~
CU
c
o
CL
E
o
o










CO CO CO CO i-D VO LO














CO
^O ^^ OO CO CO IQ r~~ C\l
LO OO ^O C3 CO LO CAJ r~™











co un o
r-~ co r-~ co c\j
• • • • •
o o o o o




	 *
CXJ
^c^
d-^
. 	 . CM
* — i ' — * r\
CM cyi
CXI 1-*- l 	
-~-^ CTt — "
r—
r— •—-. c - — a:
dj to -• — •! — f — - CX
> . r-H i — r-) Q; UJ
QJ CX] « c" . d^ C_5
i — 	 CXI CT) CXI LU OO
	 	 3 	 	 O Z
ro -— - rO OO ID
a; 1,0 	 i • z:
to ^O • C) i — - — » — i r" — i
CT> r— *~^ s: ra t-i i—
4-> i — ra ^^ • i i fO ^ — •
ro 	 . o3 +-> cxi • -r- uj
1 * CX! d) N 	 * -4_> J^. .
QJ rr* Q; - — ' c ro O cxi
to } — 1 -*-1" —
O LU d 'p~ ra CD ra
"OC_)O4->S-Ci — o 3D-
C/) 4-* l * '•yt T-^ \/ C3 cj~ ry
C ^^ f~^ ro — ro fO "-^ i ' ' C_5
0 ZD ZD 3 0 31 O i— ii— i 2:
S-

^
OJ




1 —
•
r— r— r—




to
m to
E -^
U co
i— i O
•^^^
^J- i — i
*^~
• '^d"
CM i —
	 * •
CO CM
LO cr> co i —
CO CM CM CO











CO
•
LO CTi OO CO
CO CM CM CM


* —
CX]
.
Ji3
CD CX]
C" .
•i— CXJ
4-> 	
ro
CD S- '—
S- 4J co
Z3 ' — » CD £Z
co to c: o
O . CD 3
f~°> cxi r~> g
X — ^- — ^v 	 •
CD

4-> UD CM CM
c ' — " *^3 r^^ r^
CD ^ CJ^ O^ CTi
C . i— r— i—
0 cxi—'— -—•
a. —
E 0:0:0;
0 >,< -^ oo co oo
c ra z s: 2:
•r- O Z3 ZD O
N
• i—
C
O
1 — 1
1




















cy> r-
O LO O
rj- cj- CO








' — s
T~H
,
CX)
• 	 ^

	 •*
to
ra
4-^
OO

-a
•r- •
C CX]
— ) 	
, — ^
^^ 1 tM
I-H r--
. 4-> CTi
CX] CO i —
V 	 ^ ^3 V 	 ^
CD
— * 3 o:
r-  O
CD • 00
i — r— "^^
rO ZD
ra
d) 4-* 1 	 1
tO CO CD
CD - 	 ^ 4->
to 4-> ra
O >> E _J
T3 O) CD
.— Eo
-r\ \s t]\ r->
CD ra ' — •*
C O ^i — 1
•1^
-Q
£
O
o




























































&_
•r—
ra
Q.

c:
o
•r—

(I

) — 1





14

-------
rate is unity; but for other cases, 75 percent of the exposure is  due to
cosmic ray muons, the factor should be 1.1  or 3.5 yrad/h which would  be
31 mrad/y.  These reported values are also  summarized in table 2-1.
Exposure above the earth's surface

     New data are constantly being added and compared with previous
literature reports.  The origin of the primary cosmic rays has still  not
been determined.  Most of the observed radiation is believed to orig-
inate in our galaxy and two distinguishing terms have been adopted:
galactic cosmic rays and solar cosmic rays.

     Man's activities such as space travel and the development of super-
sonic transports (SST) have increased the interest in the calculation of
exposures at locations other than the surface of the earth.   For instance,
the neutron component contributions to exposure at sea level is small,
but it rapidly increases with altitude and reaches a maximum between  10
and 20 km.

     The evaluations of exposure related to high altitude SST travel
have indicated that the passenger-rem received will be less  than in  a
conventional jet.  Although the exposure at the higher altitude is
greater, the SST will fly at greater speeds and the trip will take less
time in the SST.  Thus, an Atlantic crossing by SST is shown to be 2
mrad, while 2.6 mrad has been stated for present day jets (2.3).
However, the increased exposure at the higher altitudes may be reflected
in the crew exposures.  The present jet crew exposure for flying 600
hours is 0.5 rem/y.  With SST travel, this would increase to 1 rem/y.

     Compared to the galactic cosmic radiation, radiation of solar
origin does not contribute significantly to the average dose rate; but
during an intense solar flare, dose rates may increase several orders of
magnitude (2.7).  However, giant flares only last about 10 hours and
only occur a few times during each 11-year cycle; thus, if SST aircraft
were equipped with radiation detection devices that would alarm when  a
prescribed radiation action level was reached, the pilot could decrease
his altitude until a safe radiation level was reached.

     The QF used at the higher altitudes may need to be different.
Schaefer, who estimated the 1 rem/y exposure at about 20 km (65,000
feet), used a QF of 8 for the neutron component.  His work and others
have been reviewed by O'Brien and Mclaughlin, who concluded that one  can
estimate the annual dose-equivalents to passengers and crew; and that
they expected to see, "the development of cosmic-ray ionization profiles
with altitude for several latitudes, as well as dose and dose-equivalent
rate curves" (2. 8).
                                  15

-------
     During space travel,  persons are exposed  to  primary  cosmic  ray
particles, the radiation from solar flares,  and the  intense  radiation  in
the two Van Allen radiation belts.   The maximum dose rate inside a 0.7
g/cm2 shield was reported  by Savun et al.  to be 22 rad/h  (inner  belt)
and 5.4 rad/h in the outer belt (2.9).
Combined cosmic radiation

     The combined cosmic radiation exposure at sea level  as  presented  by
Oakley is 4.6 yrem/h or 40.9 mrem/y (2.1).   The combined  cosmic  exposure
at sea level, 40° latitude,  and NTP as shown by UNSCEAR  (1972) is  30.1
mrem/y (2.2).  These differences as shown in table 2-1  result primarily
because of the use of a different QF.

     Other differences such  as latitude (Florida to Alaska varies  from
30 to 45 mrem/y) and altitude (sea level  to 8,000 feet  varies from 40  to
200 mrem/y) have been used to produce an  average exposure for each
county or similar political  unit in the United States.   This information
from Klement, et al. is shown in table 2-2 (2.10).  These authors  also
present estimates of the annual person-rem for years 1960-2000,  and for
1970, the value given is 9.2 million person-rem based on  United  States
population of 205 million people (2.10).   This is also  based on  the
average of 45 mrem/person in the United States as shown  in table 2-2.

     The annual passenger-kilometers flown should be approaching 1012
(excluding China) since 4.6  x 1011 passenger-kilometers  were flown in
1970 (2.2).  Assuming a speed of 600 km/h, the total is  109  passenger-
hours each year.  The collective dose for subsonic flights for 1970 was
reported to be 250,000 person-rads which  corresponds to  a worldwide
population dose of 0.1 mrad/y/person (2.2).  This population exposure
compared to the surface exposure is insignificant, however,  as previ-
ously shown, the cosmic exposure received by certain individuals,  such
as air crew members, could be 10 to 20 times the average  surface exposure.
Summary

     The data concerning ambient ionizing radiation indicate values
which represent the best conservative estimates for the whole body dose
resulting from cosmic ionizing radiation and its neutron component at
sea level.  These values are dependent upon latitude,  longitude,  and
altitude above the surface of the earth and can result in increases  by a
factor of 10 or 20 as the altitude increases above sea level.  This  is
readily seen in table 2-2 where the annual  cosmic radiation dose  in
Florida at sea level is 30 mrem/y and in Colorado, about 1  mile above
sea level, where the annual dose is 120 mrem/y.
                                  16

-------
Table 2-2.   Estimated annual cosmic-ray whole-body doses  (2.10)
                         (mrem/person)
Average Annual
Political Unit Dose
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
40
45
60
40
40
120
40
40
35
40
30
85
45
45
50
50
45
35
50
40
40
50
55
40
45
90
75
85
45
                                 Political Unit
Average Annual
     Dose
                                 New Jersey             40
                                 New Mexico            105
                                 New York               45
                                 North Carolina         45
                                 North Dakota           60
                                 Ohio                   50
                                 Oklahoma               50
                                 Oregon                 50
                                 Pennsylvania           45
                                 Rhode Island           40
                                 South Carolina         40
                                 South Dakota           70
                                 Tennessee              45
                                 Texas                  45
                                 Utah                  115
                                 Vermont                50
                                 Virginia               45
                                 Washington             50
                                 West Virginia          50
                                 Wisconsin              50
                                 Wyoming               130
                                 Canal Zone             30
                                 Guam                   35
                                 Puerto Rico            30
                                 Samoa                  30
                                 Virgin Islands         30
                                 District of Columbia   40
                                 Total United States
      45
                            17

-------
                         Worldwide Radioactivity


     Worldwide radioactivity consists of both naturally occurring and
manmade radioactivity.  The cosmic ray neutrons cause capture reactions
in the atmosphere and in the earth's soil  and water cover.   The nuclides
produced in the earth's cover are discussed in the section  dealing with
terrestrial radiation.  The radionuclides  produced in the atmosphere are
shown in table 2-3.  Although table 2-3 summarizes 14 radionuclides,
only two of these nuclides are considered  to cause any significant
exposure:  carbon-14 and, to a lesser extent, tritium.  Man's surface
activities also affect the carbon-14 and tritium concentrations in the
atmosphere as well as adding krypton-85.  In addition, radon-222 is a
component of worldwide radioactivity; but  it will  be discussed with
terrestrial radiation since its precursors are part of the  decay chain
of the primordial radionuclide uranium-238 found in the earth's crust.
Tritium

     Tritium is produced in the atmosphere by the interaction of high-
energy cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen and it occurs
naturally in the earth's surface waters.  About 90 percent of natural
tritium is found in the hydrosphere, 10 percent in the stratosphere and
0.1 percent in the troposphere.  The amount of tritium produced has been
measured as 0.20 +_ 0.05 tritons/cm2/s, which corresponds to an annual
production rate of 1.6 MCi/y and to a steady state inventory of 28
megacuries in the biosphere (2.2).

     The inventory of tritium has been increased, however, by nuclear
explosions, the contributions from the nuclear power industry and the
use of tritium in private industry.  Before the advent of nuclear energy,
environmental levels of tritium were in equilibrium with the rates of
cosmic ray production and decay; but tritium levels are now expected to
slowly increase because of the release of this nuclide by power reactors
and the reprocessing of spent fuel.  Jacobs has estimated that, by the
year 2000, a worldwide inventory of waste tritium will be 96 MCi.  The
tritium would mix throughout the hydrosphere, with the oceans and seas
representing the largest reservoirs (2.11).

     Figure 2-1 shows the estimated world inventory of tritium in the
atmosphere and in surface waters.  The dose from worldwide tritium
depends on the tritium content in food and water which are dependent on
the worldwide inventory.  Klement et al. estimated the annual whole
body dose to the United States population for the period 1960-2000
(table 2-4) (2.10).
Carbon-14

     Carbon, one of the elements essential to all forms of life, is
involved in most biological and geochemical processes.  The radioisotope
carbon-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere by interaction of cosmic

                                  18

-------
  Table 2-3    Cosmic ray produced radioactive nuclides (2.2)
Calculated
atmospheric
production
rate
Radionuclide (atoms/cm^-s)
3H
7B

e
ioBe
14
22
24
28
26
31
32
32
33
35
38
34
36
38
39
39
81
C
Na
Na
Mg
Al
Si
Si
P
P
S
S
f* 1
Cl
Cl
Cl
Ar
Kr
0.
20
Half-life
12.
S.lxlO-2
4.
2.
8.
3.
1.
1.
4.
1.
8.
6.
1.
4.
2.
1.
2.
1.
5.
1.
5xlO-2
5
6x10
0x10
7x10
4x10
4x10
6x10
1x10
8x10
4x10
9x10
0x10

-5
-5
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-4
-3
-5
-4
1x10-3
0x10
4x10
6x10
5x10
-3
-3
-3
-7
2.
5
2
15
21
7
2
53
3 y
d
Maximum
energy
of beta
radiation
(keV)

18
Electron
5xl06 v
^
«

t


730 v
6
0
2
y
h
h _
4xl05v
6
700
14,
25
87
2
32
3
37
55


9
0
h
y
3 d
d
d
h
min

1

1
1

1


1
2
.Ixl05v


3
5
270
2
min
min
V
,lx!05y
4
1

555
156
545
,389
460
,170
,480
210
,710
248
167
,100
,480
714
,910
,910
565
Electron

capture


(3+)














capture
Table 2-4.  Estimated annual whole-body dose to the United States population
from worldwide tritium (5,7(7).
     Year
    Dose
(mrem/person)
 Dose to U.  S.
 population
(person-rem/y)
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.03
3,100
9,200
7,100
6,700
8,400
                                     19

-------
ray neutrons with nitrogen.   Thus carbon-14 is present in atmospheric
carbon dioxide, in the terrestrial  biosphere,  and in the bicarbonates
dissolved in the ocean.   UNSCEAR estimates the average dose through  the
whole body to be 1.02 mrad/y, with  the highest dose delivered to fat
(2.2).

     The natural production rate for carbon-14 is not well  known.   If
the assumed production rate is 2 atoms/s/cm2,  0.03 MCi/y would be formed
providing a steady state inventory of 280 MCi  (2.2).  The decay rate was
estimated to be 1.81  atoms/s/cm2; and, although this is less than the
production rate, the values are actually considered to be in good agree-
ment because of the uncertainties involved (2.2).  It has been estimated
that nuclear tests have added 6.2 MCi or 5 percent of the steady state
amount of carbon-14 to the atmosphere (2.2).

     The combustion of carbon-14-free fuel is  believed to have caused a
decrease in the atmospheric carbon-14 specific activity.  The specific
activity determined from nineteenth century wood was 6.13 +_ 0.03 pCi/g
carbon but theoretical reductions (in the absence of nuclear tests)  of -3.2
percent in 1950, -5.9 percent in 1969, and -23 percent in 2000 have  been
calculated (2.2).

     Carbon-14 is also produced in  nuclear facilities by activation  of
the fuel, cladding, core structural materials, and coolant.  The production
rates for carbon-14 as calculated for LWR facilities by Davis (2. 22) are
presented in table 2-5.   Current LWR facilities do not have waste treatment
systems which remove carbon-14.  Therefore, the carbon-14 produced in
the fuel will be released at the fuel reprocessing plant and the carbon-14
produced in the coolant will be released at the reactor.  The carbon-14
produced in the cladding and core structural  materials contribute to the
amount of carbon-14 disposed in radioactive waste.

     Discharges of carbon-14 from the nuclear  power industry require
careful consideration since discharges of carbon-14 to the atmosphere
can be considered as contributions  of a permanent contaminant to the
worldwide environment because of the long radioactive half-life of this
radionuclide (5,730 years).   Carbon-14 is of particular concern since
carbon-14 injected into the troposphere becomes part of the carbon
cycle, and is constantly moving from inorganic reservoirs (carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere and dissolved in  water) to the chemical structures of
all life forms in the living system and back again.

     The maximum annual  carbon-14 dose equivalent rates calculated by
Fowler et al. (2.23)  for individuals in the environs of LWR facilities
are presented in table 2-6.   These  estimates are indicated as maximum
values since an annual dose equivalent could be received only if an
individual were to obtain all of his food at the point of maximum off-
site ground level air concentration.  Therefore, these dose equivalent
rate estimates probably bracket the theoretical upper limit for a
conservative generic exposure situation in the vicinity of an LWR facility
operating with a decontamination factor of 1  for carbon-14.
                                 21

-------
          Table 2-5. Carbon-14 production rates  in  LWR facilities
                    (Ci  of carbon-14/GW(e)-y)  (2.12)
Reactor type

  BWR


  PWR
Region of carbon-14 formation

Fuel9
Coolant
Cladding and core structural  materials
Fuel3
Coolant
Cladding and core structural  materials
Production
Ci/GW(e)-y

   17.6
    4.7
 43.3-60.4
   18.8
    5.0
 30.5-41.6
 Based on median amounts of nitrogen present as an impurity in the fuel.
      Table 2-6. Maximum annual  carbon-14 dose equivalent rates to
                 individuals at LWR facilities in mrem/y (2.13)

Organ
Total body
Gonads
Fuel reprocessing
facility PWR
1.9 0.48
.72 .18
BWR
(with stack)
0.017
.0066
BWR
(without stack)
0.86
.33
                                   22

-------
     Releases of carbon-14 to the atmosphere are distributed worldwide
resulting in a dose commitment to the world population.   The majority of
the released carbon-14 eventually goes to the deep ocean where it
remains with a mean residence time of centuries.  However,  a portion of
the release remains airborne and in the terrestrial  biosphere contrib-
uting to the environmental dose commitment to man.  The  worldwide
transport of carbon-14 has been estimated by various box models.   Using
the injections of fossil  fuel 12C02 since the beginning  of  the industrial
era (1860) and the inputs of the nuclear fuel cycle lkCQ2 to the  tropos-
phere, the EPA (2.is)  used a transport model developed by Machta  to
estimate the carbon-12 and carbon-14 content in the troposphere.   The
resulting 100-year worldwide environmental dose commitments by year of
release were then estimated as shown in table 2-7.  By knowing the
nuclear power produced in any year, the injections of carbon-14 to the
troposphere can be calculated and the conversion factors in table 2-7
can be employed to estimate the environmental dose commitment to  the
world population for 100 years after release.
Krypton-85

     Krypton-85 is a long-lived radioactive isotope of the noble gas
krypton and has a half life of about 10.8 years.   It is artificially
produced mainly by nuclear fission in nuclear reactors.  Very little  of
the krypton-85 formed in reactor operations is released to the atmos-
phere at the reactor site, but is released at nuclear fuel  reprocessing
plants.  Krypton-85 in minor quantities is produced in nuclear deton-
ations, and it also occurs naturally, primarily from the neutron capture
of stable krypton-84 as well as spontaneous fission and neutron-induced
fission of uranium.

     Krypton-85 is dispersed throughout the atmosphere as there are no
significant sinks for removal  from the environment.  Therefore, the rate
of removal is governed by the radiological half-life of 10.8 years.
Telegadas and Ferber (2.14) have made estimates of the world atmospheric
inventory based on measurements and dispersion models to be 53 +_ 5 MCi
at the end of 1973.  Previous estimates of concentrations or inventory
appear to be high because the projections of installed nuclear reactors
is less than previously estimated and commercial  fuel reprocessing in
the United States has been temporarily suspended.

     Figure 2-2 shows the measured krypton-85 concentrations as made  by
EPA's Office of Radiation Programs from 1962 to 1976 with the 1976
concentration being around 17 pCi/m3.  Bernhardt et al. (2.15)  have
summarized the population dose resulting from continuous exposure to
krypton-85.  Based on the 1976 average of about 17 pCi/m3,  the maximum
individual dose to the skin surface would be about 0.035 mrad/y.
                                 23

-------
              I—  .   I
I    I    I     I    I    I     I    I    I    I     I    I
                                                        s
                                                        CM
                                                        CO
            CP*       (NO       CO       CO


          (£U4/iod) HIV Nl
   Figure 2-2.   Krypton-85 concentrations  in air.
                          24

-------
       Table 2-7. Carbon-14 100-year environmental dose commitment
                  conversion factor for the world population  (2.14)
Year of release

     1975
     1976
     1977
     1978
     1979
     1980
     1981
     1982
     1983
     1984
     1985
                         Carbon-14 100-year environmental dose commitment
                         	    Conversion factors (person-rem/Ci)	
Total body£

   45.6
   46.
   46.
   47.
   47.
   48.0
   48.5
   49.0
   49.5
   50.0
   50.4
Gonadsb
  17.
  17.
  17.
  17.
  18.
  18.
  18.
  18.
  18.
  19.
  19.2
 0.21 mrem/y per pCi carbon-14/g carbon-12 in the total body.
 30.08 mrem/y per pCi carbon-14/g carbon-12 in the gonads.
                         Terrestrial Radiation
     The naturally radioactive nuclides in man's  environment  produce
exposure by both direct external  gamma irradiation and by  internal
irradiation after entering the body via ingestion and inhalation.   Food
and water are the main exposure pathways and inhalation is of secondary
importance, except for uranium daughters which are discussed  later.

     The description of the occurrences in the literature  and the  type
of organizations performing the research are the  same as described
previously for cosmic radiation.   Most of the previously mentioned
journals such as Journal  of Geophysical Research  and Health Physics,
contain articles and others such  as Science, Nature, and the  American
Industrial Hygiene Association could be added.  Reports of the U.S.
Geological Survey probably provide the largest single source  of area
soil composition.  Actually, the  initial  interest in the natural radio-
activity in soils was not to determine the human  exposure  but to locate
possible mineral deposits by using ratios of nuclide abundance.  The
development of age dating techniques was also an  early use of natural
radioactivity.
                                  25

-------
      The  naturally occurring radionuclides may be classified into two
 groups.   The  nuclides that are continually being formed by the inter-
 actions of  cosmic ray particles and matter, and those nuclides which
 have  been present since  the formation of the earth, the primordial
 radioactive nuclides.
 Cosmic ray interactions

      The  presence of  cosmic ray neutrons does cause capture reactions in
 the  earth's  soil cover,  but the exposure from these nuclides is insig-
 nificant  (2.1).  The  three nuclides which would probably be the major
 contributors  are beryllium-7, sodium-22 and sodium-24.
Primordial nuclides

      The  primordial  nuclides can be divided into two groups:  those
which decay  directly to  a  stable nuclide and those that belong to one of
three naturally occurring  radioactive series.  UNSCEAR (2.16) and Lowder
and  Solon (2.17)  presented data for about 24 radionuclides which exist
or were hypothesized to  exist.  However, most have long half-lives and
low  abundances; thus, only potassium-40, and the decay chains of uranium-
238  and thorium-232  are  believed to cause any significant exposure.
Rubidium-87  has also been  mentioned since its abundance (table 2-8) is
much greater than the other nonseries primordial radionuclides.

      The  concentration of  the primordial nuclides in the soil will be
determined by the associated source rock and the subsequent stage of the
soil  formation process.  Igneous rocks generally have more radioactivity
than sedimentary  rocks and the metamorphic rocks will exhibit concen-
trations  typical  for the rock from which they were derived.  However,
certain sedimentary  rocks, shales and phosphate-bearing rocks are highly
radioactive  (2.5).

     Igneous  and  metamorphic  rocks  comprise  about 90  percent  of  the
earth's crust; but the sedimentary  rocks  tend  to  accumulate  at  the  top
of the crust, thus, about 75  percent  of  the  earth's  surface  is  covered
by sedimentary rocks.  In the  contiguous  United  States,  the  sedimentary
rocks, shale, sandstone,  or limestone  (in a  ratio of  3:1:1,  respectively),
cover 85 percent  of the  surface  (2.1).

     The actual environmental  exposure produced  will  depend  on  the  type
of rock, the  leaching action  of  water,  the porosity  of  the  overburden,
the amount of soil or organic  material  formed  on  the  surface,  and  the
absorption and precipitation  of  surface  deposited radionuclides.   Thus,
in boggy soils where leaching  and  humus  buildup  occur rapidly,  the
radioactivity concentration is  low.   It  is  higher in  forests  and would
be highest, about equal  to  the corresponding soil-forming  rocks,  in  arid
climate soils (2.4,2.5).
                                  26

-------





























• — s
C~Q
,
eg
v~
CO
CU
-a
o
— •$
c
o
• r—
-a
03
s-
, —
03
• r—
-o
i-
o
£

t-
o.

CO
CO
• i—
£_
a>
co
o
'^f


CO
1
CM

CO
r-~
t"l
03
H-








03
03 ^ — -.
§^»
O)
CD —x
X
03
£!:
03
UJ

X- ^""^
O >
CO
03 s:
CL
<



0)
tl _ ^
•r~ CO
1 03
H~ CO
i— >^
CQ * 	 <•
1C







	 *
co £
-C Q-
+J Q_
c:" '
•i- a>
S-
co co
o -c
c: Q.
03 co
-a o
E -C
3 4->
-Q ••-
C3^ r-^







d)
T3
^Z
o
3
c~
O
• i —
•^j
03
o;
o o to in
r-- i — . co tTi
O CO CM CO
un CM o O
tn ^d- CM co
r— r— 0 O
i— o o un
p— CO CO r—
N. 	 f • — ^ «- 	 • 	 '
o co o co
10 CO •— CO
^1" r — co O
•— 0 00


— - "-^ O O '-^ O O
en o o o o o o
CO 00 i— i— CO i— i—
•xT *3" O O O O
i — r*. co i — co co
CO CM ^}- CM CM «d"
•— C-- O O O CM O
CQ. oa. ca ca aa 8 ai



LO CU J" i — I ' — 1 CD
O O O O O O O

X X X X X X X

CO CO UO i — i — CM
• ••••••
. — IO «3- i — i — CM













r-~ i 	
CM i — O O
• • • •
CO CD un O CD r- O
p-^

















C 03 E 3
-Q i— i _l OO _1
NX ^> rv^ LO co C^ cO
o o r^ i — i co j- c^-
J- LD 00 i — i — 1 i — 1 — I























c:
0
03
S-
co
C;
• 1 —
CO
• r-
-o

CO
a.
^_,
CO
'>,

CO
4->
03
O
-a
c
• ! 	

CO
CO
CO
ai
c~
1 ^
C
CO
S-
03
Q.

C
'"~
co
CO
S-
CT)
.f—
UL.
03





27

-------
Internal irradiation

     The principal internal  emitters considered are shown  in  table 2-9.
These radionuclides are present in our environment and enter  the body
with our food and water.  Inhalation is of secondary importance except
for radon daughters and the immediate areas surrounding some  industrial
sites, such as uranium mills or uranium mill  tailings piles.
Potassium-40

     The main naturally occurring source of internal  radiation exposure
has been stated to be It0K.  It enters the body primarily in food stuffs
and its concentration varies considerably in different body organs.
Whole body counting studies indicate persons under 20 years of age
contain 15 percent less potassium than persons over 20 (2.2).   The
reasons for this are not immediately evident and are probably  due to a
combination of things since the potassium concentrations in different
tissues are given as:  muscle, brain, and blood cells, 0.3 percent;
blood serum, 0.01 percent; and fat, none.  Thus, the average potassium
content of the body will depend on body build, and obese persons have a
lower ratio of potassium to body weight than lean persons (2.2).
Females have more fatty tissue than males and, therefore, exhibit lower
g K/kg body weight ratios (2.1).  Three isotopes of potassium  occur; two
isotopes 39K (93.1 percent) and 41K (6.9 percent), are stable.  Despite
the low abundance of 40K (0.0118 percent), its activity in soil averages
an order of magnitude greater than 238U or 232Th (2.1).
Rubidium-8?

     The isotopic abundance of 87Ru is 27.8 percent and is about 17 ppm
in the whole body tissues of bone and gonads.  The average gonadal  dose
is calculated to be 0.3 mrad/y and 0.4 mrad/y to the small tissue inclu-
sions within the bone.  Assuming that the 87Ru concentrations in bone
marrow is the same as averaged for the whole body, the dose to the bone
marrow would be 0.6 mrad/y (2.2).
Uranium and thorium series

     There are three natural series or decay chains.  Two start with
radioisotopes of uranium, 238U and 235U.  The third series start with
232Th.  These series are shown in tables 2-10 to 2-12.  Uranium and
thorium are distributed throughout the earth's crust in approximately
the same activity concentration.  The activity ratio, 235U/238U, in
nature is less than 0.05, and the radon isotope in the 235U chain (219Rn)
has a very short half life, resulting in atmospheric activities of its
decay products which are about 2,000 times less than those of 222Rn;
thus, the 235U chain is not considered to cause any significant environ-
mental exposure.

                                   28

-------





>Nj
4_>
• i —
>
,f—
4_>
O
re
o
•r—
-o
re
S-

r_
re
s-
rs
4-^
re


E

C)_

c~
O
CO
i^
CD
Q.

S-
O)
Q.

CO
CD
CO
0
-o

c
o
•r"
4_J
re

T3
re
s-
rre
c
s-
CD
4.)
C
• i—

i —
re

c
C CO
re 01
^_>
CD re
cn4->
re co
S-
Ol T3
> CD
fO 4-*
•r—
™^3 C
QJ rD

re CD
•i- -t->
4-^
CO £Z
UJ •!-


•
C31
1
CM

CD
r—
(">
re
i—








o
4-> CO
-O
cu re
CO C
0 0
O CO













0
0 S-
4-> S-
F=
CO
O 
1 —
CD re
CO CU
o +->
Q co
o
T3
C"
OJ













>^
T3
0 0
4_> i*^

CD Ol
CO i —
O O
Q _£Z
^
















0)
-o
•r-
i—
u
13
C"
O
•r™
TD

— s^
oa ~o
• fQ
CO S-
•^- E



. — ^
l-H E
. 01

^ E



— ^
C5 E
r-s CD
. i_
c\] E
v—


^^
CO T3
CO 2
v- E



• — .
T-H E
. CD
ex] i*.
^- E





— N
d E
r~H CD
. i.
co E
v_-



— ^
CO ~O
• re
C\3 S_
^- E




— ^
C^ £
r-s O)
. S^
c^ E
v^_




— s^
CS] T3
• co
c CD f~>
• ••••••••
CTiOOOOOOOOO







CO CM
i —
O


^-
o
O CO CO O O CO CO
• • • • • • •
LD O i— O CO COOO
1 —

r—
o in co co
or^cocooo>— i— o
LOOOOOOOOOO
t—






CO CNJ
r—





^-
0
O ^O ^t" O i*—
• . • • •
co o i— o •— ro<^>i^
CXI


r—
o <*
ooo^o ococnco
• ••• ••••
CO (""*) CO O *~J" CO r— n- CO





<^-
o
O O CO O O

r~ o i — o co co
^~





CO

en o

_Q





CO CM
•—














t3 CU 73 x> CU
_o o c c re re "a
N/ T" c_) Qi r^ rv Qi Q£ O^ "~^
ocnj-r^oocMcDOOoo
J- "-iCOt-iCMcMCMCMOO
CM CM CM CM CM CM





r—
CNJ






CO
1 —







^J-
CM




|^
f—






CO










r^
^~






CO
r~








un
CM







P—
CM






CO
















,—
ro
4_)
o
1—

























































CD
i —
re
E
re CD
E 4-
E
fO **
en >,

E "E
O O)
t_ S-
4- E

>> CO
^^ r—
-a
re ~o
s_ c
E re

CM CD

"O re
c E
re
re >>
4-> '"^ CO CO
O) E CD CD
i- -0 CD T- -r-
CU i- S_ i-
-Q E E CD CD
E O co co
3 S- CT>
c: 4- i— co CM
CO CO
QJ >j CM CM
0 --^ •• 1 1
c -o CD E E
CD re en 3 3
S- S- (0 •!-•!-
CD E S- C S-
M- cu re o
o> r^ > s- _c
c£ •— <: ZD H-
ft3 -^ O "O QJ

29

-------
      Table 2-10.  Uranium (radium) series (2.18)
Isotope
Uranium-238
Thorium-234

Protactinium-234

Uranium-234

Thorium-230
Radium-226

Radon-222
Polonium-218
Lead-214

Bismuth-214

Polonium-214
Lead-210
Bismuth-210
Polonium-210
Lead-206
Symbol
238U
23Hh

234pa

234(J

230Th
225Ra

222Rn
218p0
21Vb

2^Bi

2mp0
210pb
210B1
210p0
206pb
Half -life
4.5xl09 y
24.1 d

1.18 min.

2.50xlC5 y

S.OxlO4 y
1622 y

3.82 d
3.05 min.
26.8 min.

19.7 min.

160xlO"6 s
19.4 y
5.0 d
138.4 d
Stable
Radiation
a
e
Y
6
Y
a
Y
a
a
Y
a
a
6
Y
e
Y
a
6
Y
6
a

Energy3 (MeV)
4.18(77), 4.13(23)
0.19(65), 0.10(35)
0.09(15), 0.06(7), 0.03(7)
2.31(93), 1.45(6), 0.55(1)
1.01(2), 0.77(1), 0.04(3)
4.77(72), 4.72(28)
0.05(28)
4.68(76), 4.62(24)
4.78(94), 4.59(6)
0.19(4)
5.48(100)
6.00(100)
1.03(6), 0.66(40), 0.46
(50), 0.40(4)
0.35(44), 0.29(24), 0.24
(11), 0.05(2)
3.18(15), 2.56(4), 1.79(8),
1.33(33), 1.03(22),
0.74(20)
2.43(2), 2.20(6), 2.12(1),
1 .85(3), 1.76(19),
1.73(2), 1.51(3),
1.42(4), 1.38(7),
1.28(2), 1.24(7),
1.16(2), 1.12(20),
0.94(5), 0.81(2),
0.77(7), 0.61(45)
7.68(100)
0.06(17), 0.02(83)
0.05(4)
1.16(100)
5.30(100)

Numbers in parentheses indicate percent abundance.
                                   30

-------
         Table 2-11.  Thorium series (2.18)
Isotope
Thorium-232

Radium-228
Actinium-228

Thorium-228

Radium-224

Radon-220
Polonium-216
Lead-212

Bismuth-212

Polonium-212b
Thallium-208c

Lead-208
Symbol
232Th

228Ra
228AC

228Th

224Ra

22°Rn
216p0
212pb

212Bi

212p0
208T1

208pb
Half-life
1.41xl010 y

6.7 y
6.13 h

1.91 y

3.64 d

54.5 s
0.158 s
10.64 h

60.5 min.

0.30xlO"6 s
3.1 min.

Stable
Radiation
a
Y
6
e
Y
a
Y
a
Y
a
a
g
Y
a
3
Y
a
B
Y

Energy3 (MeV)
4.01(76), 3.95(24)
0.06(24)
0.05(100)
2.18(10), 1.85(9), 1.72(7),
1.13(53), 0.64(8), 0.45(13)
1.64(13), 1.59(12), 1.10, 1.04,
0.97(18), 0.91(25), 0.46(3),
0.41(2), 0.34(11), 0.23,
0.18(3), 0.13(6), 0.11 , 0.10,
0.08
5.42(72), 5.34(28)
0.08(2)
5.68(95), 5.45(5)
0.24(5)
6.28(99+)
6.78(100)
0.58(14), 0.34(80), 0.16(6)
0.30(5), 0.24(82), 0.18(1),
0.12(2)
6.09(10), 6.04(25)
2.25(56), 1.52(4), 0.74(1),
0.63(2)
0.04(1), with a 2.20(2), 1.81(1),
1.61(3), 1.34(2), 1.04(2),
0.83(8), 0.73(10), with 6
8.78(100)
2.37(2), 1.79(47), 1.52, 1.25
2.62(100), 0.86(14), 0.76(2),
0.58(83), 0.51(25), 0.28(9),
0.25(2)

 Numbers in parentheses indicate percent abundance.
 Divide given percentage yields by 1.5  to obtain  yield  in  terms  of  thorium-232.
cDivide given percentage yields by 3 to obtain  yield  in terms  of thorium-232.
                                      31

-------
        Table  2-12.  Actinium  series  (2.19)
Isotope
Uranium-235

Thorium-231

Protactinium-231

Actinium-227


Thorium-227

Radium-223

Radon-219

Polonium-215
Lead-211

Bismuth-211

Thallium-207

Lead-207
Symbol
235u

231Th

231pa

227Ac


227yh

223Ra

219Rn

215p0
211pb

211Bi

207T1

Half-life
7.1xl08 y

25.5 h

3.25x10^ y

21.6 y


18.2 d

11.43 d

4.0 s

1.78xlO"3 s
36.1 min.

2.15 min.

4.79 min.

Radiation
a
Y
0
Y
a
Y
a
3
Y
a
Y
a
Y
a
Y
a
e
Y
a
Y
B
Y
2o?Pb | Stable
Energy3 (MeV)
4.40(57), 4.37(18), 4.
0.18(54), 0.14(11), 0.
0.14(45), 0.30(40),
0.22(15)
0.08(10), 0.03(2)
5.01(24), 5.02(23),
4.95(22)
0.29(6), 0.03(6)
4.95(1.2), 4.86(0.18)
0.043(99+)
0.070(0.08)
5.98(24), 6.04(23),
5.76(21)
0.24(15), 0.31(8),
0.050(8)
5.71(54), 5.61(26), 5.
0.27(10), 0.15(10), 0.
6.82(81), 6.55(11), 6.
0.27(9), 0.40(5)
7.38(100)
1.39(88), 0.56(9),
0.29(1.4)
0.83(3.4), 0.40(3.4),
0.43(1.8)
6.62(84), 6.28(16)
0.35(14)
1.44(99.8)
0.90 (0.16)

58(8)
20(5)









75(9)
33(6)
42(8)









JNumbers  in  parentheses  indicate  percent abundance.
                                     32

-------
Uranium-238

     The uranium-238 chain can be divided into four parts:   1.  The long-
lived isotopes, 238U, which are considered to be in equilibrium in
nature, 2. 226Ra, since its concentrations in the environment and man
are not necessarily related to its uranium parents, 3.  222Rn and its
short-lived daughters (through 21i*Po), and 4. the long-lived radon
daughters, 210Pb, 210Bi, and 210Po.   One gram of natural  uraniun contains
0.33 yCi 238U and 0.015 yCi 235U (2.2).

     Man's uranium uptake in his daily diet has been shown  to be 1 yg/d
(2.2).  The uranium in the soil enters plants and then  goes directly
into man and herbivorous animals and also into man from herbivorous
animals.  Water can also provide a source of uranium, and values of
0.024 to 200 yg/£ in fresh water are reported (2.2).   Uranium,  as well
as thorium and radium, can be present in air, but normally  in very small
quantities.  Thus, inhalation is not considered to be a source of normal
exposure except for radon and its daughters.  The exposures calculated
for uranium are shown in table 2-9.
Thorium-232

     Thorium enters man in the same manner as uranium, and experiments
performed with plants showed that thorium was readily absorbed by plant
roots; however, no intake values appear in the literature (2.2).   It
also appears that although thorium is readily absorbed, the concen-
tration in the plant's shoots is negligible compared to radium.
Radium

     Radium isotopes are present in all soils and will  be found in
varying equilibrium with its parents.  Since uranium and thorium are
usually present in about the same activity concentrations,  the isotopes
of radium, 226Ra and 228Ra, from 238U and 232Th, respectively, will  also
be present in similar activity concentrations.  However, the normal
226Ra concentration may be increased by the addition of phosphate ferti-
1izers.

     The average daily uptake of 226Ra in normal background areas is
stated to be 1 pCi/g of calcium (2.2).
Radon

     Radium-226 decays by alpha emission to its daughter, 222Rn, an
inert gas having a half-life of 3.8 days.  Similarly, radon-220 is the
daughter of 22t*Ra in the thorium-232 decay chain (table 2-11).   These
gaseous isotopes can then diffuse from the soil into the atmosphere.
The atmospheric concentration of these gases and their daughter products
depends on many geological and meteorological  factors.  Because the


                                33

-------
daughter products of radon and thoron are electrically charged when
formed, they tend to attach themselves to the dust particles  normally
present in the atmosphere, thus becoming the only significant natural
radionuclides leading to widespread exposure through inhalation.

     Radon can also reach man through water, and the ingestion of 1 uCi
of 222Rn dissolved in water has been indicated to cause a 20  mrad
exposure to the stomach (2.6).  Another source could be milk, but values
should be lower (in Sweden, 222Rn concentrations in milk are  40 times
less than in water) (2.2).
Long-lined radon-222 daughters

     The average concentration of 210Pb for a location will  depend on
the 222Rn surface exhalation rate at that point and the global  pattern
of air circulation.  The average 210Pb to 210Po ratio will  be 10 in the
northern middle latitudes.  The concentrations would be 15  and 1.5 Ci/m3,
respectively (2.2).  However, ratio values of less than unity can be
found in industrial areas.  This has been attributed to the release of
210Po during the combustion of coal.  The standard man inhales 20 m3 of
air per day; thus, for the "normal" areas, 0.3 pCi 210Pb and 0.03 pCi
210Po would be inhaled.

     Cigarette smoking causes an additional uptake of lead-210 and
polonium-210 as both are present in tobacco; 210Po is more  abundant
because it is highly volatile.  One pack of cigarettes per  day causes a
daily intake of 6.3-0.8 pCi 210Pb and 0.4 to 1.4 pCi 210Po  (2.2).  If a
lung to blood transfer coefficient of 0.3 is used, 0.2 and  0.3 pCi/d
would be the resultant uptake.

     The daily intake from the western diet of milk, bread, meat, and
vegetables is 1-10 pCi/d 210Pb with a 210Pb/210Po ratio of  about one.
Persons whose diet consists primarily of fish or meat ingest higher than
average concentrations of 210Po.  The largest ingestions found occur in
the Lapps and Eskimos because of the lichen - reindeer (caribou) - Lapp
(Eskimo) food chain.  The average intake reported for the Laplander is
an order of magnitude higher than the northern middle latitudes due to
the diet of reindeer.

     The radiation dose to the body's tissues caused by the long-lived
daughters is primarily due to the energetic alpha particles of 210Po.
At equilibrium, the beta contribution from 210Pb and 210Bi  is 7.5 percent
that of the 210Po alpha energy, thus, it is generally neglected.

     The whole body exposure attributed to all of the internal emitters
is 18-25 mrem/y; the difference between the literature values appears to
be the use of an average of male and female i+0K exposures (2.1) or the
male exposure only (2.2).  In "normal" areas (designation used by UNSCEAR),
the other internal emitters (not including Lf°K) provide about 2 mrem/y.
However, exposures from individual emitters such as 226Ra and 210Po as
discussed can vary by an order of magnitude.  The gonadal exposure shown
for 210Po in table 2-9 is 0.6 mrad/y which is for normal areas in the
northern temperate latitudes.  The exposure given for the artic regions

                                34

-------
is 7.2 mrad/y (2.2).  The exposure (table 2-9) for 226Ra is 0.02 mrad/y
which is for normal areas; but for areas such as Kerala, India, the
gonadal exposure stated is 0.2 mrad/y.
External radiation.

     The naturally radioactive nuclides contribute significantly to
man's external exposure.  The radiation that causes the largest increment
of exposure is generally gamma-ray radiation, but alpha and beta particle
radiations also occur.  For example, at one meter above the ground,
gamma and cosmic rays produce 7 ion pairs/cm3/s (I) in air, and beta
radiation produces 13 I (2.1).  Normally, the beta radiation would
produce no rem dose to the bone marrow or the gonads; but it is felt
that in special situations, such as houses with dirt floors, significant
individual exposures could occur.

     In the United States, 90 percent of the population receives an
annual dose ranging from 30-95 mrem.  The average was 55 mrem/y with
lt°K, the 238U series, and the 232Th series contributing 17, 13, and 25
mrem, respectively (2.20).  The radon daughters in air generally do not
contribute much to this dose, only 0.1-0.5 yrem/h (2.1).   Measurements
for many locations have been collected and averages by state obtained to
estimate the exposure to the population of the United States.  This
method produced an average exposure for the United States of 60 mrem/y/
person and the various state averages are shown in table 2-13 (2.10).
Other measurements and methods have presented averages of 77 mrem/y
(2.21) and 43.7 mrem/y (2.1).
Summary

     Terrestrial radiation comes from radioactive materials in the crust
of the earth.  These materials contribute to man's exposure by direct
radiation and by indirect radiation through ingestion and inhalation.
The estimated annual, average, individual, internal radiation dose from
selected natural isotopes in the United States is given in table 2-9.
These data show that the terrestrial radionuclides responsible for the
most significant exposures are 40K, 238U chain products, 232Th chain
products, and 87Rb.  The whole body exposure attributed to all internal
radioactive nuclides is estimated to be 18-25 mrem/y.

     In the United States, most of the population receive annual external
terrestrial radiation doses ranging from 30-95 mrem/y depending upon
location with an average of 55 mrem/y.  tf°K, 238U chain products and
232Th chain products contributed 17, 13 and 25 mrem/y, respectively, to
the terrestrial dose.
        Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS)


     The ERAMS is a surveillance program of EPA's Office of Radiation
Programs for measuring levels of radioactivity in air, air particulates,

                                  35

-------
Table 2-13.   Estimated annual  external gamma whole-body
   doses  from natural terrestrial  radioactivity (2.10)
                    (mrem/person)

Political Unit
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
*Assumed to be
United States
Average Annual
Dose
70
60*
60*
75
50
105
60
60*
60*
60*
60*
60*
65
55
60
60*
60*
40
75
55
75
60*
70
65
60*
60*
55
40
65
equal to the
average .
                              Political  Unit
Average Annual
    Doses
                              New Jersey              60
                              New Mexico              70
                              New York                65
                              North Carolina          75
                              North Dakota            60*
                              Ohio                   65
                              Oklahoma                60
                              Oregon                 60*
                              Pennsylvania            55
                              Rhode Island            65
                              South Carolina          70
                              South Dakota            115
                              Tennessee              70
                              Texas                  30
                              Utah                   40
                              Vermont                45
                              Virginia                55
                              Washington              6O*
                              West Virginia          60*
                              Wisconsin              55
                              Wyoming                90
                              Canal Zone              60*
                              Guam                   60*
                              Puerto Rico            60*
                              Samoa                  60*
                              Virgin Islands          60*
                              District  of Columbia   55
                              Others                 60*
                              Total United States
     60
                            36

-------
deposition, surface and drinking water, and milk in the United States
and territories.  The samples are collected by Federal, State, or local
governments and analyzed at the Eastern Environmental  Radiation Facility
in Montgomery, Ala.  Sources of radiation and population centers were
considered in determining the locations of the sampling sites.  The main
emphasis for ERAMS is toward monitoring levels of radionuclides such as
iodine-131 which deliver relatively high population dose commitments and
identifying trends in the accumulation of long-lived radionuclides in
the environment, such as plutonium-238, -239, uranium-234,  -235, -238,
krypton-85, hydrogen-3 (tritium), cesium-137, and strontium-90.
Trends

     A tabulation of all raw data from each sampling network is reported
quarterly in Environmental Radiation Data by the Eastern Environmental
Radiation Facility.  Figures 2-3 through 2-16 depict the trends of
radioactivity concentration versus time for each network.   An examin-
ation of the graphs reveals for most plots a yearly cycle  of concen-
trations of radioactivity which are attributable to fallout.  This is
explained by the atmospheric mixing between the troposphere and strat-
osphere in the spring of each year.  The submicron radioactive particles
from the stratosphere are thus pulled down into the troposphere where
settling and washout bring these particles to the earth's  surface as
fallout.

     In the section below, a linear model has been used to determine the
presence of significant trends over the time period in question, usually
July 1973 through June 1976.  Typically, the model is of the form y = Bx +
A, where B is the least squares estimate of the slope, x is the time
variable, and y is the radionuclide level in conventional  concentration
units.
Radioactivity in air

     In the ERAMS Air Program, airborne particulates are collected
continuously at 21 sampling stations.  An additional 51  sampling stations
have been placed on standby.  The filters at the sampling stations are
changed one or two times per week, and the gross beta radioactivity
concentration is measured on each filter in the laboratory.   The monthly
averages for airborne particulates at all stations are shown in figure 2-3
from July 1973 when the laboratory analyses were initiated under the
ERAMS program.  The data show a yearly cycle with highest concentrations
occurring in the spring and the lowest concentrations in the fall.

     The airborne particulates from the 21 air sampling  sites are analyzed
for uranium-234, -235, and -238.  The uranium-234, uranium-235, and -238
concentrations in figures 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 show an increase from 1973
to a peak concentration in mid-1974, and fluctuations with an overall
downward trend extending into 1976.
                                 37

-------
CO
LJ
Q_
f—CD
>_<
LJ
en
       1973
1974
1975
1976
      Figure 2-3.  Gross beta in airborne participates:  network averages

-------
  (9
  »

  S>
  0
  CD
'—>
CJ
en
LJ
cr
  0
  (9
       1973
1974
1975
1976
      Figure 2-4.   Uranium-234  in airborne  particulates: network averages
                                    39

-------
  i
  GO'
a
o
_
cc
  rsi
       1973
1974
1975
1976
     Figure 2-5.  Uranium-235 in airborne participates: network averages
                                   40

-------
  (9
  G»
  ID
CD
O
cn
O   !
or
    a..
       1973
1974
1975
1976
      Figure 2-6.   Uranium-238  in airborne  particulates: network averages
                                    41

-------
  in"
  s

   *
  SP
LJ
cn
i—
•9             r
     1973
                        1974
1975
1976
    Figure  2-7.  Plutonium-238 in airborne participates: network averages
                                  42

-------
a
LJ
cc
  (9
  (9
                                                         Early trend
                                                      67    69   71   73
       1973
1974
1975
1976
    Figure 2-8.   Plutonium-239 in airborne parti'culates:  network averages
                                     43

-------
  
-------
  o
  s
   »

  IT"
  (S

  <9
o
cn
       1973
1974
1975
1976
         Figure 2-10.   Gross beta  in precipitation: network averages
                                  45
-------
  s
  tn _,
O

(H
       1973
1974
1975
1976
                  Figure  2-11.   Tritium in precipitation
                                 46
-------
  m_^
                                                           1.
                                             Early trend  t
                                                         O)
                                                               I  i   r

                                                             70   72
O '
>-
LJ
cn
  «9
       1973
1974
1975
1976
        Figure 2-12.   Tritium in drinking water: network averages
                                   47
-------
  CD _
I—ttO _
 ' 3* _
LJ
01
  
-------
  to'
Q_
v—'


>-
       1973
1974
1975
1976
       r-i
        igure 2-14.  Iodine-131 in pasteurized, milk:  network averages
                                  49
-------
  m_
  CM _
CL.
  no
                                          160.



                                          140



                                          120^
                                        i. 100
                                        01
                                           60



                                           40-



                                           20
                                                              Early trend
                                             I960  1962  1964  1966   1968   1970  1972
  S>
        1973
1974
1975
1976
      Figure 2-15.  Cesium-137 in pasteurized milk: network averages
                                      50
-------
  in
o_
LJ

CC
  in
   •
  oo
                                    30-
                                                           Early  trend
                                      I960   1962   1964  1966   1968   1970   1972
                 Recent trend
       1973
1974
1975
1976
      Figure 2-16.  Strontium-90 in pasteurized milk: network averages
                                     51
-------
     Air participate data for uranium-234  and  uranium-238 were  tested
according to the linear model described above  and  for  each  the  slope for
estimating a long-term trend was not statistically significant.

     Plutonium-238 and -239 analyses are currently performed  on  the air
participates from the 21 air sampling sites.   However,  plutonium-238
and -239 measurements have been conducted  since  1967 on samples  from
selected air particulate sampling stations.  The results since  1967 are
plotted for both radionuclides in figures  2-7  and  2-8  and show  a yearly
cycle with the peak concentrations in the  spring and the minimum concen-
trations in the fall.

     The linear model was again employed for plutonium-238  and  plutonium-239
in air filters over the period, July 1973-June 1976 and each  slope for
estimating trends was not significant.

     Krypton-85 concentrations have been measured in air samples taken
from stations in the United States and abroad  from April 1962 to June
1976. The data are shown in figure 2-9 together  with predictions of
krypton-85 levels by the EPA (Klement, et  al.) and the linear model
using atmospheric concentration as the variable  y and  time  as variable
x, the linear trend was studied using the  model  described above.

     The correlation coefficient for the model was 0.92 and the 95
percent confidence level on the slope was  0.0579 +_ 0.0054,  indicating  a
significantly positive slope with units of pCi/m3-month. Behavior of
this trend will be hereafter continuously  monitored with regard to
future nuclear power production and reprocessing.
Radioactivity in precipitation

     Gross beta radioactivity measurements are also performed on precip-
itation samples collected at the 21 air sampling sites.   Figure 2-10
shows the fallout in mid-1973 from a nuclear detonation  by the Peoples
Republic of China and a spring rise in 1974.  Using the  linear model as
described above, an F ratio of F(l,34) = 5.12 was obtained which is
significant at the 95 percent level.  The 95 percent confidence interval
on the slope was [-0.0223 +_ 0.0197] pCi/m2-month which is significantly
negative, i.e., a downward trend.

     One may notice that the high level of gross beta in precipitation
is well correlated with the pasteurized milk levels of iodine-131,
cesium-137, and strontium-90, but not well-correlated with gross beta
levels in airborne particulates (see figure 2-3).

     Tritium concentration is measured on a monthly precipitation
composite at the same locations as the 21 air sampling sites.  The data
since 1967 shown in figure 2-11 indicate the yearly cycle of higher
concentrations in the summer and lower concentrations in the winter.

     Using the linear model over the July 1973-June 1976 period, a
significant downward trend was found for tritium in precipitation.  The
observed F ratio is F (1,34) = 35.5, and the 95 percent   confidence
 interval  on  the  slope  is  [-0.00639  +; 0.00214].

                                 52
-------
Radioactivity in water

     Tritium is measured in drinking water at 77 sampling  sites which
are at either major population centers or selected  nuclear facility
environs.  The data since 1970 shown in figure 2-12 indicate  about the
same average concentration overall  with no trend.

     Tritium is also monitored in surface waters which are downstream
from nuclear facilities.  The data  during the July  1973-June  1976
period is shown in figure 2-13.

     A linear model as described above was used to  test for a signif-
icant slope in the data.  The observed F ratio was  F(l,10) =  1.007 which
is not significant at the 95 percent level.   The observed  95  percent
confidence interval on the slope is [-0.0089 +_ 0.0177] having the
physical units of pCi/liter-calendar quarter.


Radioactivity in milk

     The ERAMS milk program consists of 65 sampling stations.  Figure 2-14
shows the iodine-131 concentration  trend.  Moderate fluctuations are
observed over the time period, July 1973-June 1976, and a  slight downward
trend may be seen.

     A linear model yielded a F ratio of F (1,34) = 20.8 for  the 36-
month period which is significant at the 95 percent level. The signif-
icant decrease in iodine-131 levels are further indicated  by  the 95
percent confidence interval of [-0.082 +_ 0.036] pCi/liter-month.

     Figure 2-15 and 2-16 depict the cesium-137 and strontium-90 concen-
trations in milk from 1960.  Both graphs reflect the fallout  from atmos-
pheric detonations in the early 1960's and a decline to present levels.
The linear model was used for the 90Sr data over the July  1973-June 1976
period.  The observed F ratio was F(l,10) = 7.58 which is  significant at
the 95 percent level.  The observed 95 percent confidence  interval on
the slope is [-0.0778 +_ 0.05648] pCi/liter-calendar quarter which indicates
a significant downward trend in strontium-90 levels in milk over this
period.

     Cesium-137 data for the period fiscal year 1974-fiscal year 1976
was available in machine readable form for the regression  analysis.  The
observed F ratio for this period was found to be F(l,34) = 7.72 which is
significant at the 95 percent level.  The confidence 95 percent interval
on the slope is [0.0966 + 0.0695] pCi/1iter-month.   Although  this slope
is slightly positive, the magnitude of cesium-137 levels in milk are far
below those observed in the past two decades.
                                 53
-------
 References


 (2.1)   OAKLEY,  D.  T.   Natural  radiation exposure  in the United States,
        ORP/SID  72-1.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
        D.C.  (June  1972).

 (2.2)   UNITED NATIONS  SCIENTIFIC  COMMITTEE ON THE  EFFECTS OF ATOMIC
        RADIATION.   Report of the  United Nations Scientific Committee
        on the Effects  of Atomic Radiation.  Twenty-seventh Session,
        Supplement  No.  25  (A/8725).  United Nations, New York, N. Y.
        (1972).

 (2.3)   KORFF, S. A.  Production of neutrons by cosmic radiation.  The
        Natural  Radiation Environment,  Symposium Proceedings, Houston,
        Texas, April  10-13,  1963,  pp. 427-440.  The University of Chicago
        Press, Chicago,  Illinois  (1964)

 (2.4)   NATIONAL COUNCIL ON  RADIATION PROTECTION AND MEASUREMENTS.  Report
        of Scientific Committee 35, Environmental  Radiation Measurements.
        J. E. McLaughlin, Chairman (1974)

 (2.5)   NATIONAL COUNCIL ON  RADIATION PROTECTION AND MEASUREMENTS.  Report
        of Scientific Committee 43.  Natural Background Radiation in the
        United States,  J. H. Harley, Chairman  (1974)

 (2.6)   UNITED NATIONS  SCIENTIFIC  COMMITTEE ON THE  EFFECTS OF ATOMIC
        RADIATION.   Twenty-first Session, Supplement No. 14  (A/6314).
        United Nations,  New  York,  N. Y.  (1966).

 (2.7)   INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION.  Task Group
        on the biological effects  of high-energy radiation, radiobiological
        aspects  of  the  supersonic  transport.   Health Physics 12: 209-226
        (1966).

 (2.8)   O'BRIEN, K.  and J. E. MCLAUGHLIN.  Calculation of dose and dose-
        equivalent  rates to  man in the  atmosphere  from galactic cosmic-
        rays, HASL-228,  U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Health and Safety
        Laboratory,  New York, N. Y.  (May 1970).

 (2.9)   SAVUN, 0.  I., I. N.  SENCHURO, P.  I. SHAVRIN et al.  Distribution
        of radiation dose in the radiation belts of the earth in the year
        of maximum  solar activity.  Kosm.Issled 11:119-123, No. 1  (1973).

(2.10)   KLEMENT, A.  W.,  JR., C. P. MILLER, R.  P. MINX, and B. SHLEIEN.
        Estimates of ionizing radiation  doses  in the United States:  1960-
        2000, ORP/CSD 72-1.  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office
        of Radiation Programs,  Washington, D.C.  (August 1972).
                                 54
-------
(2. 11)   EISENBUD,  MERRIL.   Environmental  Radioactivity,  Second  Edition.
        Academic Press,  New York (1973).

(2.12)   DAVIS,  W., JR.   Carbon-14 production  in  nuclear  reactors.   ORNL/
        NUREG/TM-12,  Oak Ridge National  Laboratory,  Oak  Ridge,
        Tennessee  37830 (February 1977).

(2.13)   FOWLER, T. W.,  R.  L.  CLARK,  J.  M.  GRUHLKE,  AND J.  L.  RUSSELL.
        Public  health considerations of carbon-14  discharges  from  the
        light-water-cooled nuclear power industry.   ORP/TAD-76-3,  U.S.
        Environmental  Protection Agency,  Office  of  Radiation  Programs,
        Washington, D.C.   20460 (July 1976).

(2.14)   TELEGADAS, K.  and G.  J.  FERBER.   Global  Atmospheric Distribution
        of krypton-85 to 20 kilometers  in 1973.  HASL-294,  Health  and
        Safety  Laboratory, Energy Research and Development Adminis-
        tration, Washington,  D.C.   20545,  pp.  1-71,  1-96 (July  1,  1975).

(2.15)   BERNHARDT, D.  E. ,  A.  A.  MOGHISSI,  and  J. A.  COCHRAN.  Atmos-
        pheric  concentrations of fission product noble gases.   Noble
        Gases Symposium,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Las
        Vegas,  Nevada (1973).

(2.16)   UNITED  NATIONS  SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE  ON THE  EFFECTS OF ATOMIC
        RADIATION.  Supplement No.  16 (A/5216).  United  Nations, New
        York, N.  Y. (1962).

(2.17)   LOWDER, W. M.  and L.  R.  SOLON.   Background  radiation, a liter-
        ature search,  USAEC Document NYO-4712  (1956).

(2.18)   ADAMS,  J.  A.  S.  and W.  M.  LOWDER.   The natural radiation envi-
        ronment.   The University of Chicago  Press,  Chicago, 111.  (1964).

(2.19)   Radiological  Health Handbook (Revised  Edition),  U.S.  Department
        of Health, Education  and Welfare,  Public Health  Service, U.S.
        Government Printing Office,  Washington,  D.C.  (January 1970).

(2. 20)   BECK, H.  L.  Environmental  gamma radiation  from  deposited  fission
        products,  1960-1964.   Health Phys.  12:313-322  (1966).

(2.21)   LEVIN,  S.  G.,  R.  K.  STOMS,  E.  KUERZE,  and  W.  HUSKISSON.  Summary
        of natural environmental gamma  radiation using a calibrated
        portable scintillation counter.   Radiol. Health  Data  Rep.  9:679-
        695 (November 1968).
                                 55
-------
   Chapter 3 -  Technologically  Enhanced Natural Radiation
     This section deals with exposures received in  the ambient  environ-
ment from materials containing naturally radioactive nuclides.   To
distinguish the exposure from these materials  (which can  be  controlled)
from the exposure received from the natural  terrestrial and  cosmic
radiation sources (generally uncontrollable  exposure), the term technol-
ogically enhanced natural radioactivity or TENR has been  suggested  by
Gesell and Prichard (3.1).

     The TENR exposure comes from the natural  radionuclides  that have
been redistributed by some activity or technology undertaken by people,
such as mining or development of wells.   Thus,  the  nuclide is either
brought to the surface of the earth where exposures can occur,  the
surface of the earth which previously provided  attenuation or acted as a
diffusion barrier is removed, or persons go  into the earth in natural
caves and manmade excavations where they are exposed.   Since some form
of technology is involved, the resulting exposure can be  controlled, and
if the envisioned control measures are cost  effective, then  it  would
follow that the exposures should be controlled.

     The creation of the TENR classification has been suggested so  that
agencies with responsibility for issuing guidance for radiation expos-
ures and setting exposure standards can differentiate between natural
(background) exposure and the occurrences which were previously referred
to as natural radiation anomalies.  For instance, if one  obtains a  gamma
radiation measurement of 100 viR/h in Grand Junction, Colo.,  the extra-
polated yearly exposure of 876 mrem/y is not due to background  exposure,
as it might be in parts of India or Brazil;  rather, the excess  gamma
(788 mrem/y, assuming 10 yR/h background) is due to TENR  (in all  likeli-
hood, uranium mill tailings).  It is suggested  that the development of a
TENR category would do away with the present inconsistent attitude  that
allows concern for exposure to manmade sources  of radiation  (radio-
isotopes and nuclear reactors) and ignores the  equivalent levels of
exposure if they are from a material that was  not designed to produce
radiation, such as fertilizer.  TENR would not  be limited to the surface
of the earth.  Such exposures as that received  from cosmic radiation
during supersonic air travel would also be technologically enhanced
natural radiation.  The sources of TENR which  are presently  being considered
are discussed below, and it is estimated that many  other  technologies may
be causing unknown significant exposures.
                                 57
-------
                         Ore Mining and Milling
     Naturally radioactive nuclides are present in  various  ores  that are
not mined for a naturally radioactive element such  as  uranium.   The
concentration of the natural  radioactive elements will  vary even in the
same type of ore in different geographic areas.  Thus,  finding  certain
concentrations of radium in association with an ore in  one  location does
not necessarily mean that the same type of ore may  present  a possible
health hazard in another geographic location.   For  instance, the wastes
from a fluorspar operation near Golden, Colo., produce  gamma radiation
levels of about 1 mR/h, and the waste pile is controlled by the  State's
Division of Occupational and Radiological  Health; however,  fluorspar ore
near Beatty, Nev., produces radiation  typical of background levels.

     The evaluation of possible radiological health hazards associated
with ore and waste products is really just beginning.   The  fact  that the
radiation was present in various ores has been known;  but by law, unless
the ore contained uranium or thorium in concentrations  that equal or
exceed 0.05 percent (separately or combined),  the possession,  processing,
and disposal of the ore is not licensed or controlled.   However, this
does not mean that nonlicensed material is safe.  Proof that the removal
of uranium from uranium ore with less than 0.05 percent remaining in the
waste tailings did not render the tailings harmless so  that they could
be used for construction material, was finally accepted in  about 1970.
Thus, wastes from all mining and milling activities should  be evaluated
before disposal or reuse.

     The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and  its  predecessor
programs in the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)  have  been  involved with
the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Energy Research and Development
Administration (ERDA), and the States in evaluating the possible health
effects from uranium mill tailings.  The EPA,   in cooperation with  State
Health Departments, is now in the process of evaluating the products,
byproducts, and use of waste associated with the phosphate  industry
(3, 2,3.3).
                          Uranium Mill Tailings


     The wastes from uranium mills will be discussed in this section and
uranium mining and milling will be discussed in a later section dealing
with the uranium fuel cycle.  These wastes, uranium mill  tailings,  have
been the subject of various investigative research projects since the
1950's, when potable and agricultural water supplies in Farmington,
N.M., were determined to have high radium concentrations.   The source of
this radium was eventually traced to the uranium mill  at Durango, Colo.,
which was located on the Animas River, a tributary of the San Juan
River.  The wastes from uranium mills, at that time, were usually
discharged directly to the environment, and the material  could enter
                                  58
-------
directly or seep into a ,y nearby rivers.   This practice was ended,  and
storage lagoons or tailings ponds came into use.   These ponds did not
require a new technology since raffinate and pregnant liquor ponds  (for
mills with dual uranium/vanadium circuits) were already in use.

     Little or no sealing or bottom-of-pond preparation was done, since
in theory, the fines contained in the tailings slurry were expected to
fill in the pores or void spaces in the soil and prevent seepage.  In
addition, most of the tailings ponds are designed with catchment basins
downgradient from the dike ':** dam where the seepage (that comes  to  the
surface) is collected and pumped back to the pond system.  However,
present reports indicate that seepage is not prevented by "fines-sealing,"
and in some of the largest mill  waste retention systems, about 30 percent
of the ponded liquids seep out of the pond and into the surface  or
ground water (3.4-3.6).   At the large mills, 30 percent of the mill
effluent can be significant, on the order of 674 million liters  per
year.  It is estimated that this has contributed 1.1  curies of radium to
the ground water in the vicinity of the mill (3.7).

     The ore feed to the mills has been estimated to  average 0.25 percent
U30e.  Usually, the radioactive nuclides of the 238U  decay chain are in
equilibrium.  Thus, the uranium daughters will all  have the same activity.
This activity may be calculated by multiplying 290 times each 0.1 percent
U308.  Thus, 290 x 2.5 = 725 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) of tailings.
Almost all of the radium and thorium daughters contained in the  ore feed
eventually are discharged to the waste system.  Thus, the uranium mill
tailings will contain about 725 pCi/g of radium-226 and thorium-230,
based on the average 0.25 percent U308.

     Uranium mill tailings piles are currently categorized as active or
inactive depending on the site activity, and the following subclassi-
fications can be used:

     1.  Active (in use).  These piles are located at an active  uranium
mill site and are receiving wastes.

     2.  Active (not in use).  These piles are located at an active
site; but they have been filled and are no longer receiving wastes, or
the mill has been temporarily closed for modification.

     3.  Active (standby).  The mill has been closed  temporarily to
upgrade and repair the facility but will  be reopened.

     4.  Inactive (standby).  These sites exist at mills that are not
processing ore.  The owner has put the mill in "moth-balls" but  might
reopen if economically beneficial.
                                  59
-------
     5.  Inactive (controlled).   Mill  buildings may have been dismantled,
but the owner is still responsible for the tailings piles under author-
ities held by a State or Federal agency.

     6.  Inactive (abandoned).   No mill owner responsibility (either the
land has been sold or returned to the original land owner).

      he radioactivity contained in these piles will, if not controlled,
migrate to and contaminate the environment through air and water path-
ways.  The magnitude of the possible copulation exposures, in general,
can be estimated for the various classifications depending on the
presence or absence of ponded liquid on the surface of the particular
tailings pile.  As viewed at present, the pathways involved that can
result in radiation exposure to the general public from uranium mill
tailings are:

     1.  Whole body gamma irradiation directly from the pile itself or
from the deposition of windborne material.

     2.  Deposition of radionucl ides in the body or in an organ of the
body because of the ingestion of water or food that has been contam-
inated by material from the milling operation.

     3.  Deposition of radionucl ides in the body or in an organ of the
body because of inhalation, primarily alpha irradiati'on of the pulmonary
region.  Deposition in other areas of the body can also occur after
inhalation if the material is cleared from the pulmonary region.

     If the surface of a tailings pile is covered with liquid, the
tailings material cannot be removed by the wind, and the water will slow
up the radon being exhaled from the solids below.   The water,  however,
may seep out the boctom or the sides of the tailings pond and the radium
can enter the environment, or as the water seeps through the underlying
tailings solids, additional radium can be dissolved by leaching.

     EPA believes that the radiation dose to the pulmonary region of the
lung is the critical pathway, but population exposure by the three modes
previously mentioned may be prevented by either one or a combination of
two different control actions:  one, controlling and stabilizing the
tailings pile which will also protect the surrounding environment; and
two, providing land exclusion areas between the tailings piles and the
general population.  The second method, although preventing exposure to
people, does not protect the immediate environment.

     As soon as a tailings pond no longer has liquid added to it, the
tailings begin to dry due to evaporation and seepage.  Eventually, the
surface will dry, allowing the wind to pick up the particulate material.
For this mode, thorium-230 is believed to be the critical nuclide,
exceeding the radiation concentration guide in some cases; however,
radium-226, polonium-210, and lead-210 are also usually present.
                                   60
-------
     During the constant radioactive decay occurring in all  of the three
natural chains discussed in terrestrial  radiation,  an element, which is
an inert or noble gas, named radon is formed.   The  isotopes  are 219Rn
called, historically, actinon from the uranium-235  chain;  220Rn called
thoron from the thorium-232 chain, and 222Rn called radon  from the
uranium-238 chain.

     Uranium-235 is normally present in very small  quantities  and the
half-life of actinon (219Rn) is 4.0 seconds; thus,  there will  never be
much 2i9Rn exhaled from tailings material.  Similarly,  thoron  (220Rn)
also has a short half-life (55 seconds),  and thoron would  not  diffuse
very far in tailings material.  The subsequent daughters after radon are
metals which form particulates, thus; they will  be  trapped in  the tailings
matrix.  Because of the low abundance and very short half-lives, these
two radon isotopes are not usually considered to contribute  to the
health effects calculated for uranium mining and uranium mill  tailings.
However, if one was associated with a material that contained  larger
concentrations of thorium-232, such as thorium mining or a manufacturing
process that utilized thorium, then there might be  a hazard  created by
the thoron daughters.

     Radon-222, the radioactive radon isotope from  the uranium-238 decay
chain, has a relatively long half-life (3.8 days).   The elasticity or
relaxation length in the tailings material will  be  about 1.5 meters, or
1.5 meters of soil will reduce the radon exhalation by about two-thirds
(1/e). This is about 10 times greater than the thickness required to
reduce the gamma ray exposure rate by the same factor (3.8).

     Originally, the concern regarding radon was exposure  to uranium
miners.  The radon-222 itself produces only about 5 percent  of the
radiation dose (alpha energy) that contributes to the biological hazard.
The main hazard comes from the radon daughters,  specifically,  the short
half-life radon daughters.  These daughters are 218Po,  21tfPb,  214Bi,
and 214Po, also referred to as RaA, RaB,  RaC and RaC',  respectively.
Since more than one nuclide is involved,  a total energy unit was developed
which precluded having to determine the concentration of each  nuclide.
This unit, the working level (WL), was also designed to be a safe occu-
pational level of exposure.  Thus, at the time of development, a uranium
miner could work in an atmosphere containing one WL and the  exposure
received would be acceptable.  (This "safe" level has now  been reduced
by a factor of 3).

     One WL is defined as any mixture of short half-life radon daughters
in a liter of air which will ultimately produce 1.3 x 105  MeV  of alpha
energy.  Also, 100 pCi of 222Rn per liter of air in equilibrium with its
short half-life daughters will produce 1.3 x 105 MeV of alpha  energy or
1 WL of exposure.  Further, if a miner worked 8 hours per  day, 5 days
per week for a month (actually based on 170 hours of exposure) in a 1 WL
atmosphere, then he would receive a one working level-month  exposure
(WLM).  This same exposure for one year would be 12 WLM which  was orig-
inally a "safe" yearly occupational exposure.
                                  61
-------
     The studies or risk associated with the inhalation of radon,  specif-
ically, the short half-life radon daughters, were originally limited to
miners and the mining industry.   Host dealt with the uranium industry.
With the discovery that uranium mill tailings with substantial  radium
concentrations were being used for construction material,  health officials
suspected that elevated WL exposures would be present in the homes built
with or over tailings because the radon could diffuse through the  material
used in the structure.  Once radon reaches the inside of a habitable
structure, the radon daughters that are formed can lead to elevated
exposures of the occupants.

     Elevated radon daughter exposures in the "new" environment, the
home, were first observed in Grand Junction, Colorado, in 1966; and it
was subsequently determined that tailings had been supplied for con-
struction purposes since about 1953.  In August 1970, the Public Health
Service provided guidance to the State of Colorado concerning gamma
radiation and radon daughter exposures.  Referred to as the Surgeon
General's Guidance, the document provided for an upper level, above
which remedial or corrective action was suggested; a lower level,  below
which no action was believed necessary; and an intermediate region where
the decision for action was based on further evaluation of the specific
location.  The working level guidance values were 0.05 WL and 0.01 WL,
and the gamma radiation values were 0.1 mR/h and 0.05 mR/h above
background, upper and lower guides, respectively.  As a result of the
Grand Junction studies, two computer data bases were developed.  Both of
these systems are still in use, and printouts are furnished to the users
by the EPA routinely and upon request.  The active gamma data base is
now operated for the State of Colorado by a Grand Junction ERDA contractor.

     Gamma surveys of Mesa County, Colorado, structures, with the owners
approval, were made by radiation monitors using portable radiation
detection instruments (Nal scintillometers).  Initial surveys in other
communities were performed with a mobile gamma scanning unit developed
by the PHS facility in Las Vegas, Nevada.  The discovery of radiation
anomalies in other communities led to the development of a more sensitive
mobile gamma scanning unit.

     The initial surveys with the new unit, which belonged to the AEC,
were performed in Grand Junction and the necessary adaptations for its
use were developed by Lucius Pitkin, Inc. (LPI), the prime contractor
for the AEC at the Grand Junction Operations Office.  By August 1972,
surveys of about 90 communities in 10 Western States (Arizona, Colorado,
Idaho, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington,  and
Wyoming) were completed by LPI for the EPA.  Any anomalies in the natural
gamma radiation levels discovered by the contractor were provided to the
EPA and investigated by an EPA field survey team.  Reports for each
community and a State summary of the cqmmunity surveys were then furnished
to the appropriate State agencies.
                                  62
-------
     Studies of the radon exhaled from uranium mill  tailings sites were
initiated in 1967.  The PHS, AEC, and the Colorado and Utah State Health
Departments cooperated in the joint project.   The results of this study
indicated that, beyond the distance of 0.5 mile from the tailings pile,
the ambient radon level could not be statistically distinguished from
the community's background 222Rn level (3.9,3.10).

     The background concentrations of radon-222 (pCi/£)  in the four
community studies for the period 1967-1968 were:   0.5 pCi/£, Durango,
Colo.; 0.3 pCi/£, Monticello, Utah; 0.4 pCi/£, Salt Lake City, Utah;  and
0.8 pCi/£, Grand Junction, Colo. (3.9).

     A second year study was performed at Grand Junction, Colorado,
during 1974 and 1975.  This study confirmed the original background
concentration (0.8 pCi/£); however, the average radon concentration over
the surface of the uranium mill  tailings pile was three times higher
after stabilization (1975) then  before the pile was stabilized (1968).
Statistical studies performed also indicated that in the downwind
direction the elevated radon concentration was significant.  Although
the concentration did not exceed 1.0 pCi/£ beyond about 5/8 of a mile,
the increase in the downwind direction was significant;  it was different
than the upwind stations (3.11).

     Environmental surveys have  also been performed for tailings piles
at Tuba City, Ariz.; Mexican Hat, Utah;  Monument Valley, Ariz.;  and Salt
Lake City, Utah (3.12-3.16)^.  All of these surveys indicated that the
sites should not be used without stabilization of the tailings niles,
and that the surface of the pile should not be used or developed.

     These above studies, although performed at different communities
and utilizing data collected at  multiple locations within the community,
have all been concerned with only one major source of radon, the uranium
mill tailings pile.  The EPA has now also completed a study concerned
with multiple radon sources in an area.   This study was performed in the
Ambrosia Lake area of New Mexico (3.17).  The radon sources in this area
include inactive uranium mill tailings piles, active uranium mill tailings
piles, uranium mills, ore storage piles at mines and mills, windblown
tailings and/or ore dust, natural uranium-bearing formations, mine
ventilation exhaust, and ion exchange plants.  This study indicates that
ambient outdoor radon concentrations and the indoor radon daughter
levels (WL) exceed the typical background level in the vicinity of the
uranium mines and mills (3.17).

     The concentrations detected at Ambrosia Lake appear similar to
levels detected in other studies, i.e. elevated radon and WL measurements
are found in close proximity to  radon sources; but beyond some distance,
such as a half mile, concentrations do not exceed 1  pCi/£ 222Rn.  However,
since differences in the downwind direction are measurable, efforts to
evaluate the radiation exposures to the general population occupying the
immediate vicinity at all of the uranium mining and milling operations
should be undertaken.
                                  63
-------
     In 1973, the AEC and EPA indicated to Congress that comprehensive
studies should be made of all of the uranium mill  tailings  piles under
an overall plan rather than surveying each pile separately.   The above
recommendation was accepted, and a joint AEC/EPA project was started.

     During April 1974, a report was prepared for the Climax Site in
Grand Junction, Colo.  This report was used as the format for the other
Phase I site reports.  The Grand Junction work was followed by visits  to
each of the other sites by a team consisting of an AEC representative,
EPA representatives from the Office of Radiation Programs in Las Vegas
and the EPA region concerned, a representative of the concerned State's
radiological health program, and, when possible, a representative of the
milling company.  Surveys at all of the sites were completed in May, and
the Phase I reports were submitted to Congress in October 1974 (3.18).
The sites included in these reports are shown in table 3-1.

     After submission of the Phase I reports, the second phase was
started.  The purpose of the planned Phase II work at the inactive
tailings pile sites was to determine the costs of various types of
remedial action for a particular site.  This work will be accomplished
by an architect-engineering firm under contract to ERDA.  The first
Phase II study was started in mid-1975 at the Vitro site in Salt Lake
City, Utah.  The selected architect-engineering firm (Ford, Bacon and
Davis, Utah, Inc.) issued the report on this site in April  1976 (3.19).
The document contains considerations of the following topics:

     1.  Vitro Mill Site Description
     2.  Radioactivity and Pollutant Impact on the Environment
     3.  Impact of the Vitro Site on Land Use and Social Values
     4.  Recovery of Residual Uranium Values
     5.  Mill Tailings Stabilization
     6.  Offsite Remedial Action
     7.  Long-Term Storage Site Selection
     8.  Vitro Site Remedial Action
     9.  Remedial Action Criteria

     The remedial actions considered in the Phase II report include
controlling only the access to the site, stabilizing the pile in place,
and removing the tailings from the site.  The removal option includes
relocation at eight different sites; four sites in the Salt Lake Valley
and four outside of the valley.  The total estimated costs for each of
the 10 remedial action options considered varied from $550,000 to over
$30 million (3.19).  Phase II data are expected to be collected from all
of the inactive uranium mill sites (table 3-1) by the end of the 1976
calendar year.  At present, draft Phase II reports have been issued for
the four Navajo Nation sites:  Mexican Hat, Utah; Shiprock, N.Mex.; and
Monument Valley and Tuba City, Ariz.

     The EPA has also been directly concerned with remedial action at
the inactive uranium mill site near Shiprock, N.Mex.  This site was
operated from 1954 to 1968.  The operating companies during this period
                                  64
-------
    Table 3-1.  Phase I inactive uranium mill site reports (3.18)
State
Arizona



Colorado








Idaho
New Mexico



Oregon
Texas

Utah



Wyoming
Location
Monument Valley

Tuba City

Durango
Grand Junction
Gunnison
Maybell
Naturita
Rifle (old)
Rifle (new)
Slickrock (UCC)
Slickrock (NC)
Lowman t
Ambrosia Lake

Shiprock

Lakeview
Falls City
Ray Point
Green River
Mexican Hat

Salt Lake City
Converse County
Present owner*
or
former mill owner**
The Navajo Nation*
Foote Mineral Company**
The Navajo Nation*
El Paso Natural Gas**
Foote Mineral Company*
American Metals, Climax Div.**
Gunnison Mining Co.**
Union Carbide Corporation*
Foote Mineral Company*
Union Carbide Corporation*
Union Carbide Corporation*
Union Carbide Corporation*
Union Carbide Corporation*
Porter Brothers*
Phillips 66*
United Nuclear**
The Navajo Nation*
Foote Mineral Company**
Atlantic Richfield Company*
Susquehanna Western**
Exxon, USA*
Union Carbide Corporation***
The Navajo Nation*
A Z Minerals**
Vitro Corp. of America**
Phelps Dodge Company*
Size of tailings pile
(tons)

1 ,200,000

800,000
1,555,000
1,900,000
540,000
2,600,000
704,000
350,000
2,700,000
350,000
37,000
90,000

2,600,000

1 ,500,000
130,000
2,500,000
490,000
123,000

2,200,000
1 ,700,000
187,000
   ***
      Property owned by Union Carbide but currently leased to the U.S. Air Force.

   tNo chemical processing was involved at this site.   Heavy minerals in the
dredge concentrate from placer deposits were upgraded  by physical methods.
                                        65
-------
were Kerr McGee, Vanadium Corporation of America (VGA) and its successor
Foote Mineral Company, in chronological order.   The property contained
in the site was located on the Navajo Reservation and leased from the
Navajo Nation.  In 1973, this site was returned to the Navajo Nation and
the Navajo Nation requested assistance from the EPA through the PHS
Indian Health Service.  The Navajo Nation was using the site and structures
to provide a heavy equipment operators school for the Navajo people.

     The Navajo Nation requested the EPA to:

     1.  Determine the radiation exposures present.

     2.  Evaluate the exposures and determine if any health hazards
exist.

     3.  Determine the various options for remedial action, if necessary.

     4.  Assist in planning the necessary program to achieve the option
chosen.

     5.  Provide health physics expertise during the remedial action.

     Thus, in cooperation with the Navajo Nation's Environmental Protection
Commission,  the Indian Health Service's Window Rock Area Office, and the
State of New Mexico's Radiological Health Unit; the ORP Las Vegas facility
responded to the request.

     To date, the remedial action at the site is the largest decon-
tamination effort ever undertaken.  The area being decontaminated consists
of about 350 acres and removal of tailings material varying in thickness
from about 3 inches to 20 feet has been required.  At completion (expected
to be during 1977), the radiation exposures  in the area involved will
have been reduced to as near background as possible and the tailings
material will be stabilized (interim stabilization) to prevent further
erosion.  Other remedial action may be taken after consideration of the
Phase  II report for this site.


Predicted doses

     The necessity of any one of the possible remedial actions is based
on predicted population exposures and  the predicted health effects  that
would  result in the exposed population.  EPA has estimated the radiation
doses  to an  individual and the population (3.20,3.21).  Table 3-2
presents the results for six inactive  tailings piles.

     Dose calculations have also been  performed by Ford, Bacon & Davis
Utah,  Inc. and appear in the Phase II  Vitro  Report (3.19).  This report
also contains the predicted health effects and cost/benefit considerations.
The health effect referred to is a fatal lung cancer and the health
benefit (health effect avoided) for the eight options considered varied
from 2-25 health effects avoided for the first 25 years after remedial
action.  These increased to 13-490 by  considering a 200-year period.
The calculated cost/benefit for the options  ranged from $20,000 to
$60,000 per  health effect avoided for  the 200-year period  (3.19).
                                   66
-------
Table 3-2.  Radiation dose rates for selected inactive uranium mill
            tailings piles (3.20)
Tail ings
pile
Salt Lake City,
Utah
Grand Junction,
Colorado
Mexican Hat,
Utah
Monument Val ley,
Arizona
Tuba City,
Arizona
Shiprock,
Dose to bronchial
epithelium of
critically exposed
individual
(mrem/y)
14,000
8,100
1,200
140
2,100
900
Aggregate lung dose
rate to the population
within 80 km
(organ-rem/y)
70,000
14,000
660
2.5
470
840
  New Mexico
                                67
-------
                    Phosphate Mining and Processing


     The  fact that uranium, thorium and radium occurred in phosphate
 rock throughout  the world has been known for several years, but the
 information was  primarily obtained for geological identification purposes.
 However,  with the realization that radon from uranium mill tailings can
 cause  significant exposures to the general public, these other sources
 of radon  have come under scrutiny by health physicists.  Initial field
 studies were performed by EPA in the Southeastern United States, primarily
 Florida since, as reported, 91 percent of the phosphate rock mined comes
 from Florida.  Tennessee produces 3 percent, and the remainder comes
 from the  States  of Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming.  Phosphate
 deposits  also occur in North and South Carolina and Georgia.  The devel-
 opment of the deposits in North Carolina is now underway; however, no
 development is known  to be underway in the other two States.  The results
 of the field efforts  have been reported by EPA (3.2).

     One  of the  first steps in processing phosphate ore in Idaho is
 roasting  or calcining.  Preliminary laboratory analysis indicated that
 during this process,  about 85 percent of the naturally occurring polonium-210
 volatilized.  A  field effort was started to determine the actual discharge
 levels and determine  the effectiveness of certain control technologies.

     Plants which process the phosphate rock are located throughout the
 United States; most produce fertilizer.  In general, there are four
 types  of  facilities:  (1) mines, (2) beneficiation,  (3) phosphate milling
 and manufacturing, and (4) fertilizer production.


 Mines

     Two  techniques are used, wet and dry mining.  Wet mining is practiced
 in North  Carolina and Florida; dry mining is used in Tennessee and most
 Western States  (3.22).

     At a wet process mine, the ore is stacked in a  suction well or
 sluice pot and  high pressure water is used to produce a slurry which  is
 pumped to a washer plant.  The rock mined with dry mining techniques  is
 transported  to  the beneficiation plant or mill by rail or truck.


 Benefiliation

     Much of  the western phosphate rock can be used  in mills without
'upgrading the P205 percentage.  However, beneficiation by physical
 separation is necessary for most of the F.lorida  and  North Carolina ore
 (3.22).   The  beneficiation process produces marketable phosphate ore  and
 two  separated wastes; slimes which go to a slime pond and sand tailings
 which  go  to  a tailings pile.
                                    68
-------
Phosphate milling and manufacturing

     The marketable phosphate rock can be processed by either of two
types of facilities, a wet process phosphoric acid plant or an electric
furnace plant.

     The ground phosphate rock is mixed with 93 percent sulfuric acid
and water in the wet process plant.  Following this reaction in an
attack vessel which produces phosphoric acid and gypsum, the mixture is
filtered.  The slurried gypsum is pumped to a pile near the facility
when it is allowed to dewater.  The phosphoric acid can then be used to
produce two other major products, triple super phosphate and ammonium
phosphate fertilizers:

     Filter phosphoric acid + ammonia—*-ammonium phosphate

     Filtered phosphoric acid + marketable phosphate rock	*-triple
     superphosphate

     An electric furnace plant utilizes phosphate rock, silica and coke
to form elemental phosphorus.  Ferrophosphorus and calcium silicate slag
are also produced.
Fertilizer production

     Fertilizers are produced to provide biologically available nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potassium.  Approximately 80 percent of the domestic-
marketable phosphate rock is utilized to manufacture various types of
fertilizers throughout the United States (3.23).   Thus, after the pre-
viously described mining and processing steps, thousands of different
fertilizer formulations are produced to fit individual soil and crop
needs from the building blocks of the fertilizer industry (superphosphates,
phosphoric acid, potassium cloride and ammonium).   Because of the bulk
blending and mixing, it is impossible to determine the basic phosphate
origin of a specific formulation once it has been mixed.  This is unfor-
tunate since, although the phosphorus content of a 10-10-10 fertilizer
product made from different basic phosphate materials would be the same,
the naturally radioactive decay chain product concentrations could differ
greatly depending upon which basic phosphate material was used, as shown
in table 3-3 (3.23).
Radiation studies

     In the United States, thorium and uranium concentrations in phosphate
rock range from 2 to 19 ppm (0.4 to 4 pCi/g) and 8-399 ppm (5.4 to
267 pCi/g), respectively (3.22).  The highest and lowest concentrations
were reported in South Carolina and Tennessee, respectively.   In general,
higher concentrations are associated with marine deposits.  It has also
been shown that, as with other ore such as uranium,  the uranium or

                                   69
-------
  Table  3-3.   Natural  radioactivity concentrations  in  Florida  phosphate
              ore,  waste,  and  fertilizer materials  (3.23)
                                            Concentrations  (pCi/g)
      Material
226Ra
238y
a29 percent acid
230Th
232Th
Marketable rock
SI imes
Sand tailings
Normal superphosphate
Diammonium phosphate
Concentrated superphosphate
Monoammonium phosphate
Phosphoric acida
Gypsum
42
45
8
21
6
21
5
<1
33
41
44
5
20
63
58
55
25
6
42
48
4
18
65
48
50
28
13
0.4
1.4
0.9
0.6
0.4
1.3
1.7
3.1
0.3
thorium and their daughter products exist in secular equilibrium, i.e.
members of the same series will be present in equal activities.  The
mining and processing of the phosphate ores redistributes these naturally
radioactive nuclides among the various products, byproducts, and wastes.
Thus, the materials are dispersed throughout the environment.

     At present, the wastes (slag, slime, gypsum, and overburden) are
being evaluated to determine their radioactive contribution to the envi-
ronment.  Recommendations against the use of slag in building materials
have been provided by the EPA to the State of Idaho.  Some foreign
countries use waste gypsum for the manufacture of wallboard, and this
use is being studied.  Although, no waste gypsum is presently known to
be used in the manufacture of wallboard in the United States, samples of
this product have been imported from other countries for laboratory
analyses.  Wallboard using byproduct gypsum was supposedly produced in
the United States at one location during the 1940's.

     Much of the land mined for phosphate has been reclaimed by replacing
the overburden removed to reach the phosphate ore.   Habitable structures
built on this reclaimed land are now being evaluated in Florida.  To
date, measurements have been made in about 125 structures, two-thirds of
which were believed to have been built on reclaimed phosphate land (3.3).
In general, the data from the Florida study coupled with existing infor-
mation indicates that radium-226 concentrations in soil beneath struc-
tures significantly affects the radon daughter levels within the struc-
tures.  The data collected suggests that structures built on reclaimed
land have radon daughter levels significantly greater than structures
built elsewhere.

                                   70
-------
     The EPA is also investigating the radioactivity concentrations in
the products and by-products of the phosphate industry,  as well  as the
phosphate ore and waste.  The concentrations that have been determined
are shown in table 3-3.

     The data presented by Guimond (3. 23) indicated that as with other
ores, the nuclides of the uranium-238 chain are in equilibrium;  and the
gross radioactivity balancing of the input ore and the output products
of the "wet process" operations indicates that approximately 1  percent
of the radium-226, 60-80 percent of the thorium-230, and 80 percent of
the uranium-238 is dissolved during the acidulation by sulfuric  acid
(3.2).   This results in samples of phosphoric acid containing about 1000
pCi/l of radium-226 and uranium-238 concentrations ranging from  50,000
to 100,000 pCi/£ (3.24).

     Some fertilizer is used in all 50 States, but 10 States (table 3-4)
account for about 50 percent of the United States fertilizer consumption.
Potash fertilizers are not consumed at the same rate in  each State
because of the varying soil  conditions.  The 10 major potash-consuming
States are shown in table 3-5;  however, the 3 largest potash-consuming
States, Illinois, Iowa and Indiana are also among the largest phosphate
fertilizer-consuming States.

     Soluble nutrients and elements such as nitrogen, carbon, and sulfur
are generally recycled to a  large degree in the biosphere.  Other elements,
such as phosphorus and potassium, which lack a naturally-occurring
gaseous phase, must be continuously renewed since they do not have a
complete cycle.  These elements, if not intercepted by plants or held by
soils, have a one-way journey to the sea, although some  fraction of them
may be deposited in river beds  and other land during the journey.  This
is also the fate of many trace  materials such as the various radio-
nuclides that are incorporated  with potassium and phosphate nutrients
(3.25).   Thus, in the United States,  the greatest amount of radioactivity
from agricultural runoff is  probably received by the Mississippi River
Basin (table 3-6) (3.23).

     The potential uptake of the radionuclides by plants provides the
exposure pathway for these radionuclides present in fertilizer.   Po-
tassium is homoestatically controlled in the body; thus, the uptake of
4°K should not be as variable as the uptake and subsequent impact of the
naturally-occurring radionuclides.   Therefore, the phosphate fertilizers
are of primary interest.

     The present knowledge about the uptake, the various nuclides, and
the parameters that affect the  uptake makes it difficult to quantify the
national  impact from the uptake of radionuclides in the  food supply due
to fertilizer use, but the radioactivity content of various fertilizer
"building blocks" could be used to minimize any potential  impact.  As
can be seen in table 3-7,  a  fertilizer with a phosphoric acid base would
contribute the least radium-226, which would also be the least radium
per gram of P205.  The fertilizer made with normal superphosphate
(table 3-7)  would contribute the most (s. 23).

                                 71
-------
Table 3-4.  Estimated radioactivity distribution in the major States
            using phosphate fertilizers during 1974 (3.23)

State
Illinois
Iowa
Texas
Indiana
Ohio
Minnesota
Missouri
Kansas
California
North Carolina
Total United States
Consumption
(xlO3 MT P205)
432
360
269
265
246
243
172
162
161
142
4657

226Ra
15.1
12.6
9.4
9.3
8.6
8.5
6.0
5.7
5.7
5.0
163
Quantity (curies)
238u
108
90
67
66
61
60
43
40
40
35
1160
•

230Tn
111
93
69
68
63
63
44
42
41
37
1190
      Table 3-5.
Estimated radioactivity in the major States
using potash fertilizers in 1974 (3.23)
State
Illinois
Iowa
Indiana
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Georgia
Florida
Missouri
North Carolina
Consumption
(xlO3 MT K20)
549
417
366
293
281
246
220
210
197
185
(CD
382
292
255
204
196
172
153
146
137
129
     Total  United States
                      4610
3214
                                  72
-------
 Table  3-6.   Estimated  radioactivity  present in  phosphate fertilizers used
             during  1974  in  States  bordering the Mississippi  (3.23)
State
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Missouri
Wisconsin
Kentucky
Tennessee
Mississippi
Arkansas
Louisiana
Consumption
(xlO3 MT P205)
432
360
243
172
127
102
87
79
73
65
(Ci)
15.1
12.6
8.5
6.0
4.4
3.6
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.3
(Ci)
108
90
60
43
32
25
22
20
18
16
230Th
(Ci)
111
93
63
44
33
26
22
20
19
17
   Total
1740
61
434
448
       Table 3-7.  Relative radioactivity of phosphate fertilizers (3.22)
                                   (pCi/g P205)
Phosphate fertilizer
                     2381J
                          232Th
Normal superphosphate
Concentrated superphosphate
Diammonium phosphate
Monoammonium phosphate
Phosphoric acid
112
44
12
10
3
107
121
137
115
169
95
100
141
104
188
3
3
1
3
21
                                     73
-------
     Additional exposure pathways being examined include external gamma
radiation exposure.  Umwelt (3.28) has estimated that 0.11 mrad/y could
occur to the gonads and bone marrow from one field application of phosphate
fertilizer.  By utilizing a fertilizer application period of 80 years,
he calculated that an individual member of the population could have
received 1.7 mrad/y and agricultural workers, about 2 mrad/y.

     In addition, an inhalation pathway exists and exposures to airborne
particulate nuclides and radon daughters could result.  The highest
potential exposures in this pathway are believed to occur to phosphate
industry workers since they can come into contact with large amounts of
phosphate ores, products, and wastes.  Windham (3.2?) estimated the
direct gamma dose equivalent for these workers to be 10-300 mrem/y and
a maximum dose equivalent through inhalation of 6 rem/y.


                           Thorium Mining and Milling


     The commercial production of thorium in the United States has
usually been from monazite sands,  but a list of facilities has not been
compiled nor made available to EPA;  thus,  thorium mining and milling
operations have not yet received extensive study.   One,  now inactive,
operation in Salmon, Idaho,  was surveyed during the 1971  EPA mobile and
field team gamma evaluations.   No use of the waste material  from this
operation was discovered.

     A decontamination effort of a thorium processing facility is
planned by ERDA for 1977; thus, information about specific problem areas
may be available soon.
                         Radon in Potable Water Supplies
Ingestion pathway
     When a person obtains a glass of water from a consumer use point
such as a tap or faucet, any radon remaining in solution is ingested.
The maximum permissible concentration (mpc) for ingestion of radon in
water is 2000 pCi/£ as published in NBS Handbook 52, (3.28).   This value
was later considered conservative because it did not reflect the fact
that the bulk of the alpha energy is absorbed in the gut contents.
Recommended mpc's are absent from later compendia such as the Rules and
Regulations of the Atomic Energy Commission (3.29) and the Recommendations
of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (3.30), but
there is literature on the dose from radon ingestion (3.31-3.38).   In
these studies the stomach, the whole body, the liver, the kidneys, fat
and marrow have been considered as critical organs.  The organ receiving
the largest dose is the stomach where the dose to the walls has been
estimated to range from 0.24 to 0.44 mrem/nCi ingested (Q.F.=10),  depending
upon whether the stomach is full or empty at the time of ingestion
(3.37).

                                    74
-------
Inhalation

     If the domestic water containing radon is heated, as in cooking;
aerated, as in a shower or dishwasher; or agitated, as in hand dish-
washing or clothes washing machines; the radon should readily diffuse
from the water into the home atmosphere.  Once in the atmosphere, radon
daughters are formed by decay and are available for inhalation by the
occupants of the home.

     Initial calculations using a radon in water concentration of
500 pCi/£; a radon daughter equilibrium ratio of 1:0.9:0.5:0.35; a
complete air change each hour; other parameters as detailed by Resell,
et al. (3.39); and a dose conversion factor of 0.25 WLM/y equal to a
maximum dose of 4 rem/y at 60 urn depth in a 5th generation bronchus
produced a rather large person-rem exposure (5 x 105).  Further consid-
erations of the BEIR report (3.40) indicated that about 20 health effects
per year could result per 106 persons exposed.  This prompted the need
for a more exhaustive literature survey.
Review of radon-222 in ground water

     Radon exists in ground water at concentrations which are typically
much greater than its immediate precursor, 22GRa.   This occurs because
radon, as a noble gas, is freer to migrate into water than radium in
the rocks, sands and clays which make up aquifers.  Furthermore, the
daughters of radon typically occur at concentrations much lower than
equilibrium values, presumably because their chemically active nature
allows them to plate out upon the surfaces of the aquifer.  Investigations
have been made of radon in water for a variety of purposes, including
fundamental geological and geochemical investigations, mineral prospecting
and public health.  More recently associations have been suggested
between radon in certain natural waters and seismic activity so it is
likely that more data will become available as various seismic research
groups publish their findings.

     Seven sources of data on radon in water were examined.  Areas of
the United States covered were North Carolina (3.41), Maine (3.42),
Houston, Texas (3.43), Western United States (3.44), Hot Springs, Arkansas
(3.45)^ environs of Great Salt Lake, Utah (3. 46) and South Texas (3.47).
A variety of analytical methods were used.  The data from each report
were ploted as frequency distributions and compared.  The distribution
of data for drilled wells in Maine (3.42) indicated very much higher
radon levels than the other areas.  Rather than present individual
figures for each area, the available U.S. data (438 samples) except for
Maine have been combined into a single frequency distribution, figure 3-1.
Seventy-four percent of the ground water sources represented here fall
between 0 and 2000 pCi/£ with 26 percent above 2000 pCi/£, and 5 percent
above 10,000 pCi/£.  Many but not all of the samples were taken in areas
which were thought by the investigators to be high in natural  radioactivity
so the distribution is not representative of the entire U.S. ground
water supply (3.48).


                                  75
-------
                                         o
                                         o
                                         o
                                         o
                                                    a

                                                    8
                                                    X


                                                    3

                                                    T3


                                                    O
                                                    §
                                                    C
                                                    O
                                                    o
                                                       E

                                                      3
                                                    3
                                                    BO
76
-------
     Additional samples (69)  have now been obtained by EPA from Polk
County, Florida.  Thus, the U.S.  data (excluding the Northeast) now
contains 507 samples and the adjusted percentages indicate 75 percent
of the samples contain less than 2000 pd/l.   Five percent still  exceeds
10,000 pCi/£.

     The data reported from Maine in Smith's  report (3.42) were not
radon concentrations.  However, the complete  scientific report of the
project on which Smith's paper was based was  located and radon concen-
trations were reported (3.49).   This data includes 224 samples from
Maine and 32 samples from New Hampshire.  Although not as high as
originally believed, the Northeastern U.S. data are higher than radon
concentrations reported for the rest of the United States:  56 percent
exceed 2,000 pCi/£, 24 percent exceed 10,000  pCi/£, and 2 percent exceed
100,000 pCi/£ (figure 3-2).
Discussion

     The studies reviewed give a very general  idea of the range and
distribution of radon in ground waters.   With  few exceptions, however,
the data do not lend themselves to direct interpretation in terms of
public health.  This occurs for several  reasons.   The studies which were
geologically motivated did not confine their sampling to sources of
potable water and even the health-motivated studies usually reported
wellhead values rather than distribution system values.   Furthermore,
almost all the studies began with prior  knowledge of radioactivity in
the areas studied.  In addition, there is incomplete geographic coverage
of the United States.  Thus, it would be risky to generalize from the
existing data to the entire population.   What  is  clearly apparent from
the data is the fact that some potable ground  waters contain measurable
quantities of radon and that high, and in some cases extremely high,
concentrations of radon exist in waters  used for  domestic supplies.  The
extent of the occurrence of these very high values is not known at this
time.  The effect of treatment and distribution on radon levels in
finished drinking water is also unknown.
Limited field studies

     As the literature demonstrates, the domestic water used in a house-
hold may contain radon.  However, a radiation exposure to the occupants
will not result if the radon does not diffuse from the water; or if
the radon does diffuse, but the radon - radon daughter equilibrium is
kept low by increasing the number of air exchanges within the home.

     In order to determine if the radon in the water does diffuse into
the air and to determine the amounts that might be expected to diffuse,
shower and tub experiments were performed by Gesell in Houston and south
Texas (3.43).   The Houston, Texas, experiments are shown in figure 3-3.
The volume of the bathroom used in Houston was 6.65 m3 (including the
shower).  A shower curtain was used, allowing for air circulation in the
bathroom while the shower was in use.  The flow rate for both Houston
shower experiments was 13.4 £/min.
                                  77
-------
  100 i—
   80  —
o.  40
                                                   100 I—
    2,000    10,000     100,000      0°

                  Maine
                (244 Samples)
                                                a.  40
2,000     10,000    100,000      °°

            New Hampshire
             (32 Samples)
   100 r—
   80  —
~  60  - 56%
   20
    2,000     10,000    100,000

              Northeastern U.S.
                (256 Samples)
                                                   100
                                                   80
                                                 £  60
                                                 8
                                                 d)
                                                 °-  40
                                                          25%
2,000      10,000    100,000
               Other U.S.
             (507 Samples)
    Figure 3-2. Percent of samples exceeding indicated radon-222 concentrations
                                           78
-------
       16
       14
       12
    c
    c  10
    §   8

    §
    c
    CC.
   S   6
   CM
    •o
    0)

    I   4
    o>
                  • SHOWER-1
                  o SHOWER-2
                  A BATHTUB-1
  120
                                                             100
                                                                  o  jij
                                                                  '
  80   £ J
       « o
       c o

  60   "S
      CM  ^.
      1"
  40  5~
                                                             20
                        4      6      8      10      12

                       Time after start of water (min)
14
Figure 3-3. Houston, Texas.  Radon water-air transfer efficiency experiment
                                   79
-------
     During the first "wet" run, the radon in water concentration was
634 pCi/£.  Thus, during the 12 minute flow time,  1.02 x 105 pCi  radon
were available.  If all  the available radon diffused into the air,  the
air concentration would have been 15.3 pCi/£ (assuming negligible decay
in 12 minutes).  The actual measured air level  (less a background of 0.5
pC1A£) was 13.4 pCi/£.

     During the second run, the water flowed for 6 minutes;  the radon
concentration was 677 pCi/£ and the total  available radon was 5.44 x 1Qk
pCi.  If all the radon diffused, the air concentration would have been
8.2 pCi/£.  The measured concentration (less the 0.5 pCi/£ background)
was 7.7 pC1/£.

     In both the shower and tub experiments, the radon was collected in
scintillation cells (Lucas cells) and subsequently counted.   The bath-
room volume for the Houston tub experiment was 11.9 m3, and 50 liters of
water were added to the tub.  The radon concentration was 730 pd/i.
The 3.65 x 103 pCi of radon in the water,  if completely diffused, would
have produced an air concentration of 3.1  pCi/£.  The radon concen-
tration was still increasing after 15 minutes, but there were not enough
scintillation cells to continue sampling.

     The bathroom volume in the south Texas experiment was 10.9 m3, and
50 liters of water with a radon concentration of 17,200 pCi/£ were added
to the tub.  Since the 8.6 x 105 pCi of total radon that was available
could only have produced an air concentration in the bathroom volume of
78.9 pCi/£, the data  in figure 3-4 might  indicate that another source of
radon was available; either an undetected source (not likely since the
background measurement was 1.7 pCi/£) or for some reason more radon
entered in the water.  The most likely reason for the inconsistency is
that there was not complete air mixing in the bathroom since the samples
were collected directly over the tub water at sitting-head height.

     The bathroom is obviously only a small fraction of the total volume
of a normal house (approximately 200 m3).   Figure 3-5 serves to indicate
the type of air concentrations that would be expected in a house with
different radon concentrations in water; complete house air turnovers of
1/2, 1, and 2 changes per hour; daily water consumption of 1 m3; and a
radon water-air transfer efficiency of 0.5 for all uses.  Under these
assumptions, radon in water can make substantial additions to the average
background indoor radon concentration of  (0.1-0.5 pCi/£).

     One experiment has also been performed in Florida in a house that
was built on reclaimed phosphate land (3. SO).  The radon concentration
in the bathroom was 30.9 pCi/£ which was determined to be the ambient
level.  After running the shower for 10 minutes, the level in the
bathroom was determined to be 46.6 pCi/£.   Equipment to determine the
radon concentration in this water was not available.  A rough calculation
indicated a concentration of about 400 pCi/£.
                                  80
-------
       180
       140
   o
    a
    IB

    c
    o
       100
 c


 1
 o
 o
 c
 tr.
CM
CM

%
        60
        20
                  BATHTUB-2
                                                             50
                                                          40   ...
                                                               '5
                                                               c
                                                             30
                                                             20
                                                               c "7.
                                                               O  a>
                                                               'f  «}
                                                                  o 3-

                                                                  c§

                                                                 ?* !£>
                                                                 CM ^.
                                                                    '
                                                                  o
                                                                  a.
                                                             10
          0      2      4      6      8      10     12     14

                       Time after start of water (min)





Figure 3-4.  South Texas.  Radon water-air transfer efficiency experiment
                                  81
-------
 CO

 c
 c
 o
 2  2
 •M
 C


 I

 8

 c
 cc
SN
fM
CM
4000
                            12000           20000            28000


                            n concentration in water (pCi/£]
                      Figure 3-5. Estimated radon in air
                                      82
-------
     Additional data from Texas has now been collected by Gesell  (3.51).
Simultaneous indoor and outdoor radon concentrations have been collected
using an apartment in Houston.  The radon concentrations determined for
the apartment during a period when the apartment was vacant were  0.7-0.8
pCi/£ (indoor range 0.5-1.0 pCi/£) and the outdoor radon concentration
was 0.2-0.3 pCi/£.

     The sampling was continued when the family returned from vacation.
The family returned about 1530 (3:30 p.m.) when the radon concentration
was 0.6 pCi/£ inside the apartment.  The radon concentration began to
increase and reached 2 pCi/£ by 2300 and then decreased to about  0.7
pCi/£ by 0400-0700.  At about 0800, the radon levels again increased
reaching a peak of 2.4 pCi/£ about 1300.  The radon then decreased to
1.7 pCi/£ by 1600 and again increased to 2.2 pCi/£ about 2200.

     The radon sampling was continued for a 15-day period and the concen-
trations observed at the same time on each day were averaged.  The
resultant averages are shown in table 3-8.  The average radon concen-
tration during the period studied was 1.2 pCi/£.


Table 3-8.  Average indoor radon concentration for a 16-day period
            in Houston, Texas (December 1976-January 1977) (3.51)

Time
(24 hours)
0500
0700
0900
1100
1300
1500
Radon
concentration
(pCi/£)
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.4

Time
(24 hours)
1700
1900
2100
2300
0100
0300
Radon
concentration
(pCi/£)
1.4
1.35
1.5
1.6
1.3
0.9
     These data are the first experimental evidence that radon in potable
water does cause an increase in the indoor radon levels in a structure.
The radon concentration in the water is 1,600-2,000 pCi/£, but the
actual water usage has not been measured.
Summary and conclusions

     The usefulness of this set of radon-in-water data obtained from the
literature as a starting point for assessing the public health implica-
tions of this source of radiation exposure is limited by a number of
factors.  The accuracy of the individual  measurements, the sampling
                                  83
-------
strategy, the number of samples, and the source of the samples are
important.  Most of the data obtained for geochemical  reasons were
gathered from wells and springs irrespective of whether or not the water
was potable.  Much of the data gathered for public health reasons was
obtained from wells rather than from distribution systems or house taps.

     Based on the limited data in the United States, the distribution  and
range of reported radon concentrations in water is 0-30,000 pCi/£ with
25 percent of the locations exceeding 2,000 pCi/£ and 5 percent exceeding
10,000 pCi/£.  In granitic areas, the concentrations may be an order of
magnitude higher.  A large annual variation is not expected in a water
supply, and radon concentrations could decrease due to decay or other
loss between a water plant or wellhead and a consumer use point.

     The ingestion pathway for radon has been studied and most authors
consider dose to the stomach as the limiting dose.  If 2 liters of water
containing 10,000 pCi/£ are ingested daily, a dose of 25 mrem/week is
delivered to the stomach (3. 35).  However, the calculations presented
(figure 3-5) indicate the same 10,000 pCi/£ in water could result in an
air concentration of 1 pCi/£ (3.48).  The continuous inhalation of the
radon-daughters (1:0.9:0.5:0.35) from 1 pCi/£ of radon could result in a
dose to the bronchial epithelium of 80 mrem/week (4 rem/y).

     To examine this hypothesis, the following assumptions previously
determined by EPA were used (3.39):

     1.  House size = 227 m3 (8,000 ft3)

     2.  Bathroom size = 6 m3 (200 ft3) (5 ft. x 5 ft. x 8 ft.)

     3.  Ventilation rate = 1 complete change each hour

     4.  Radon to radon daughter equilibrium in house = 50 percent

     5.  Continuous exposure to a radon concentration of 1 pCi/£ produces
4 rem/y and 1 working level month (WLM) per year £16 rem/y.

     If the potable water being used in a dwelling contains 500 pCi/£,
the resultant 222Rn air concentration could be 0.15 pCi/£.  The contin-
uous exposure to this concentration could produce 500 mrem/y to the
bronchial epithelium.  Calculations on lung cancer fatalities based on
the BEIR Report  (3.40) indicate an estimated 20 health effects per year
(fatal lung cancers) per 106 persons exposed to these hypothetical
conditions.  However, there are many unknowns in the hypothetical exposure
conditions; thus, it must be remembered, these are only estimates and
are presently unsubstantiated.  Further efforts are being made to evaluate
this potential exposure source.
                                  84
-------
                          Radon in Natural Gas
     Natural gas as a source of radon and cause of subsequent population
exposures to consumers has been evaluated by the EPA (3.52).   The EPA
paper reviews data collected by many authors including Bunce, Barton,
Paul and Gesell (3.53-3.57).

     Radon in the geological  strata in which the gas wells are located
diffuses with the natural gas into the wells, and various modes of
storage and distribution were considered.  These included wellhead
concentration, well production rate, pipeline sources (gas from one area
mixing with another area), transmission time, and storage time.

     Doses to the bronchial epithelium were calculated assuming that
the radon concentration in the gas was 20 pCi/£, that 0.765 m3 of gas
was used in a kitchen range,  in a 226.6 m3 house with one air change per
hour.  The average air concentration was calculated to be 0.0028 pCi/£
and the tracheobronchial dose from unvented stoves and space heaters was
calculated to be 15 and 54 mrem/y, respectively (table 3-9).   The total
for the United States was calculated to be 2.73 million person-rem per
year (3. 52).
               Radon in Liquefied Petroleum Gas


     Most of the natural gas from well production fields is not distri-
buted directly to consumers.  It is first processed to remove impurities
and the heavier more valuable hydrocarbons. Methane is the principal
constituent of the natural gas.   The components ethane, propane and
other heavy hydrocarbons are bottled under pressure as liquefied petro-
leum gas (LPG) with propane as the major constituent.   This process may
remove from 21 to 96 percent of the radon in the natural gas (3,58).

     The exposures estimated in the EPA report, Assessment of Potential
Radiological Population Health Effects from Radon in Liquefied Petroleum
Gas (3.39)> for unvented kitchen ranges and space heaters were 0.9
and 4.0 mrem/y, respectively; 20,000 and 10,000 person-rem/y, respectively
or about 30,000 person-rem/y would result (table 3-9).
               Radon Daughter Exposures in Natural Caves


     The possibility that natural radioactivity might present a hazard
to people entering caves was first mentioned in 1968 (3.59).   Since that
time, several articles have been written about the problem and data
collected in various caves have been published (3.60-3.68).   The results
suggested a possible health hazard for National Park Service (NPS) cave
employees under an EPA standard which is enforced by the Occupational
                                  85
-------
 tO    '
 S-  Ni

+->
 (0
 c  01
    cu
M-  O
 O  C
    fO
 C  -r-
 O  i—
•r-  D-
4->  OL
 to  rO
_
    §0)
    -P
 O C
    0)
 OJ >
 E  C
 O T-
 S-
H~  01
     CO
•4->  cn
 o
 fO  E
 Q.  3
 E  0)

 "" "o

la •<->
 O  
•r-  Q.
 O)
 o -o
r—  (U
 O T-
•r- M-
-o  01
 fO  3
 S-  CT
 O)
 +-> -o
 tO  C
 E  to
 •r~
 -P  CO
 CO  tO
 UJ  CD
 CTl

 CO
 .O
  tO
T3
Sit
vU
4-> -E
to -P

•r- to
•P CD
01 .E
LU
§ 5
• r*- £=
1 d
•P CD CLK
IO CO $_
r- O 1
3 "0 E
Q. O
O CO
Q. 1-
CD
Q.

C
Q
•i- j*:
O -P ,
-p-C
•r- E
S- 0)
O S-
E
o — •
-p

(!)
CO
0
Q




^
tO
CJ

-p
•i —
S-
CJ























CO
-p
CJ
O)
4-
4-
0)

D
O
X
^_^







, — .
£>
o

X


>
•r—
ID
c~
•p-

cn
>
«=C




>
-a
E
•i —
X
fO
s:





ai
-a

cj
3
c



+j
o
tO
Q.
• r—
C
o
•r~
-P
fO
•5
re


<4-
o

CD
o
i_
3
O
CO









«3-
r^. LO
CO CO
r~^ CD







CO
•
LO LO
CM r—
<—






tO LO <3"
•I- i — LO
-C
CJ
C CO
o ai
S- 3
-Q CO
O CO
CD T-
-C -P
U LO O
IO CM LO
S~ i — CM
r— -=t


>,

>, cn
•C o
LO r—
i — 1
LO
^
oo
r^
K ~
CM ^

o
















CT>
VO
















CO
CM S-
CM CD
CM -P
1 c-
C cn
O 3
•a to
fO "D
C£. +



co
O) CO
cn s-
C CD
10 -P
i- to
CD
c _c
CD
-C CD
CJ O
-P to
•r- CL
-^ 01
O) --—
cn CD
to cn
co E
3 IO
•a - — •
CD
E
•p—
X5
O
CJ
co
tO "O ~O
cn ai ai
-p -P
i — C E
03 CD CD
i- > >
3 EC
-p :z> :r>
03
2:










CM r—
O O
O 0







CO CO
• •
i — CM
CM







rO O1 O
•r~ • •
-E O >3-
O
E CO
O CD
S- Z!
.a en
O CO
CD •!-
-E -P O O
O LO LO
tO 1^3
i-
1 »




>,
" —
I-H
V



CO
o
o


















cn
*
•^J-















co
CM S-
CM CD
CM -P
1 JE
E CD
O 3
-o to
to -a
C£ +



CO
CD CO
co cn S-
ta E CD
cn to -P
s. to
E CD
3 E .E
CD CD
r— -E  >
3—1 E E
CT 	 ZD rD
•r-
— 1









































s^
CD
CJ
E
to
O
cn
E
3
t-~

t*
CO
-P
rO
M—

03
CO
•p—
O
•P
•a
h
CD
4-
CU
i.
-P
CJ
O)
M-
M-
CD

-C
+J
i — -
03
CD
:E
*
                                                                   86
-------
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  This standard, the uranium
mining radiation exposure standard, sets a limit for exposure to radon
daughters for uranium miners of 0.3 WL.  The NPS is currently determining
the radon and thorium concentrations in all the NPS-administered caves
in which tours for visitors are regularly conducted (3.68).

     These caves are usually characterized by relatively uniform interior
temperatures during the year.  Thus at times, usually during the winter,
there will be an interchange of interior air with outside air, and the
radon concentrations in the cave will  be diluted with outside air.
During the summer, the outside temperature will probably be higher than
inside and very little air exchange should occur.   Thus, during the
summer when visitor use would be expected to be the greatest, the working
level (WL) exposure is also estimated to be the highest.  However, use
of elevator shafts, etc., could cause different effects.

     The data plots prepared by the NPS suggest seasonal variations and
based upon the initial data obtained they hypothesize that,  "all caves
having minimal manmade disturbances (such as tunnels, elevator shafts,
bore holes, sealed and closed gates, etc.) which would alter the natural
cave airflows experience seasonal  variations ... increase in summer but
decrease in winter, based upon natural air movements through the cave
system."  However, the fluctuations are not the same and actually depend
upon the configuration of the cave and the cave's control of airflows.
The NPS has identified two main cave configurations:  (1) "Right-side-
up" and (2) "Up-side-down" (3.68).   These may be envisioned  by thinking
of the "normal" cave (a flat surface and one decends into the cave which
has tunnels at different depths or levels below the surface  that are
essentially horizontal).  This cave would be "right-side-up."  In a "up-
side-down" cave, one enters below the cave level and actually goes up to
tour the cave. Such a cave might be located inside a hill,  bank, or
mountain (figure 3-6).

     These two types of caves produce different airflow patterns and;
thus, different levels of radon and radon daughters result.   If there is
good airflow, the radon daughter concentrations will remain  low; but if
the air is stagnant which allows for radon daughter growth,  the WL will
be high.  Therefore the pattern of airflow in all  the NPS caves is being
studied.

     The thoron daughter levels measured have been very low  (trace
amounts) in all of the NPS caves.   Thus, as in the other natural radio-
activity problems investigated to  date, alpha radiation from this source
does not present a problem.

     During the 3- or 4-hour underground visit, an individual's exposure
will probably not be large; but a  significant population person-rem per
year may result because it is believed that an excess of one million
persons visit some of the large caves operated by the U.S. National Park
Service each year.  The exposures  received by NPS personnel  are also
being monitored.
                                   87
-------
                                             o
                                            SS
                                            1-

                                            >•»
                                            S3

                                          t.


                                         I

                                          o
                                         
-------
     If studies show that control methods should be instituted, ventilation
would be envisioned as a corrective measure; however in this case, it is
suspected that the control measure could eventually destroy the cave
features and cave ecology that persons came to view.  More work needs to
be done on this source of possible radiation exposure.
                     Radon and Geothermal Energy Production


     Energy from geothermal sources has been produced for several years
at the Geysers Plant operated by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG & E) in
Northern California.  PG & E and the Union Oil Company of California
have contracted with the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL) to deter-
mine the radon and radon daughters present in the production and waste
streams of a geothermal electric power generator. Radon-222 concentra-
tions in the thousands of pCi/£ have been mentioned in the waste streams,
but the data have not been released to EPA.

     It is projected that elevated exposures to radon and its daughters
could occur at the plant and in the surrounding vicinity.  Other en-
vironmental pollutants such as noise and toxic gases (hydrogen sulfide)
are also associated with this industry.

     Investigations of natural thermal areas and hot springs have
recently been conducted by the EPA and others.  As with the radon in
potable water supply investigations, there has been no correlation
observed between the radium and radon concentrations observed in the
samples.  Areas investigated to date are in the States of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, New Mexico,  and Utah (3.44).
                               Radon Mines
     Numerous former metal mine facilities in the Western United States
were used as "treatment" centers at one time, advertising cures for
gout, arthritis and various other physical complaints.  Today, these
facilities by law cannot advertise various cures and depend on testi-
monials from their clientele and word of mouth.

     Surveys were carried out by the EPA and Montana Department of Health
in several facilities in Boulder, Mont.  During the usual "treatment"
procedure, visitors descend into the mine and spend varying amounts of
time sitting on benches or playing cards while inhaling the "curative"
radon vapors.  Some mines are supposedly "salted" with ore to ensure
"helpful" radon levels.

     The actual number of persons availing themselves of these facil-
ities has not been tabulated, but the numbers would represent a small
percentage of the entire population; thus, this source is not thought to
produce a significant population dose.


                                  89
-------
     Individual exposures are also limited because the visits to the
mine are short (about 3 hours).   Reportedly,  most of the users come for
a week's cure and, thus, would spend only 12-15 hours per year in the
facility.  However, workers at the facility such as receptionists and
guides can receive significant exposure during their 40-hour week.   In
some cases, the working level month (WLM) exposures exceed the current
uranium miner exposure standard of 4 WLM/y (3.69).
                 Radioactivity in Construction Material


     A literature search and discussion of reports of radioactivity in
construction material has been prepared by the EPA's Office of Radiation
Programs (3.70).   The report contains a bibliography of pertinent refer-
ences that describe the exposure of the population to levels of the
naturally occurring radionuclides present in construction materials.

     EPA's bibliography on radioactivity in construction materials
contains, to a large extent, articles from the early 1950's to the
present, since few surveys were reported in the literature prior to
1950.  A brief description of important topics dealt with in each
article has been provided with the reference source for those articles
which have been reviewed.

     The summary from EPA's report follows:

     "Surveys to determine the radioactive content of specific building
materials used in the United States have not been reported in the liter-
ature.  The external dose to the United States population from exposure
to natural radioactive materials (exclusive of uranium mill tailings)
contained in United States building materials has not been evaluated,
and the possibly significant external exposure from the use of byproduct
gypsum and fly-ash materials should be evaluated.  The effects of various
contruction materials on the attenuation of cosmic and terrestrial
radiation have been evaluated in a limited number of surveys in the
urban area of Boston, Mass., New York City, N.Y., and Livermore, Calif.
The measurement of radon and radon daughter product concentrations has
only been reported for a few dwellings and several multi-story office
buildings in Boston and in several State-owned buildings in North
Carolina.  This literature search has found a lack of meaningful data
for use in evaluating the U.S. population exposure from building mater-
ials."
                     Radioactivity in Fossil Fuels


Coal

     Coal has long been known to contain traces of uranium which have
been adsorbed onto the carbonaceous material during geologic periods (3.71).


                                  90
-------
The magnitude of this reposition depends not only on the availability of
coal, and uranium, but also on the presence of a medium by which the
uranium can be brought into contact with the coal bed.   Thus, uranium
concentrations tend to vary between individual coal deposits, although
in the United States, significantly higher (factors of 10 to 100) uranium
concentrations in coal are generally found in the West (principally
North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Idaho, and Nevada)
as opposed to the eastern Appalachian deposits (3.72).

     As 70 percent of known U.S. coal reserves (45 percent by caloric
value) are located in this western region, mining activity has steadily
increased over the past few decades to its 1970 value of over 30 percent
of total U.S. coal production (3. 73).  This interest in the mining of
western coal has gained impetus over the past few years due to the desul-
phurization requirements of the Clean Air Act (typically western coal
entering the power plant is about a factor of 3 lower in sulfur than
Appalachian coal (3. 73) and the increased cost of fuel  oil following
the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74.  With this interest in the large-scale
utilization of western coal comes a concern over its potential radio-
logical impact on the environment from airborne discharges, solid waste
materials and ash utilization.

     Few studies to date have been performed to determine effluent
releases of radionuclides from power plants burning uraniferous western
coal.  Existing work has been concerned primarily with the geological
occurrence of uranium in coal deposits and provides only source terms
for various coal beds in the western region.  Uranium concentrations
cited for these western coal deposits range from 0.001  to 0.1 percent as
compared to typical uranium concentrations in Appalachian coal of less
than 0.001 percent (3.72,3.74,3.75).

     A few studies have been performed in the past to monitor radio-
activity releases at selected fossil-fuel facilities burning Appalachian
coal.  The Environmental Protection Agency studied releases from the
Tennessee Valley Authority's Widow Creek Power Plant in 1971 and the
Oak Ridge National Laboratory studied releases from the Allen Steam Power
Plant in Tennessee from 1971 to 1973.  The overall conclusion of these
limited studies was that the observed environmental levels did not
constitute a significant public health problem.   However, the power facil-
ities investigated utilized low-activity eastern coal.   According to
Martin, et al. (3.76), a modern coal  plant would result in a maximum
dose to the bone of about 0.1 mrem/y based on the following assumptions:


     Size                          - 1000 MW(e)
     Stack                         - 800 ft.
     Stack (effective)             - 1500 ft.
     Particulate control           - 97.5 percent removal
     Fuel                          - eastern coal, 9 percent ash, .00004
                                     percent uranium, and .00003 percent
                                     thorium
     Radionuclides considered      - 232Th, 230Th, 228Th, 228Ra, and 226Ra
     Population and meteorology of the Peach Bottom Power Station

                                  91
-------
     From radioactivity release data provided in these and other studies,
several authors have performed dose calculations.  Bedrosian (3. 77)
calculated the total lung dose rate to individuals of the general  popu-
lation surrounding TVA's Widows Creek Steam Station to vary from 0.28 to
1.23 yrem/h (net values with background subtracted out) based on air
samples analyzed from eight sampling stations.   These figures are also
comparable to values quoted by Martin, et al. (3.76), based on additional
measurements made downwind from the same power plant.  In the latter
case, the plant was of an older type with an inefficient particulate
control system (less than 70 percent removal).   Therefore, the doses
calculated are likely to be higher than those comparably measured for
newer, more advanced plants.

     Using the measurements and calculations from these studies invol-
ving eastern coal, it is possible to extrapolate the dose levels to
correspond to the higher radioactivity source terms of western coal.
Existing data indicate there is a substantial abundance of such coal
containing about .005 to .05 percent uranium.  Therefore, based on the
assumptions for a modern coal facility, it is estimated that burning
these higher activity western coals could result in dose rates ranging
from 4.4 x 10~3 mrem/h-MW(e) to 44 x 10"3 yrem/h-MW(e) for the longer
and higher uranium concentrations, respectively.  If it is assumed that
these dose rates prevail for an annual period, then the nearby offsite
individual dose to the bone ranges from 38 to 380 mrem per year for a
1000 MW(e) coal facility (table 3-10).  Under the assumptions utilized,
the bone was the critical organ; however, the lung is also an organ of
major concern and modification of the assumptions could result in it
being the critical organ.  Regulations for nuclear power plants require
that they be designed to limit offsite individual whole body dose to
less than about 10 mrem/y.

     There are several factors which could result in higher doses to the
public than those estimated.  First, western coal generally has a lower
heating value than eastern coal (about 30 percent less) which would
result in more western coal burned to obtain the same electric output.
This may increase the dose estimates by about 30 percent.  Second, the
calculations of Martin, et al. (3. 76) did not consider the dose contri-
butions from the radionuclides, radon-222, short-lived radon decay
products, and polonium-210.  Since radon is a noble gas and polonium is
a volatile material, both of these would probably not be effectively
controlled by present particulate control equipment.  Inclusion of these
radionuclides in the calculations could substantially increase the lung
dose estimates.  Third, because of physical and chemical differences
between eastern and  western  coal,  there is  some question whether  present
particulate control equipment would be as effective  in plants burning
western coal as those using eastern coal.  Any  reduction in particulate
control efficiency would result in higher radiation doses to the public.

     In addition to the radiation dose to the public that may result
from stack emissions, there are several other pathways that may lead to
potential population exposures (table 3-10).  Runoff from mines and
                                  92
-------
to

o
 s_
+->
•a
 Q)
 c_

4!
 I

 ra
 o
O
O
o
 s_
 o
 rtJ
 a.
           T3
           QJ      00
           +->  -E -I-J
           O  •!->  O
           CD  r-  CD
           •r-) ra 4-
           O  QJ 4-
           S	E  CD
           Q-
            Oco   E
           •i-  O  CD
           +->  ;—  S_
            ro  X   l

            Zi      O
            CL CD  CO
            O  CO  S-
           D-  O  CD
               -a  CL
            c
            O
            ro S-  CD

           'zi -p  "x
            CL ra  •
            o
           Q.
            fO
            Cn
            s-
            o
            u  >,

           +->
                a;
            o

            o
            QJ
            CO
T3
 to
 S_

-a
 QJ
+->
 rO
 E
 QJ
                O3  OJ
                O
               •r-  O
                S_  ZS
               C_)  E
 QJ



 to
                                  O
                                    I
O


O
o
LO
                                   r~^
                                    i
                                   LO
                         CD
                         ZS
                         a>
                         (_)
                         ra
                                    o
                                    ro

                                    to
                                    CL
                                    CL
                                      -
                               >,  =51



^
•^^
CXI
1











CM
1
CM














O
LO
ro











f 	
CD O
O I
_Q LO







^ 	 	
CD O
E CO
O CO
_Q










^ ^ 	 K
T5 /~ c"
£ 1 — 1 —
) CO CN
J 
S ^3

cn o
CJ >

^
I— (/)
U 13
c o
'i— a;
- — • to
fO






>^
•^^
o
.
o













CM
( 	











, —
0
O















2~
*• — -












„, — .,
_Q
"• 	 '












,- 	 v
_Q
^ 	 *



\ •$!-$

CM CM Ud-
LO ro !cxj














CO
ro CD
t—













r— r—~










ro
0

X
CM
.
i —
O




J-
0

X
CM
,_:
o










ra
cc
CD
CN
CM
















QJ
cn
ro
C
.,—
ro
i.
T3

-a
c
ra

14—
M-
O
c
13
c^

CD
c
., —
Zu
-o -a






* — ^
>•>
A -a
o ^ o
i — O"> -Q

_Q
• 	 •








_Q
•











03
a:
UD
CJ
(N











E
o
-i— >
i ^
0


~C3
C
ro

f~
CO CO
ra ro

i— S_
4- ra

E Q)
O cn
i- ra
Cf- &_
0

C)- CO
O
c: jr
3 CO
Q£ ra
X E O
ro zs co QJ
• 1 	 (J r —
i — 	 O
0 -C
3

^J^
^
j- -a

i — CT) n
x c o
«*• zi o ai
CO 	 • O O
0 JZ
3






CO
s_
QJ
E -M (O-E
o: ^z a;)—
CN CD CD CM
CN Zl CM ro
CM ro CM CM
-a
+









E
0
•i—
1 '
O
Zi
s_
-M
CO
E
O
CJ

-U
E
QJ
E
QJ
CJ

SZ CO
•1 — 1 —
ro
-E •!-
00 S_
ro CD

i — to
U- E




>*j
^r
•
f~~)













^"






























o —
o





— .
cn
o c
ro =3
O i —








CO

QJ
C -l->
Cd _C
CN cn
CN =3
CM ra
-a
-4-




I
CO
QJ
i — • C3
•i- O
CL-r-
+J
-C ra
CO C
ra-r-
^
E ro
O 4->
4-J C
+-> o
O U
JD
C
-a o
e-a
ro ro
c_
.C
CO O
ro-i-

r— QJ
Cf- .C
Q.
QJ to
cno
S- E

_l ro
CO
QJ
'• ~ O
C T3
CO O
4J -r- CZ
C i — O
ro i— Q) -r-
f^ T— C" 4- '
CL E +-> <0
TJ CO S- =3
QJ CSJ CD O.
t_ • 	 --Q O
•r- C Q.
i o cu at
i— -i- T3 CD +->
ro « — QJ ro ro
O r- +-> i- S-
O -r- O QJ
E C > QJ
H- ra CO
O O CO O
LO ra OJ "D
1Z CD to -i— C
QJ -C C +-> O
O -U O O 'I—
S_ -r- QJ +->
 CL rO
CL O ro 00 S_
S- QJ -!->
^- C^ 4J i_ c
«d- CD C Q)
-a CD o u
E E O 3 E
O •!- E -t-J O
ro O O
"D E <-> OJ
QJ Q) JZ E
CO S- E +-= -r-
ra Z5
-Q QJ -r- C,_ S-
-E E O QJ
i— 1— ro 3
ra S- E O
0 ^ 0 i—
O • T-
CO QJ -l-> O
E S_ Cn ro i —
S- QJ ro E
QJ CO S- -r- C)_
-)-> Z5 CD -Q O
CO > E
QJ r— ra O S.
3 ro O o
•r- JZ 4->
H_ 4.1 +J ro u
O E •!— ro
QJ 3 C C(_
to +-> O
-(-> 0 •— >>
E CL ra ~a i—
CD O QJ QJ
3 cn a co •*->
i — C ra ro
Cf- ••- E JD E
4- QJ ro •!—
QJ J2 T- QJ X
OS- O
-V QJ ro ra £_
CJ S- i— CL
ro O ra "D CL
4-> 4- CL QJ ro
to QJ CL +J
U  -£1 4- Zi o
-U O U U
"O i —
QJ "O CO ra E
CO E 4-> O ro
O ra C •<—
CL CD CO CJ
X to Z3 +-> ro
OJ 4J r— O r—
•i- 4- CD ro
"O t/l M— 4 — Q^
QJ O Q) 4- Q.
E CL CD  O) •
ra i— +-> i— Cn E
ra to ro ro O
00 O QJ S- T-
•r- CJ O JE QJ 4->
4-> > ra
E E QJ ra i—
O S~ "O JZ Z!
•i- QJ QJ 1— C CL
r- -!-> 00 O 0
i — 00 O 1 CL
•r- QJ CL • :>,
E 2 X cn r— T3
QJ E E QJ
CM S- *i— Q) O CO
CM ro QJ "O i — O
QJ -Q ro JZl i — Q.
4- C CD to ro X
O O -C i— O (U
TD -(-> -r- U
E QJ = itt •—
O +-> "O C > C rO
•r— ra CD ro re i- O
+-> O E •!- CD -r-
(O O =S O +J +-> -(->
; — r— CO rO O CO CD
ZS 
O C CL ro O
CL-I- QJ Q. +-> S_ Q.
QJ S_ ej: n3 o >>
cf -Q ra r O U_ IE
ra -a u -a
                                                                                   93
-------
acid mine drainage, for example, could increase radioactivity levels
in surface and ground waters.   Caldwell, et al .  (3. 78) performed an
alpha radioactivity survey of the upper Kiskiminetas River, Pennsylvania,
after noting periodically elevated radioactivity downstream.   His survey
showed that coal mine drainage into the river is the principal source
of the radionuclides found, primarily 234U, 238U,  and 226Ra.   The maximum
gross alpha level measured was 164 pCi/£ downstream from a coal  mine
waste pile.  Average gross alpha levels measured ranged from 11  to 13
     Other potential pathways for radiation dose (table 3-10) to the
public include:

     1.  Runoff from flyash and bottom ash storage areas which could
increase radioactivity concentrations in surface and ground waters.

     2.  Construction materials such as cement, concrete, and block
made from flyash which would present a potential lung cancer hazard
due to elevated radon daughter levels in structures built from the
materials.

     3.  Large flyash and bottom ash piles which could present a large
radon-222 source that may cause elevated radon daughter levels in
structures built near the piles and/or structures built on land reclaimed
with flyash cover.  A search of the literature did not identify any
papers on these pathways, although models used in the ORP/EPA phosphate
study may be applicable.

     The individual and population doses due to coal combustion and by-
products therein are calculated from data found in the literature and/or
models making use of various assumptions concerning source terms, effluent
discharge rates and population exposed.  An estimate of the potential
health effects associated with these calculated doses is made for both
Appalachian and western coals.  The attached table summarizes these
calculations, and also the assessment needs which outline what infor-
mation remains to be collected and by what methods.  The derivation of
the values tabulated and further background on the assessment needs
identified are discussed in the following sections.
Stack effluents

     The primary exposures pathway to the population from power plants
burning uraniferous coal is through inhalation.  The critical radio-
nuclides by virtue of their relatively long half-lives and their alpha
energy are 226Ra and 230Th.  There are two dose models in common use,
with the lung and bone being the critical organs.  The former is based
on the insolubility of 226Ra while the latter is based on the assumption
of its solubility.  The bone was chosen as the critical organ in these
calculations because of the availability of pertinent data in the liter-
ature.  Moeller (3. 79) calculated an average bone dose equivalent rate
to the population residing within a 16 kilometer (10 mile) radius of a


                                 94
-------
1000 MW(e) Appalachian coal-fired plant as being 0.5-7 mrem/y.  This
range was arrived at by using source term and dose data provided in
reports by Martin, et al.  (3.76) and Bedrosian (3. 77).   The former
calculated a maximum bone dose of 3.5 x 10"5 yrem/h MW(e) for a 1000
MW(e) power plant burning coal containing .00004 percent uranium, which
when extrapolated for a maximum uranium concentration in Appalachian
coal of .008 percent gives a nearby individual dose of 65 mrem/y.
Western coal having an assumed average uranium concentration of .01
percent (.005-.05 percent) is approximately a factor of 10 higher than
typical Appalachian coal.  The average individual dose for western coal
was calculated to be 5-70 mrem/y using this factor.  The maximum indivi-
dual dose of 380 mrem/y to the bone was determined by using the upper
range of uranium concentration in western coal (.05 percent) as a factor
to extrapolate from the Martin, et al.  data.

     The population at risk, 50 million, was taken from Moeller's draft
notes on radioactivity in fossil fuels having derived this figure from
published U.S. Congressional data.  The 50 million population was broken
down into two groups for the western coal population dose calculations;
44 percent or 22 million exposed to power plants burning western coal
and 56 percent or 28 million exposed to plants burning Appalachian coal
(table 3-10).  The former represents a hypothetical population based on
the percentage of the present fossil fuel plants that are situated
adjacent to the western coal and lignite beds, which would be logisti-
cally more likely to utilize western coal.  The population doses of 2.5 x
101* to 3.4 x 105 person-rem/y for Appalachian coal  and 1.2 x 105 to 2 x 106
person-rem/y for western coal result in a health effect estimate of 1-11/y
and 4-62/y, respectively.  The health effects conversion utilized is 16
fatal effects and 16 nonfatal effects per 106 person-rem/y (bone dose)
(3.80).

     Radon-222 and polonium-210 should be readily released through the
combustive process of coal-fired plants.  For man,  the critical pathway
for exposure is inhalation and the critical organ,  the lung.  Population
dose information for these radionuclides are not available at this time.
Coal mine runoff and drainage

     The only source of information identified in the literature was
Caldwell, et al. (3. 78) who provided gross alpha activity and 226Ra
concentration data for the Kiskiminetas River in Pennsylvania.  The
average bone dose (due to ingestion) of 1.2 rem/y was derived from an
average concentration of 10 pCi/£ downstream from several coal mine
runoff sites.  This concentration is multiplied by a factor of 10 for
the assumed increased concentration of uranium in western coals.  The
maximum value, in turn, corresponds to an average concentration of 100
pCi/£, the upper range of their measurements.  A hypothetical exposed
population of 1000 was chosen which resulted in an average population
Jose of 1.2 x 103 person-rem and an estimated 0.04 health effects per
year (assuming 16 fatal and 16 nonfatal health effects per 106 person/rem/y
(3.80).


                                  95
-------
Runoff from fly ash and bottom ash

     No literature was uncovered for this effluent category.   In light
of this, a determination of the number, size and location of such areas
and their impact with the environment should be performed.


Flyash in cement construction materials

     The radiological impact from cement construction materials utilizing
flyash as a sand substitute is two-fold, stemming from:  (1)  inhalation
of alpha-emitting radon daughters, a decay product of the radium-226 in
the coal ash; and (2) gamma exposure due to the decay products.  The
average radon daughter exposure to the lung was calculated by Guimond
(3.81).  Assuming a ventilation rate of 1 air change per hour and radon
diffusion through 25 cm of material, the indoor radon daughter levels
averaged 0.016 WL with a maximum of 0.08 WL.  The hypothetical population
at risk chosen by Guimond was 1 x 105, resulting in an average population
dose of 1.3 x 106 person-rem and a health effect estimate of 52/y (assuming
40 health effects per 106 person-rem/y (3. 39).

     The whole body dose due to gamma exposure from residential construc-
tion materials was estimated using a model  developed by Feher, et al.
(3.82).   In the original model, the external radiation b'urden was calcu-
lated for a room with an area of 20 m2 using the following formula:

     Dose Rate (mrad/y) = KRaCRa + KjhCjh + KKCK where


     KRa, Kyh, KK = dose conversion coefficients for 226Ra, 230Th and

^K in (mrad/y) (pCi/g).

     CRa, CJh, CK = specific activities of 226Ra, 230Th and ^K in a
building material.

     "K" values for three types of building material are provided in
table 3-11.  Although it is conceivable that coal ash could gain wide
use in brick and adobe, concrete was chosen as the most widely utilized
reference material.  Assuming 1) an average 226Ra and 232Th concentration
in western coal of 30 pCi/g for each; 2) that the ash is utilized in the
concrete as a sand substitute at 20 percent by weight; 3) that the para-
meters as expressed in the preceding table hold true; and 4) that the
difference between a 20 m2 room and a 100 m2 home can be approximated
through the inverse square law; then the average individual exposure is
expected to be about 80 mrem/y (whole body).  The maximum individual
dose is a factor of 5 higher than the individual dose (400 mrem/.y),
assuming that the difference is proportional to that between the maximum
and average range of uranium concentration in western coals.  With an
estimated average individual dose of 80 mrem/y and a hypothetical exposed
population of 1 x 105, a population dose of 8 x 103 person-rein was  calcu-
lated leading to approximately 3.2 health effects per year (assuming 200
lethal and 200 nonlethal health effects per 106 oerson-rem, whole body  (S.80).

                                    96
-------
 Table 3-11.   Dose conversion  coefficients  for building  materials
Type
Precast concrete
Brick
Adobe
Height
(cm)
250
280
280
Thickness
(cm)
14
38
50
Density
KRa
KTh KK
(g/m£) [(nrad/y)/(pCi/g)]
2.5
1.7
1.6
22
26
24
32 2.5
36 2.8
37 2.7
Large flyash and bottom ash piles—atmospheric radon contamination

      With the indefinite storage of waste  flyash  and bottom ash  from
 power plants, the uranium concentrations  inherent in the  ash,  particularly
 that of western coal,  may pose  a potentially significant  copulation
 dose.   Utilizing computer modeling techniques developed by EPA/EAD and
 applied to calculate doses from by-product gypsum piles in Florida  (3.83),
 an average population  dose was  estimated  using a  factor of 10  increase
 for the uranium concentration in western  coal.  The average and  maximum
 individual doses are calculated to be  0.4  and 30  mrem/y,  respectively.
 With a hypothetical  exposed population of  22 million persons (orojected
 for 1985), a population dose of 9 x 103 person-rem/y was  calculated.
 Assuming 40 health effects/y per 106 person-rem from 222Rn, a  health
 effect estimate of 0.4/y is made.
 Oil

      Oil,  like coal,  is  a  carbonaceous  material  which  may absorb  uranium.
 Studies by the U.S. Geological  Survey (3.84)  indicate  that for the
 western crude oils investigated,  the  uranium  content  in  the ash ranged
 from less  than 0.0001  percent to  0.045  percent.   The  uranium content
 calculated as parts per  billion in  the  crude  oil  ranged  from 0.01 to
 414.

      Based on studies  by Martin,  et al.  and the  U.S. Atomic Energy  Com-
 mission, Moeller (3. 79)  estimated that  lung dose equivalent rates due to
 particulate emissions  from a 1000 MW(e) oil-fired electric station  to
 people living within  80  km would  range  between 2 and 40  mrem/y.   This
 estimate has been  used to  calculate the population  dose  and resulting
 health effects from this source (table  3-12).  It should be noted that
 no consideration is made for the  dose contributions from radon-222  and
                                   97
-------












*•— -N
CU
	 *
•3.
o
o
o
l 	

ra

s-
o
4-
4_j
CJ
rt>
O-
e
•i—
i — c:
n3 O
U •>-
•r- -P
en ro
O -t->
i — CO
O
•r- O
rC £
i- -P
CJ
"O cu
0! ,—
-P CU

£ ~o
•r- CU
-P S-
CO •!—
CD H-
1 1
UJ O

,
CO
! —
1
OO

cu
5
f—



















CU CO
-P _C -P
fT3 -P O
E r- 01
•r- n3 4-
4-> CU 4-
CO -C CU
LU
C -~^
0 E
•r- CU
n3 1
=5 CU O
Q. CO CO
0 O S-
Q_ X3 OJ
Q.



C
O
•1 — V 	 	 ,
4-> COCO
03 -r- O
r— S_ r—
3 X
O ra
Q-



5Z >
fO *i —
en -a
C__ JZ
O T-

i — Cn
A3 ' • 2>
CJ >,=!
"•P 1=~
•r- CU
S- S-
CJ E >
	 • •! —
O "O
•P cr
., —
cu
CO X
O ro
O S



n3 Ol
0 TD
•1 — T—
-P 1 	
•r- CJ
i- ^
C_3 £Z

CJ
a
E
•r—
sr
o
•i —
-p
ro
^
ro
S-
0

cu
o
s_
~-
o
oo

J-
1
CD
i— -X * -X
X




un * -x -x













LO -X -X -X








OO s-~*
O en
o c -x -x -x
• ^
O r—
	





^ 	
^}~ en
o c -x -x *
. ^
O r—
^ — •




CO CO
cu a>
•p -p
ro -C c ^i c JT to
a; l— oi en oi en a;
CO O CM 13 CM ^J CD
CM fo CM ro CM ro CM
CM CM CM "O CM "D CM





CO
CU
13
i/) ~O
c: co
cu cu
=5 S-
C E
4- =3
CU CU
i—
-^ O
0 i-
ro -P
-P O)
CO Q.


































































CU
i —
-Q
fO
' —
'ro
>
ro
O
C

rO

ro

-X
98
-------
its short-lived daughters and polonium-210.  However, because of the low
overall radiological  impact of the radionuclides studied, it is not anti-
cipated that inclusion of these radionuclides would significantly increase
the population dose.

     The U.S. Geological  Survey (3.84)  also studied refinery residues for
their uranium content.  The uranium concentration of 16 refinery residues
ranged from  .0003 percent to .024 percent.   They concluded that certain
refinery residues could provide a source of by-product uranium.  Since
a large quantity of these residues are  produced annually, the fate of
the residues and their radiological impact should be more carefully
ascertained through a limited literature evaluation.
                                 Summary


     Technologically enhanced natural radiation comes from radioactive
material which occurs naturally; but man's technology either causes the
material to enter man's environment, or allows people to enter a new
environment.  This occurs in mining where subsurface radioactive ores
are brought to the surface of the earth; thus not only affecting workers
in the industry, but potentially increasing the exposure of populations
to these materials.  Exposure to TENR would also occur in space or
supersonic air travel.  One of the most important of these exposures
determined to date is from uranium mill tailings piles, the individual
and population exposures of which are listed in table 3-2.
Phosphate mining and processing

     Thorium concentrations in phosphate rock range from 0.4 to 4 pCi/g
and uranium concentrations ranged from 5.4 to 267 pCi/g.  The highest
concentrations were reported in South Carolina.  Much of the land mined
for phosphate is reclaimed and is being used for home construction.
These homes have radon daughter levels significantly higher than the
levels in homes not built on reclaimed land.
Radon in potable water

     Radon in water entering a structure will diffuse into the air and
produce elevated radon concentrations inside the structure.   The radon
concentrations in water range from 0-30,000 pCi/£ in most areas of the
United States sampled to date except for the Northeastern region,  where
the concentrations are an order of magnitude higher (0-300,000 pCi/£).

     Theoretical studies indicate water with a radon concentration of
500 pCi/£ could produce an estimated 20 health effects (fatal  lung cancers)
for every 1 x 106 persons exposed.  Further, water with 10,000 pCi/£ could
produce an excess air concentration of 1 pCi/£,  an estimated exposure of
                                   99
-------
4 rem/y per person, and an estimated 160 health effects for every 106
persons exposed.  Actual data collected at one location indicate an ele-
vated air concentration can result from water with a radon concentration
of 2,000 pCi/£.
Radon in natural gas

     Burning natural gas with a Z22Rn concentration of 20 pCi/£ is
predicted to give an average 222Rn air concentration of 0.0028 pCi/£ and
the tracheobronchial dose from this concentration could reach a maximum
of 54 mrem/y.  The total person-rem from this source is estimated to be
2.73 million person-rem/y.
Radon in liquefied petroleum gas

     It has been estimated that unvented kitchen ranges and space
heaters operating on liquefied petroleum gas would result in a popu-
lation exposure of about 30,000 person-rem/y for the United States.
Radon daughter exposures in natural oaves

     Although individual exposures are not large, a significantly large
population exposure could result due to the large population that visits
natural caves.
Radioactivity from fossil fuels

     Uranium concentrations in western coal range from 0.001 to 0.1 percent
compared to concentrations in Appalachian coal of less than 0.001 percent.
Dose rates from plants using western coal could be 0.0044 to 0.044 yrem/h-
MW(e).  If these dose rates prevail for an annual period, an exposure of
30-380 millirem per year could occur to individuals living offsite near a
1000 MW(e) coal-burning facility, assuming bone to be the critical organ.
Population doses from radon-222 or polonium-210 (lung being the critical
organ) are not available at this time.
                                  100
-------
 References


 (3.1)   GESELL,  T.  F.  and H.  M.  PRICHARD.   The technologically enhanced
        natural  radiation environment.   Health Physics,  Vol.  28,  No.  4,
        pp. 361-366 (April  1975).

 (3.2)   GUIMOND, R. T.  and S.  T.  WINDHAM.   Radioactivity distribution
        in phosphate products, by-products, and wastes.   Technical  Note:
        ORP/CSD-75-3.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Office of
        Radiation Programs,  Washington,  D.C.  (September  1975).

 (3.3)   Preliminary findings:   radon daughter levels  in  structures
        constructed on  reclaimed  Florida phosphate land.   Technical
        Note:   ORP/CSD-75-4.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,
        Office of Radiation  Programs, Washington,  D.C.  (September 1975).

 (3.4)   Water  quality impacts  of  uranium mining and milling activities in
        the Grants  mineral  belt,  New Mexico (EPA 906/9-75-002).   U.S.
        Environmental  Protection  Agency, Region VI, Dallas, Texas
        (September  1975).

 (3.5)   Final  environmental  statement related to the  operation of Shirley
        Basin  Uranium Mill,  Utah  International, Inc.  (Docket No.  40-6622).
        U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,  Directorate of Licensing,  pp.  IV-3
        through  IV-5 (December 1974).

 (3.6)   Final  environmental  statement related to the  operation of the
        Highland Uranium Mill  by  the Exxon Company, U.S.A.  (Docket  No.
        40-8102).  U.S.  Atomic Energy Commission,  Directorate of  Licen-
        sing,  p. 33 (March 1973).

 (3.7)   KAUFMAN, R. F.,  G.  G.  EADIE, and C. R.  RUSSELL.   Summary  of
        ground-water quality impacts of uranium mining and milling  in the
        Grants Mineral  Belt,  New  Mexico.  Technical Note:   ORP/LV-75-4,
        U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office  of  Radiation Programs,
        Las Vegas,  Nev.  (August 1975).

 (3.8)   SCHIAGER, K.  J.   Analysis  of radiation exposures on or near
        uranium  mill  tailings  piles, Radiat Data Rep, 15:411  (July  1974).

 (3.9)   Evaluation  of radon-222 near uranium mill  tailings  piles, U.S.
        Department  of Health,  Education, and Welfare, U.S.  Public Health
        Service, DER/69-1  (March  1969).

(3.10)   SHEARER, S. D.  and C.  W.  SILL.   Evaluation of atmospheric radon
        in the vicinity of uranium mill  tailings,  Health Phys 17:77-88
        (July  1969).

(3.11)   DUNCAN,  D.  L., G. A. BOYSEN, L. GROSSMAN, and G. A. FRANZ III.
        Outdoor radon study (1974-1975):  an evaluation of ambient
        radon-222 concentrations in Grand Junction, Colorado.  Technical
        Note:   ORP/LV-77-1.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,  Office
        of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas, Nev. (April 1977).

                                  101
-------
(3.12)   SNELLING,  R.  N.  and  S.  D.  SHEARER,  JR.   Environmental  survey  of
        uranium mill  tailings  pile,  Tuba  City,  Arizona.   Radio!.  Health
        Data Rep., 10:475-487  (November  1969).

(3.13)   SNELLING,  R.  N.   Environmental survey  of uranium  mill  tailings
        pile.   Monument  Valley,  Ariz., Radio!.  Health  Data  Rep.,  11:511-
        517 (October  1970).

(3.14)   SNELLING,  R.  N.   Environmental survey  of uranium  mill  tailings
        pile,  Mexican Hat, Utah,  Radio!.  Health Data Rep.,  12:17-28
        (January 1971).

(3.15)   DUNCAN, D. L.  and G. G.  EADIE.   Environmental  surveys  of  the
        uranium mill  tailings  pile and surrounding  areas, Salt Lake
        City,  Utah, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of
        Radiation  Progams, Las  Vegas, Nev.   (August 1972).

(3.16)   HANS,  J. M.,  JR.  and R.  L.  DOUGLAS.   Radiation survey  of  dwellings
        in Cane Valley,  Arizona and Utah, for  use of uranium mill  tailings,
        Technical  Note:   ORP/LV-75-2, U.S.  Environmental  Protection
        Agency, Office of Radiation Programs,  Las Vegas,  Nev.   (August
        1975).

(3.17)   EADIE,  G.  G., R.  F.  KAUFMANN, D.  J.  MARKLEY, and  R.  WILLIAMS.
        Report on  ambient outdoor radon  and indoor  radon  progeny  concen-
        trations during  November 1975 at selected locations in the
        Grants  Mineral Belt, New Mexico.   Technical  Note:  ORP/LV-76-4,
        U.S.E.P.A., Office of  Radiation  Programs, Las  Vegas, Nev.
        (June 1976).

(3.18)   Phase I reports  on conditions of inactive uranium mill sites  and
        tailings in the  Western United States.   U.S. Atomic Energy
        Commission, Grand Junction,  Colorado (1974).

(3.19)   FORD,  BACON and  DAVIS  UTAH INC.,  Phase II - title  I engineering
        assessment of inactive uranium mill  tailings:   Vitro Site, Salt
        Lake City, Utah.   USERDA Contract No.  E(05-l)-1658.  Salt Lake
        City, Utah (April 30,  1976).

(3.20)   HARDIN, J. M., J. J. SWIFT,  and  H.  W.  CALLEY.   Draft-Guidance
        for the evaluation of  remedial measures at  inactive uranium  mill
        tailings sites,  Appendix.   Office of Radiation Programs,  Environ-
        mental  Protection Agency,  Washington,  D.C.   20460 (May 1975).

(3.21)   SWIFT,  J.  J., J.  M.  HARDIN, and  H.  W.  CALLEY.   Potential  radio-
        logical impact of airborne releases and direct gamma radiation
        to individuals living  near inactive uranium mill  tailings piles
        (EPA-520/1-76-001).  U.S.E.P.A.,  Office of  Radiation Programs,
        Washington, D.C.  (January 1976).
                                 102
-------
(3.22)   MENZEL,  R.  G.   Uranium,  radium,  and  thorium content  in  phosphate
        rocks and their possible radiation  hazard,  J.  Agr.  Food Chem.,
        Vol.  16,  No.  2, pp.  231-234 (1968).

(3.23)   GUIMOND,  R.  J.   The  radiological  aspects  of fertilizer  utilization.
        Presented at the Symposium on  Public Health Aspects  of  Radio-
        activity in Consumer Products,  Atlanta, Georgia,  Feb. 2-4,  1977
        (To be published).

(S.24)   MILLS, W. A.,  R. J.  GUIMOND, and S.  T. WINDHAM.   Radiation
        exposures in the florida phosphate  industry, presented  Fourth
        International  Congress  of the  International Radiation Protection
        Association, Paris,  April 24-30,  1977 (Preprint).

(3.25)   MILLER,  F.  P.   Fertilizers and  our  environment,  The  Fertilizer
        Handbook, The  Fertilizer Institute,  pp. 23-46 (1972).

(3.26)   UMWELT.   Radiation  doses from  phosphate fertilizers, Inf.
        Bundesminist Innern, Vol. 75,  No. 41, pp.  10-11  (197577"

(3.27)   WINDHAM,  S.  T., J.  PARTRIDGE and T.  HORTON.  Radiation  dose
        estimates to phosphate  industry personnel,  EPA-520/5-76-014,
        U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency, Office of  Radiation
        Programs, Montgomery, Alabama  (December 1976).

(3.28)   NATIONAL  BUREAU OF  STANDARDS.   Maximum permissible
        amounts  of radioisotopes in the human body and maximum
        permissible concentrations in  air and water, NBS  Handbook
        52, Superintendent  of Documents,  Washington, D.C.   (1953).

(3.29)   UNITED STATES  ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION.   Standards
        for protection against  radiation, Code of Federal  Regu-
        lations,  Title 10,  part  20, Washington, D.C.   (1965).

(3.30)   INTERNATIONAL  COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL  PROTECTION.
        Recommendation of the ICRP on  Permissible  Dose for  Internal
        Radiation,  Report 2, Pergamon  Press, New  York (1959).

(3.31)   BERNARD,  S.  R.   On  the  (MPC)w  for 222Rn and its  compar-
        ison  with natural  levels, Oak  Ridge  National  Laboratory
        Report 3189, Oak Ridge,  Tennessee,  192-196 (1961).

(3.32)   BERNARD,  S.  R.   (MPC)w  for 222Rn, Oak Ridge National  Labor-
        atory Report 3492,  Oak  Ridge,  Tennessee,  166-169 (1963).

(3.33)   ANDERSON, I. 0.  and  I. NILSSON.   Exposure  following  ingestion
        of water  containing  radon-222,  in Assessment of  Radioactivity
        in Man,  Vol.  II, International  Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna,
        p. 317 (T%4T~

(3.34)   VON DOBELN,  W.  and B. LINDELL.   Some aspects of  radon contam-
        ination  following  ingestion, Archiv  for Fysik, 27,  531  (1964).

                                  103
-------
(3.35)   HURSH,  J.  B.,  D.  A.  MORKEN,  T.  P.  DAVIS  and  A.  LOVAAS.   The
        fate of radon  ingested  by man,  Health  Phys.,  11,  465  (1965).

(3.36)   HEMS,  G.   Acceptable concentration of  radon  in  drinking  water,
        Air and Water  Pollution International  Journal,  10,  769  (1966).

(3. 37)   SUOMELA,  M.  and H.  KAHLOS.   Studies on the elimination  rate
        and the radiation exposure following ingestion  of 222Rn  rich
        water,  Health  Phys., 23,  641  (1972).

(3.38)   KAHLOS, H.  and M.  SUOMELA.   Studies on the elimination  rate
        and radiation  exposure  following  ingestion of radon-222  rich
        water,  Institute of Radiation Physics  Report SFL-A16, Helsinki
        (1970).

(3. 39)   GESELL, T.  F., R.  H. JOHNSON, JR.  and  D.  E.  BERNHARDT.   Assessment
        of potential radiological population health  effects from radon
        in liquefied petroleum  gas,  EPA 520/1-75-002, U.S.  Environmental
        Protection Agency,  Office of Radiation Programs,  Washington,  D.C.
        20460 (February 1977).

(3.40)   NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.  The effects on population of
        exposures to low levels of ionizing radiation,  Report on the
        Advisory Committee on the Biological  Effects of Ionizing Radi-
        ation (BEIR) (1972).

(3. 41)   ALDRICH,  L.  K., M.  K. SASSER, and D.  A.  CONNERS.   Evaluation
        of radon concentrations in North Carolina ground  water  supplies,
        North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Raleigh,  North
        Carolina (1975).

(3.42)   SMITH,  B. H.,  W. N.  GRUNE, F. B.  HIGGINS, JR. and J.  G.  TERRILL,
        JR.  Natural radioactivity in ground water supplies in  Maine  and
        New Hampshire, Jour. Ame r. Water Works Assoc.,  53,  75 (1961).

(3.43)   GESELL, T.  F.   Personal communications (1976).

(3.44)   O'CONNELL, M.  F. and R. F. KAUFMANN.  Radioactivity Associated
        with geothermal waters  in the Western United States:   basic
        data, Technical Note:  ORP/LV-75-8A, U.S. Environmental  Pro-
        tection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas, Nev.
        (1976).

(3.45)   KURODA, P.  K., P. E. DAMON and H.  I. HYDE.   Radioactivity of  the
        spring waters of Hot Springs National  Park and vicinity in
        Arkansas.  American Journal  of Science, 252, 76 (1954).

(3.46)   TANNER, A. B.   Physical and chemical controls on  distribution
        of 226Ra and 222Rn in groundwater near Great Salt Lake,  Utah,
        in The Natural Radiation Environment, J. A.  S.  Adams and W. M.
        Lowder, ed., Univ, of Chicago Press, pp. 253-278  (1964).
                                  104
-------
(3.47)   GESELL,  T.  F.  and  L.  M.  COOK.   "Environmental  radioactivity
        in the South Texas,  USA  uranium district,"  Presented  to  the
        International  Symposium  on  High Natural  Areas  Pocos de Caldas,
        Brazil  (1975).

(3.48)   DUNCAN,  D.  L.,  T.  F.  GESELL and R.  H.  JOHNSON.   Radon-222  in
        potable  water,  Proceedings  of  the  Tenth  Midyear  Topical  Symposium
        of the Health Physics Society,  Rensselaer  Polytechnic Institute,
        Troy,  New York  (Oct.  11-13, 1976).

(3.49)   GRUNE,  W.  N.,  F. B.  HIGGINS and B.  M.  SMITH.   Natural  radioac-
        tivity in  ground water supplies in  Maine and New Hampshire,
        Complete Scientific  Report  Contract No.  Saph-73551, U.S.  Public
        Health Service, Division of Radiological Health, Washington,
        D.C.  (February  1960).

(3.50)   GUIMOND, R.  J.  Personal communication (1976).

(3.51)   GESELL,  T.  F.  and  H.  M.  PRICHARD.   Measurements  of radon-222  in
        water  and indoor radon-222  originating in  water, in HASL-325:
        Radon  Workshop  - February 1977, A.  J.  Breslin, Ed., Energy
        Research and Development Administration, Health  and Safety
        Laboratory,  New York, N.Y.  (1977).

(3.52)   JOHNSON, R.  H., JR.,  D.  E.  BERNHARDT,  N. S. NELSON, and  H. H.
        CALLEY,  JR.   Assessment  of  potential  radiological  health effects
        from  radon in natural gas,  EPA-520/1-73-004, U.S.  Environmental
        Protection Agency,  Washington,  D.C.  (November  1973).

(3.53)   BUMCE,  L.  A.  and F.  W. SATTLER.  Radon-222  in  natural  gas.
        Radio!.  Health  Data  Rep., 7:441-444 (August 1966).

(3.54)   BARTON,  C.  J.   Radon  in  air, natural  gas,  and  houses,  ORNL
        Central  Files 71-5-48 (May  29,  1971).

(3.55)   BARTON,  C.  J.,  R.  E.  MOORE, and P.  S.  ROHWER.  Contribution of
        radon  in natural gas  to  the natural  radioactivity dose in  homes.
        ORNL-TM-4154 (April  1973).

(3.56)   FAUL,  H.,  G.  B. GOTT, G. E. MANAGER,  J.  W.  MYTTON,  and A.  Y.
        SAKAKURA.   Radon and  helium in  natural gas.  19th International
        Geological  Congress,  Algiers,  Sec.  9,  Part 9  (1952).

(3.57)   GESELL,  T.  F.   Radiological health  implications  of radon in
        natural  gas  and natural  products -  an  interim  report.  Institute
        of Environmental Health, the University  of Texas Health  Sciences
        Center at Houston  (April 17, 1973).  •

(3.58)   GESELL,  T.  F.   Occupational radiation  exposure due to 222Rn
        in natural  gas  and  natural  gas  products.   Health Phys 29:681-687
        (1975).
                                   105
-------
(3. 59)   BREISCH,  R.  L.   Natural  radiation  in  caves,  Southwestern  Caves,
        VII:5,81-110 (1968).

(3.60)   CLEMENTS, S.  E.  and M.  H.  WILKENING,  J.  Geophys.  Res.,  Vol.  79,
        5025 (1975).

(3.61)   BECKMAN,  R.  T.,  D.  D.  RAPP,  and L.  A.  RATHBUN.   Radiation survey
        of Carlsbad  Caverns National  Park,  U.S.  Department of the
        Interior, Mining,  Enforcement,  and  Safety Administration, Denver,
        Colorado.

(3.62)   AHLSTRAND, G.  and  P.  FRY.   Alpha radiation monitoring at  Carls-
        bad Caverns, Paper No.  180 at First Conference  of Research in
        National  Parks  (1976).

(3.63)   BECKMAN,  R.  T.   Calibration procedures for radon and radon-
        daughter  measurement equipment, MESA-IR1005, 47 pp.  (1975).

(3.64)   TROUT,  J. B.   An investigation of radon levels  and air exchange
        characteristics  in Cottonwood and Furnigon caves, Southwestern
        Caves,  XIII:3:l-27.

(3.65)   WILKENING, M.  H. and D.  E. WATKINS.  Air exchange and 222Rn
        concentrations  in  the Carlsbad Caverns.   Health Physics
        31:139-145 (1976).

(3.66)   MCLEAN, J. S.   The microclimate in Carlsbad Caverns, New
        Mexico.  U.S.  Geological Survey report to National Park
        Service,  No. CACA-N-la (1971).

(3.67)   MCLEAN, J. S.   Factors altering the microclimate in Carlsbad
        Caverns,  New Mexico, U.S.  Geological  Survey Open-file Report
        No. 76-171 (1976).

(3.68)   YARBOROUGH,  K.  A.   Measurements of seasonal  and daily radon
        daughter  concentrations fluctuations in National Park Service
        caves,  HASL-325.  Radon Workshop - February 1977 (A. J. Breslin,
        Ed.) Health and Safety Laboratory,  Energy Research and Develop-
        ment Administration, New York,  N.Y. (1977).

(3.69)   DUNCAN, D. L.   Memorandum to P. B.  Smith, EPA Region VIII,
        Denver, Colorado.

(3. 70)   EADIE,  G. G.  Radioactivity in construction materials:   a liter-
        ature review and bibliography.   ORP/LV-75-13.  Office of  Radiation
        Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Las  Vegas, Nevada
        (April  1975).

(3. 71)   BREGER, I. A.  and  M. DEUL.  The organic geochemistry of uranium.
        Contribution to the Geology of Uranium and Thorium by the United
        States Geological  Survey and Atomic Energy Commission for the United
        Nations Conference on Peaceful  Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva,
        Switzerland, 1955, pp. 505-509, (Geological  Survey Professional
        Paper 300),  U.S.G.P.O., Washington, D.C. (1956).

                                  106
-------
(3. 72)   VINE,  J.  D.   Uranium-bearing coal  in the United States,  Contri-
        bution to the Geology of Uranium and Thorium by the United States
        Geological  Survey and Atomic Energy Commission forthe United
        Nations Conference on Peaceful  Uses of Atomic Energy,  Geneva,
        Switzerland, 1955, pp.  405-410," (Geological  Survey Professional
        Paper  300,  U.S.G.P.O.,  Washington,  D.C.  (1956).

(2.73)   Comprehensive standards:  the power generation case, U.S.
        Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Research and
        Development, EPA Contract No. 68-01-0561, pp.  73-74,  (March  1975)

(3.74)   ABERNETHY,  R. F. and R.  H.  GIBSON.   Rare elements in coal,
        U.S. Department of the Interior,  Bureau of Mines, 1C 8163
        (1963).

(3.75)   STOCKING, H. E.  and L.  R.  PAGE.   Natural occurrence of
        uranium in  the United States -  a  summary, Contribution to
        the Geology of Uranium and Thorium  by the United States
        Geological  Survey and Atomic Energy Commission for the
        United Nations International Conference on Peaceful Uses
        of Atomic Energy, Geneva^ Switzerland, 19557 (GeologTcaT
        Survey Prof. Paper 300), U.S. Government Printing Office,
        Washington,  D.C. (1956).

(S.76)   MARTIN, J.  E., E. D. HARWARD and D.  T. OAKLEY.  Radiation
        doses  from  fossil-fuel  and nuclear  power plants, Power Gener-
        ation  and Environmental  Change,  pp.  107-125, Cambridge,  Mass.,
        MIT Press~(1971).~

(3.77)   BEDROSIAN,  P. H., D. G.  EASTERLY  and S.  L. CUMMINGS.  Radio-
        logical survey around power plants  using fossil fuel,  EERL 71-3
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Eastern Environmental
        Radiation Laboratory, Montgomery, Alabama (July 1970).

(S. 78)   CALDWELL, R. D., R.  F.  CROSBY and M.  P.  LOCKARD.  Radio-
        activity in  coal mine drainage,  Environmental Survei11ance
        i n t he V i c inity of N u c1ea r F a c i1i ty,  pp. 438-445.

(3.79)   MOELLER,  D.  W.  Harvard  School  of Public Health, Draft notes
        of May 1975, on the radiological  impact of fossil fuels.

(3.80)   Environmental Analysis  of the Uranium Fuel Cycle, Part I -
        Fuel Supply, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Office  of
        Radiation Programs, EPA-520/9-73-003-B,  pp.  145, A-18,
        (October 1973).

(3.81)  GUIMOND, R. 0.  Estimation of the potential  radon and radon
        daughter levels in a residence  built using by-product  gypsum
        wallboard,  Unpublished  report,  U.S.  Environmental Protection
        Agency, Office of Radiation Programs (1976).
                                  107
-------
(3.82)   FEHER,  I.,  J.  GEMESI,  and A.  TOTH.   Some remarks  on  the natural
        radiation burden  of population,  Report ISBN-963 371  0278,  Central
        Research Institute for Physics,  Budapest,  Hungary (1975).

(3.83)   Potential radiological  impact of airborne  releases to individuals
        living  near by-product gypsum storage piles  (Draft),  U.S.  Envi-
        ronmental Protection Agency,  Office of Radiation  Programs
        (November 1975).

(3.84)   HYDEN,  H. J.   Uranium  and other  trace metals in crude oils of
        the Western United States, Contribution to the Geology of
        Uranium and Thorium by the United States Geological  Survey
        and Atomic Energy Commission  for the United  Nations  Conference on
        Peaceful Uses  of  Atomic Energy,  Geneva, Switzerland,  1955,
        pp. 511-519, (Geological  Survey  Professional Paper 300),
        U.S.G.P.O., Washington, D.C.  (1956).
                                   108
-------
                         Chapter 4  - Fallout
     This section presents the status of the collection and reporting  of
fallout data and doses to man from fallout for the year 1975.   In  those
cases where there may be no data specific to the year 1975, data for
doses for the latest year before 1975 are presented.

     Information presented in this section of the report has been  limited
to those sources of information that are the most complete and  up  to
date (re the year 1975).   These sources are the Health and Safety  Labor-
atory (HASL) fallout program reports and the United Nations Scientific
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) report.  The
former provides an extensive source of fallout information'in the  form
of raw data and interpretive comments.   The latter provides the most
comprehensive source of information on doses resulting from fallout
although it is not current up to and including 1975.

     Other sources of information on fallout monitoring and various
reports on doses do exist; (see the ERAMS summary in this document)
however, the inclusion of a discussion of each would be a laborious task
which would provide little more information on fallout and doses than  is
contained in the sources selected for this report.
             Health and Safety Laboratory Fallout Program


     Every 3 months, the Health and Safety Laboratory  (HASL)  issues  a
report summarizing current information obtained at HASL  pertaining to
fallout.

     To present a more complete picture of the current fallout situation
and to provide a medium for a rapid publication of radionuclide and
trace element data, the quarterly reports often contain  information  from
other laboratories and programs, some of which are not part of the
general ERDA program.   To assist in the interpretation of the data,
special interpretive reports and notes are included from time to time.
                                109
-------
     The reports are usually divided into  four main  parts  which  are:

     1.   interpretive reports and notes,

     2.   HASL fallout program data,

     3.   data from sources other than HASL,  and

     4.   recent publications related to radionuclide studies.

     An  appendix to each quarterly report  is also published.   This
appendix contains the results of the analyses of all samples  taken  under
the HASL Fallout Monitoring Program.

     Of the four main parts of the HASL reports only the second  is  fixed
in regard to subject matter discussed.   The  other parts  contain  subject
matter on various subjects as it becomes available.   The second  part,
HASL Fallout Program Data, is comprised of information and data  con-
cerning the following fallout program subjects:

     1)  90Sr and 89Sr fallout at world ground sites,

     2)  radionuclides and lead in surface  air,

     3)  Project Airstream,

     4)  High Altitude Balloon Sampling Program,

     5)  90Sr in milk and tap water,

     6)  90Sr in diet (Tri-Cities), and

     7)  90Sr in human bone.

     The 90Sr and 89Sr in monthly deposition at world ground  sites
activity consists of the collection of precipitation and dry  fallout
over monthly periods at stations in the United States and overseas.  The
samples are analyzed for 90Sr and prior to 1971 for 89Sr whenever pos-
sible.  At present there are 35 monthly monitoring sites in the  United
States and 90 sites in other countries.

     In late 1958 and 1959, the monthly fallout samples were  analyzed
for 90Sr and 89Sr.  The 89Sr measurements  were discontinued in 1960 at
most sites, resumed in September 1961 and discontinued again  in  1971.
Between May 1960 and September 1961, the monthly samples were combined
on a 2-month basis because 90Sr levels had dropped considerably.  In
September 1961, analysis of individual monthly collections were  resumed.
                                 110
-------
     The results of all analyses are published quarterly.   All  ratios of
89Sr to 90Sr have been extrapolated to the midpoint of the sampling
month.  Calculated values of the concentration of 90Sr in  precipitation
are given in units of picocuries of 90Sr per liter.  The total  precipi-
tation in centimeters and the 90Sr deposition in millicuries per square
kilometer for data available in a calendar year are listed.  The groups
or organizations responsible for the sampling are identified.   Monthly
90Sr depositions for New York City since 1954 are shown in graphical
form to reflect trends since 1954.

     The HASL has been collecting surface air particulate  samples at
stations in the Western Hemisphere since January 1963.  The sample
filters are analyzed for a number of fission and activation product
radionuclides as well as stable lead.   The study is a direct outgrowth
of a program initiated by the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in
1957 and continued through 1962.  The primary objective is to study the
spatial and temporal distribution of nuclear weapons debris and lead in
the surface air.  The present network of sampling stations extends from
76° north to 90° south latitude.

     Samples are analyzed for concentrations of gamma-emitting  radio-
nuclides 7Be, 95Zr, 137Cs and 144Ce.  Radiochemical analyses are conducted
to determine concentrations of 54Mn, 90Sr, 109Cd, 144Ce, 238Pu  and 239Pu.
In samples collected after some French and Chinese atmospheric  weapons
tests, additional short-lived nuclides were analyzed, such as 89Sr, 95Zr,
and 141Ce.  As the levels of any of the radionuclides drop to below
practical detection limits they are eliminated from the radiochemical
program.  The results of all analyses (concentrations) are averaged for
each month for each station from 1963 through 1975 by  HASL.

     Project Airstream is HASL's study of radioactivity in the  lower
stratosphere.  An RB-57F aircraft serves as the sampling platform.
Airstream missions are usually scheduled.  The first Airstream  mission
was flown in August 1967.

     The route followed by the sampling aircraft extends from 75° N to
10° S latitude.  Air filter samples are collected at altitudes  of 12-20
km along the flight track.  A gamma analysis of the samples is  made as
well as detailed radiochemical analysis which includes some of  the
following nuclides; 89Sr, 90Sr, 210Pb, 210Po, 238Pu, and 239,240Pu.
Results of the analyses are reported in HASL's "Fallout Program Quarterly
Summary Report."

     Under the HASL Fallout Program, HASL operates a High  Altitude
Balloon Sampling Program.  Upper atmospheric nuclear debris are collected
by balloon-borne filtering devices.  The'program has been  in operation
since 1957.  Balloon flights were made in 1975 at altitudes from 21 km
to 27 km from Alaska, New Mexico, and Panama.
                                Ill
-------
     The sampling filters from the balloon-borne samplers are analyzed
for gamma activity as well as radiochemically for long-lived weapons-
related radionuclides.  These nuclides include 89Sr, 90Sr, 238Pu, and
239Pu.  Starting in fiscal year 1973 and continued in fiscal year 1975
samples were also analyzed for 210Pb, and 210Po to compliment Project
Airstream studies.  The results of the sample analyses are published
quarterly in HASL's "Fallout Program Quarterly Summary Report."

     HASL has analyzed New York City milk and tap water on a monthly
basis since 1954 to determine 90Sr concentrations.  Results are presented
both tabularly and graphically and published quarterly.  The graphical
presentation describes the trends in levels since 1954.

     HASL performs quarterly estimates of the annual dietary intake of
90Sr of New York City and San Francisco residents.  These estimates are
based on the analyses of food purchased at these cities every 3 months
since 1960.  Available data are published in HASL's quarterly summaries.

     HASL analyzes specimens of human vertebrae from New York City and
San Francisco to determine 90Sr concentrations.  Human vertebrae specimens
are also received, through the World Health Organization, from countries
where western world-type diets are not typical.  Analyses are published
quarterly.
Interpretation of HASL fallout program data

     Periodically, HASL publishes interpretive reports and notes con-
cerning the data obtained from the fallout program.  Generally, the
reports and notes show the results of the last year's data and compare
it to data from previous years.  Occasionally, doses to man may be
calculated.  The following reports and evaluations were published by
HASL for each of the indicated fallout program areas.


9°5'p and Q^Sr deposition at world ground sites

     Each year since 1958 an estimate of the annual worldwide deposition
and the cumulative deposit of 90Sr, based upon data of the HASL sampling
network, has been made.  All of the primarily monthly precipitation and
radiochemical data are listed and updated quarterly in the appendix to
each HASL quarterly report.  Additionally, a summary of these results,
averaged over a 10-degree latitude band was published for 1975 (4.1).

     To determine worldwide deposition, HASL assumes that within the 10
degree latitude band, that HASL sampling sites, on the average, are
representative of fallout in that area.  Hence, multiplying the average
monthly 90Sr deposition (mCi/km2) by the area of the latitude band (km2)
gives the total deposition in that band.  For poleward areas beyond 80°
N and 70° S, values of deposition are obtained by extrapolating a smoothly
decreasing 90Sr deposition to zero at the poles.  Summing all the derived
deposition in each latitude band yields the total worldwide deposition.

                                 112
-------
The total deposition of 90Sr fallout on the earth's surface through 1975
was found to be 11.7 mCi  (4.1).

     The total deposition of 90Sr fallout on the earth's surface was
estimated to be 92 kCi in 1975.   In the Northern Hemisphere, the peak
fallout occurred in the spring with 76 percent of the fallout being
deposited between 20° and 60° N and 50 percent between 30° and 50° N.
The highest fallout rate for the Southern Hemisphere occurred in the
summer and early autumn (January-April) when 53 percent of the 90Sr was
deposited.  Seventy-four percent of the total  deposition in the Southern
Hemisphere occurred between 20° and 50° south  latitude (4.1).

     Figure 4-1 shows the annual cumulative 90Sr deposition since 1958.
The 1975 fallout rate in the Northern Hemisphere was about 50 percent of
the 1974 rate and the worldwide rate was approximately 60 percent of the
1974 rate.  The only year in which a lower deposition rate occurred was
in 1973 prior to the Chinese atmospheric test  in June (4.1).

     Table 4-1 presents the annual cumulative  worldwide 90Sr deposition,
and cumulative 90Sr deposition since 1958.   From this table and figure,
it is evident that the total 90Sr burden is decreasing as radioactive
decay exceeds fallout.
Strontium-90 in diet

     Estimates of intake via the total diet in New York City and San
Francisco have been made since 1960 based upon concentrations found in
quarterly food samples.  The dietary intakes of 90Sr have decreased from
maximum levels attained in 1963-64, but the decline has become more
gradual in recent years due to the continuing small amounts of 90Sr
deposition and the little changing cumulative deposit in the soil.

     The estimated annual intake in New York City was 8.3 pCi/day and
3.3 pCi/day in San Francisco.  These intakes represent a slight decrease
over the previous year for New York (13 percent) and a slight increase
(12 percent) for San'Francisco (4.3).

     Table 4-2 shows 90Sr concentrations found in the diet for some 19
food products in San Francisco and New York City.  Figure 4-2 shows the
trend in 90Sr concentration in these cities since 1960.  The rapid
decline in 90Sr intakes after 1963-1964 became more gradual after 1966-67
as the uptake from the little changing cumulative deposit of 90Sr on
soil became the dominant factor contributing to 90Sr concentrations in
food.

     Table 4-3 shows contributions of major food categories to average
90Sr intakes since 1960 at New York City and San Francisco.  Of interest
is the fact that the contributions of vegetables and fruits to daily
intakes have increased during recent years and in 1975 contributed  more
to intake than dairy products (4.3).


                                  113
-------
                                                                                          in  pi
                                                                                              W
                                                                                                      o
                                                                                                      Q.
                                                                                                      a)
                                                                                                     •a
                                                                                                     o
                                                                                                     en
                                                                                                      (U
                                                                                       (O


                                                                                       3
                                                                                                      O)
                                                                                                      S-
                                                                                                      en

                                                                                                      iZ
CN
O

rH
                      CTi
                             00
                                                   in
                                     114
-------
 CO
 o
 CX
 o
13
 01
•a
•H

•o
 a

I
                     Oi
                 C  U
                 hi  0)
                 01 X
                 ~z  ex
                 4-1  CO
                 3 -H
                 O  g
                 cn  cu
    111
C  M
l-i  (U
CU ^5
X  O.
4-1  tn
3 -H
O  S
                 i-t  «H

                 2  CU
                    hi
                    a
                    HI
                    ><
                                                                            CO

                                                                            o

                                                                            CM
                                 O    »H
                                 tO    \O
                                                                                115
-------

















eg
V —

in

rH

60
0
•H
H
3
*o
^
cu
•H

^
r^
o
cd
^


0
cO
c/3












^-,
4J
•H
0
^
*7~
O

13
5
^









































)H
>, CU CO
14H rH ,140
O I-l CdCTl
CTl ' 1
ly 4-J
B-^ CU C >4H
K^ *H O


CO
0
en •*,

•H
O
oJ


SH
CO
o
CT1 00
•H
O
S-l
>-. CU CO
| | r— 1 *^ o
O S-i cd en
CO 4J

>-, -rl O


SH
CO
o
•^
•H
f^
*


l_j
CO
01 00
•H
O
ftl

t^ CU CO
<4H rH ^£ CJ
O SH cd
CO 4-1 <4H
6^2 CU C O
f^-H


COl
1 *^
I
^


>*,
— ^
00



[>,
J_l
o
60
C1J
4-1
cO
CJ

4-1
CU
•H
Q



rH m
CO CM




in • co r^
^H oo co in oo r^
rH 
in




O r-~ -* oo oo rH
v£> OO  CO rH
CJ CO 4-1 fl
3 4-1 CU CO
T3 CU 60 4J
O 60 CU CU CO
S-l CU > 00 CO S
ft > cu cu cd
TJ > O CU
t*-> pC CU 4-1 ,£3
SJ CO C 4-1 CO
•H CU C O 4J ,>,
cd r-l cd O O SH
Q P-l C_? f^ p [ /*^
^^
60 T3
r~» CN m — "^
rH CN -H i-l iH
CJ CJ CJ
ft ft ft
O CM CO
rH CO CO

o o> i^* o m *^~ r^- ^r m r^ r^- rH i
co in »H r~^ ^o co i — (
rH rH







CMO^O incMooin^t -, IH -H -H
T3 >> O S-l HH >-,
rCCU4J t-lSHCUSH 4J^3rH rH>,
COC3-H CU3rHCOCU 4-lrHCOCOrH SHrH
CUC3 ^
-------
                                    Year

Figure 4-2.  Strontium-90 intake in New York City and San Francisco (4.3J
     Resumption of atmospheric testing by the French and Chinese in
1966, resulting in a relatively constant low fallout rate of 90Sr,  has
been a factor in maintaining the dietary intakes of 90Sr at about constant
levels since 1968.
Strontium-90 in human bone

     Since 1961 HASL has analyzed human vertebrae specimens obtained in
New York City and San Francisco and has reported the 90Sr concentrations
determined from their analysis.

     During 1975, 169 specimens of human vertebrae were analyzed.   These
specimens consisted of 32 from children and 42 from adults from New York
City and 45 from children and 50 from adults obtained from San Francisco
(4.4).

     Figure 4-3 shows 90Sr in adult vertebrae for New York City and San
Francisco since 1961.  The data prior to 1961 in figure 4-3 are appro-
priate values for the earliest years of contamination in New York  and
was obtained from the data of Kulp and Schubert.  The solid lines  in
figure 4-3 indicate predictions of 90Sr levels made by HASL using  modeling
techniques.  The data and lines passing through them represent measured
values and standard deviations respectively.

                                   117
-------
Table 4-3.  Contributions of major food categories to average daily
            90Sr intake (4.2)
% Contribution

New York City
1960
61
62
1963
64
65
1966
67
68
1969
70
71
1972
73
74
75
San Francisco
1960
61
62
1963
64
65
1966
67
68
1969
70
71
1972
7J
74
75
Dairy
products

43
47
48
56
46
42
42
35
37
40
39
35
35
31
32
37

36
31
40
47
39
46
31
28
27
29
28
29
22
21
26
31
Grain
products

22
19
19
22
28
27
24
14
13
14
15
16
15
14
11
14

22
27
29
30
39
25
31
26
24
27
27
27
27
24
23
22
Vegetables Fruit

24
22
20
13
16
20
21
33
26
28
27
30
30
32
33
34

21
22
16
11
10
15
20
23
28
23
26
21
29
35
30
25

7
11
10
7
7
7
8
14
20
15
15
17
18
21
22
12

11
14
9
6
6
9
8
15
15
15
13
16
18
16
17
17
Meat
fish, eggs

4
3
4
2
3
5
5
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3

10
6
6
6
6
6
9
8
7
6
6
7
5
4
3
5
Daily intake
pCi 9-°Sr
day

11.3
9.6
12.7
29.6
30.3
22.9
17.5
16.4
14.3
12.4
12.1
12.8
10.7
9.7
9.5
8.3

4.0
3.5
5.5
13.3
12.5
10.8
6.4
5.7
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.0
3.6
3.2
2.9
3.3
                                118
-------
  2.8


  2.6


  2.4


  2 2


 o20
 §1-6
 a..-r

 Si*
 o
 01.0
 o
ocn.e
o>
  .6
   .4
90Sr IN ADULT VERTEBRAE
   53  54 55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63 64  65 66  67 68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75
                                         YEAR


        Figure 4-3.   Strontium-90  in adult  vertebrae - observations (points with
           standard deviations) and bone model predictions (solid  lines)  (4.4)
           As can  be  seen from  figure  4-3,  there  is  a  definite  decreasing
      trend  in  90Sr since 1965.  This  decrease  has been  attributed  by  HASL  to
      be the result of  corresponding decreases  in dietary  90Sr  intake  in  these
      cities.   The large standard  deviations  about the average  values  make  it
      difficult to accurately determine  actual  decreases in  90Sr  levels  and
      effective removal rates (4.4).
      Fallout  239Pu dose to
                            man
           Based  upon  air  concentrations  (measured  and  inferred)  of 239Pu  in
      New York  City, inhalation  intake  by man,  and  the  ICRP  Task  Group lung
      model, Bennet  (4.5)  has  estimated 239Pu dose  to man  through the  year
      1972.  It was  assumed  in performing model  calculations that fallout
      239Pu was attached to  0.4  ym  aerosol  particles and that the inhalation
      rate was  20 m3/d or  7300 m3/y.  Table 4-4 shows the  yearly  computed
      burdens in  man for the period 1954-1972.   Figure  4-4 shows  the yearly
      239Pu intake and the cumulative burdens from  1954 through 1985.   The
      cumulative  intake through  1972 was  42.1 pCi.
                                         119
-------
 I

 Oj
 •M
 ca
4-1
3
O
si-
 I
 a
rH
&
 ca




^— \
•H
O
a
c
ca
a
•H
a
0)
T3
n
rO.
T3
0)
4—)
3
&
U



>,
T3
O
^3
, — (
ca
1 1
o
H


CU
C
f\
18

h
a)
^
h4
j2
1
»^^
h4
00
C
^J
J
r~v
a -H
o c_>
•H &
4J — -
ca
Hfil
m
Cd r^
r-; rr(
r*— t IVj
a w
M C
•H
r4
•H
Cd /— \
00
0) g
a -v.
rrj *H
HH cj
W M-^
3 *~'
w
0) /-X
> WOJ
•H vH g
4J CO ,2
C8 O --.
rH pi *H
3 QJ O
6 -a g
3 ^
u
fl /-N
O CM
•H 8
4J J2
•H -^
CO *H
0 0
a g





co sr ^ vo rH m ox
o co ^o ^o co CM m
rH H rH rH CM CO





rH
sr oo co co CN m oo
rH rH CN CM CO » oo ox o
in in in m m m vo
Ox Ox Ox Ox Ox Ox Ox
rH rH rH rH rH rH rH

ST
rH
rH




00
rH



r~
H


t^
CM

CM
m




rH
Ox







CO
rH





OX
OO







^o
o


rH
vo
ox
rH

in
r^
rH




CM
CM



rH
CN


rH
CO

rH
O
rH



rH
VO
sl-






co
vO





rH
CN
rH






CN
CO


CM
\O
OX
rH

O CO
in o\
co CO




O O
CO SI-



OX ox
CN CO


vo in
sf vO

>£> OO
sf sf
CM CN



co m
CM ^O
CN ^O
rH





00 rH
^O Ox
rH




CO sf
OO CN
rH CN






CN rH
v£> sf


CO sf
U3 vO
OX ON
rH rH

CO
sO
CO




rH
in



Ox
sf


oo
r~

vD
00
rH



OX
CO
CN






CO
CO





00
CO
CM






Sf
rH


m
vD
Ox
rH

in
CM
CO




rH
v£>



00
m


rH
00

in
CM
rH



O
OX







CM
rH





CO
sr
CN






in
o


vO
vO
Ox
rH

in ox
ox r^
CM CM




ox r^
vO 1^



*J2 CO
v£> r^


oo CM
r^ r-»

rH OO
oo m




r^ oo
co m






rH O
in oo
0 0





r^ rH
sf m
CN CN






sr sr
o o


r^ oo
VO v£3
Ox Ox
rH rH

00
VO
CN




CO
00



OO
r>-


in
SO

CM
Sf




vO
sf






CO
vO
O





r^
m
CM






vO
O


OX
vO
Ox
rH

CN
vO
CM




oo
oo



CO
OO


OX
m

CM
CO




r~~
sr






m
SO
o





o
sO
CM






CO
o


0
r~-
ox
rH

OO rH
in m
CM CN




CM m
OX OX



vO OX
00 00


sr oo
m sr

vO OX
CM rH




sr CM
sr CM






O rH
sO CO
0 0





co m
SO sO
CM CN






CO CM
O O


rH CM
r^ r^.
Ox ox
rH rH
                                                               120
-------
      The doses due to the cumulative  intake  of  42.1 pCi  through  1972
 were computed to be 15,  500,  4,  and 7 mrem for  the  lung,  lymph,  liver,
 and bone, respectively.   If one  assumes  that the  average  air concen-
 tration will  be 0.01  fCi/m3 in 1973 and  that no further  intake occurs
 beyond 1973,  the cumulative doses  through the year  2000  are 16,  950, 17,
 and 34 mrem for the lung, lymph,  liver,  and  bone, respectively.

      Comparison of the computed  organ burdens against  results of analyses
 of autopsy tissue by HASL shows  that  reasonable estimates of organ
 burdens from  239Pu inhalation can  be  obtained from  air concentrations
 and the ICRP  Task Group model.
 Fallout 239»2tt°Pw in the  diet

      Although inhalation  of 239Pu  adequately  accounts  for  organ  burden,
 HASL has investigated (4. 5; the occurrence  of plutonium  in the diet
 because of the long half-life involved  and  the resistance  of  plutonium
 in the environment.

      Foods purchased in New York in  1974  for  the  90Sr  in diet program
 were analyzed for 239,2i+opu content.  The results  of the analyses  are
 shown in table 4-5.   Table 4-6 shows  dietary  intake estimates of
 plutonium-239 and -240.  The estimates  are  based  upon  consumption  statis-
Figure 4-4.   Inhalation  intake and burden in man of fallout 239Pu  (4.5)

                                   121
-------
•a
o
o








EJ
0
-H

cd
i-
c
OJ
L
C












o.
'c
E
CO
C/3











^s
.e
60
OJ
3
X
CO
il
^
60
A:

•H
"ft.



OJ
o
£
CO
to
1
•a
60
"^
f.
CO
2
J-l
0)




















m oo in en c^ ey\
ooineor-tc^vcc^ inr^r^cMr-iocoinvOe'-i
-4i>3'CsJes


C^vC-a-OsCMCMvOC^CM -TmmcMWOOV-a-invO
-a.mmr-CO.ocOvOxC ^rOrtr-ICMCTvOencT.^




CO
o
3 <~* co
•OB t) aj
CO O OJ CO U rH
U M r-t OJ -H J!
u ex jz iH OJ nj
3 CO ,0 01 u m jj
•OC4J4JCO O. OJOJ-rt
O-H-H OJAJ i^-' 00 OS
r^^cfl^cociOQJ co oj  3lu
•^ aou-jco>ai>^ 14-1 oj c 1-)
>+-fX OJ>tJ OOT3 T3
^^ojj=jaj3 4Ju .e u pS uS
•HOJ^CO C04Ji-l3iJCOOJCOCo3cj^cyO3C>cOOJOW60uS»-)3C
— CO£UkJkiOO—l OJH-HOOOCOCO-HU CO





o
en
o
o
0
'








00
o
"
+1
o
CO



1



g
0
CN
tH










water

&
s
                                              122
-------
Table 4-6.  Fallout 239,240Pu dietary intake, New York-1974 (4.5)
Item
Bakery products
Fresh fruit
Fresh vegetables
Meat
Flour
Whole grain products
Poultry
Milk
Potatoes
Root vegetables
Canned vegetables
Eggs
Dry beans
Fresh fish
Shell fish
Fruit juice
Rice
Macaroni
Canned fruit
Tap water
Consumption
(kg/y)
44
59
48
79
34
11
20
200
38
10
22
15
3
8
1
28
3
3
11
1200
Concentration
(pCi/kg)
.0040
.0025
.0031
.0025
.00093
.0050
.0056
.0015
.0012
.0019
.00083
.0021
.0043
.0017
.040
.00069
<. 00078
.00095
.00039
.0003
Intake
(pCi/y)
.18
.15
.15
.20
.032
.055
.11
.30
.046
.019
<.018
.031
.013
.014
.040
.019
<.0023
.0028
.0042
.15
                                                       rOTAL
1.5 pCi/y
                              123
-------
      tics and concentration data.   The estimated dietary intake of fallout
      239,2topu during 1974 was estimated to be 1.5 + 0.5 pCi  by HASL.   The
      contribution to this intake was about 26 percent from meat, poultry,
      eggs and fish, 20 percent from dairy products, 18 percent from grain
      products, 15 percent from vegetables, 11 percent from fruit and 10
      percent from tap water.

           Changes in plutonium concentration in foods from 1972 to 1974 are
      shown in figure 4-5.  The standard deviations based upon counting statis-
      tics are represented by the vertical bars in the figure.  Within these
      uncertainties in concentration, there have been few changes since 1972.

           HASL has estimated dietary intake from 239,2<+opu during 1972-1974
      to be 1.6 +_ 0.3 pCi/y.  Contributions to this estimate by various food
      products are shown in table 4-7.

           In addition to dietary samples, HASL has collected and analyzed
      weekly samples of tap water.  The results of this analysis since 1973 is
      shown in figure 4-6.  The annual means for these years are 0.22 +_ 0.04
      fCi/liter, 0.30 + 0.03 fCi/liter, and 0.25 + 0.02 fCi/liter for 1973,
      1974, and 1975, respectively.  The mean for the entire period was 0.25 +_
      0.02 fCi/liter.

I
I
     Figure 4-5.   Changes  in  239,2ifOpu  concentrations  in  foods  from  "1972  (left)
     to 1974 (right).   The means  of each  pair  of  determinations (points)  are
     weighted according to indicated counting  uncertainties.  Values  below  the
     minimum detection level  (+^100% uncertainty)  have  no  downside  uncertainty
     indicated (4.6)
                                        124
-------
Table 4-7.  Fallout 239,2i+0pu dietary  intake,  New York, 1972-74 (4.5)
Item
Shellfish
Bakery products
Whole grain products
Dry beans
Fresh fruit
Poultry
Fresh vegetables
Meat
Root vegetables
Flour
Fresh fish
Rice
Potatoes
Eggs
Macaroni
Canned vegetables
Milk
Fruit juice
Canned fruit
Tap water
Consumption
(kg/y)
1
44
11
3
59
20
48
79
10
34
8
3
38
15
3
22
200
28
11
511
Mean
concentration
(pCi/kg)
.012 +
.0075 +
.0059 +
.0047 +
.0045 +
.0043 +
.0035 +
.0025 +
.0025 +
.0023 +
.0017 +
.0015 +
. 0014 +
.0014 +
.0011 +
.00087 +
.00051 +
.00036 +
.00035 +
.00026 +
.0009
.0007
.0010
.0014
.0005
.0007
.0004
.0006
.0004
.0002
.0007
.0003
.0005
.0004
.0003
.00039
.00024
.00022
.00016
.00002
Intake
(pCi/y)
.012
.33
.065
.014
.26
.085
.17
.20
.025
.079
.013
.0044
.052
.020
.0034
.019
.10
.010
.0038
.14
                                                   TOTAL
1.6 + .3 pCi/y
                               125
-------
     Based upon their program and using an estimate that the  uptake  from
the gastrointestinal tract ranged from 3 x 10~5 to TO"6  pCi/y,  HASL
estimates that the 1.6 pCi/y intake during 1972-1974 contributed,  at
most, 5 x 10~5 pCi/y to the body burden.  During the same period,  inhala-
tion intake averaged 0.2 pCi/y of which about 4 x 10~2 pCi/y  contributed
to the initial lung and body burden.   Thus,  at present,  deposition and
air activity of fallout plutonium, this inhalation pathway contribution
to body burden is about a factor of 1000 higher then the ingestion
pathway.
                  United Nations Scientific Committee
                  on the Effects of Atomic Radiation
     Perhaps the best source of dose information derived from many
different sources of fallout data, including the HASL data,  has  been
provided by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of
Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).   The sixth substantive report of UNSCEAR
reviews radiation received from all  sources to which man is  exposed.

     Fallout dose information presented by UNSCEAR in the 6th report is
currently being updated and should be published in 1977.  Although the
most recent published report doses not contain dose data up  to and
including the year 1975, it does contain in one single reference the
most complete and recent dose information available with some few
exceptions such as the HASL plutonium doses discussed previously.
Presented below is the dose information contained in the latest UNSCEAR
report.
                   1973
                                                  1 »7S
         Figure  4-6.   239,2L+opu  -jn  ^ap  water  in  New  York  (4.6)
                                 126
-------
Tritium doses

     Based upon an estimated 1900 megacuries of tritium released by
nuclear weapons tests up to 1963 (4.6)  (most of which was in the Northern
Hemisphere), the UNSCEAR estimates the  dose commitments to be 4 and 1
millirads for the Northern and Southern Hemispheres,  respectively (4.6).
Carbon-14

     The total estimated 14C inventory from weapons tests has been
estimated to be 6.2 megacuries compared to a natural  inventory of 280
megacuries.  UNSCEAR estimates dose commitments of 140 millirads and 170
millirads to soft tissue and endosteal cells, respectively.   Because of
the long half life of lltC, most of the dose commitment occurs over
thousands of years; the part of the commitment that will  occur up to the
year 2000 is estimated to be 12 millirads to the gonads and  14 millirads
to the cells lining bone surfaces (4.7).
Iron-55

     The total production of 55Fe from tests since 1961-1962 is esti-
mated to be about 50 megacuries.  Activity estimates based upon moni-
toring in North and South America dropped from about 500 fCi/m3 to a few
femtocuries per cubic meter by 1970.  Body burdens calculated from
different places about the world range from 20-30 nanocuries in 1966 to
1-10 nanocuries in 1969.  Assuming a maximum body burden of about 30
nanocuries in the temperate latitudes, dose estimates are 1 millirad to
the gonads and bone-lining cells and 0.6 millirads to the bone marrow.
For the Southern Hemisphere, doses are estimated to be about 1/4 that of
the temperate latitudes (4.7).
Krypton-85

     The atmospheric inventory of 85Kr produced by nuclear weapons tests
has been estimated to be about 3 megacuries.  85Kr is a beta emitter,
however, it also produces a gamma photon in 0.4 percent of the disinte-
grations.  By external irradiation, beta rays deliver a dose to the skin
and to subcutaneous tissues, while gamma radiation is responsible for
whole body and gonad doses.  Internal  radiation also occurs from inhal-
ation.  The dose to the gonads from external radiation is estimated to
be 17 nrad/y per pCi/m3.  The dose commitment to the gonads is estimated
to be about 0.2 microrad (4.7).
Radiostrontium

     Based upon 90Sr deposition measurements taken worldwide and calcu-
lations of uptake by man in diet, the UNSCEAR has estimated the dose
commitment from 90Sr from all tests up to 1970 (table 4-8)  (4.7).

                                 127
-------
Table 4-8.  Estimated dose commitment from strontium-90
                         Northern Hemisphere           Southern  Hemisphere
Organ
Bone marrow
Endosteal cells
Temperate
latitudes
(mrad)
62
85
Average
(mrad)
45
61
Temperate
latitudes
(mrad)
17
23
Average
(mrad)
11
15
Iodine-131

     Iodine-131 fallout deposition patterns are unpredictable throughout
the world; hence, the estimation of worldwide doses is not possible
unless extensive data on deposition and milk production and consumption
throughout the world are known.   Because of the limitation of data,
UNSCEAR has only provided estimates of 131I doses at some locc.1  areas
throughout the world, but did not include the United States.
Cesium-137

     UNSCEAR estimates that the average integrated deposits of 137Cs in
the northern and southern temperate latitudes are 128 and 35 nCi/m2,
respectively.  The corresponding dose commitments from diet for these
deposits are 26 and 7 millirads.  If the dose commitments are calculated
on a population-weighted basis over the whole of each hemisphere,  the
commitments are 19 and 4 millirads for the Northern and Southern Hemis-
pheres, respectively (4.7).

     External dose commitments from 137Cs ground deposition have been
estimated for the period 1950-1970 to be 134 and 32 millirads for the
Northern and Southern Hemispheres, respectively (4.7).
Plutonium

     Based upon estimates of the total integrated level  of fallout
Plutonium since the beginning of weapons tests to 1970,  the UNSCEAR
estimates that the integrated doses over 50 years to be  2, 400,  0.8, and
0.2 millirads to the pulmonary region, the lymph nodes,  the liver, and
the bone, respectively (4.7).
                                   128
-------
Short-lived fission products

     UNSCEAR, using 90Sr deposition data up to 1967 at Abingdon,  United
Kingdom, has computed an estimate of the Northern Hemisphere,  population-
weighted, dose commitment of 144 millirads.  Based upon estimates of
fallout of 90Sr for 1968-1969, a dose commitment of 4 millirads  for
1968-1969 is estimated.   Thus, the total population-weighted dose
commitment for short-lived fission products for 1961-1969 is estimated
as 148 millirads for all deposition in the Northern Hemisphere,  and the
dose commitment for the northern temperate latitudes is estimated as 203
millirads (4.7).

     Based upon 90Sr deposition from 1961-1969 in the Southern Hemis-
phere to the dose commitment from short-lived products is estimated by
UNSCEAR to be 40 millirads.  In the southern temperate regions,  it is
estimated to be 60 millirads (4.7).
Summary - UNSCEAR results

     Table 4-9 summarizes UNSCEAR estimates of dose commitments from
weapons tests conducted prior to 1971.   Table 4-9 also presents estimates
given in the UNSCEAR 1969 report for tests conducted prior to 1968.
Although no major series of tests were conducted during the period 1968-
1970, there are significant differences between the estimates made for
internal dose commitments from 90Sr to bone-lining cells and for external
dose commitments to all tissues.  These changes are mostly due to the
availability of improved information (4.7).   As a result, the ratios of
external to internal estimated dose commitments for all tissues are
higher for 1972 than 1969.

     Because of the higher dose commitments for external radiation and
lower dose commitments from 90Sr, the relative importance of 90Sr has
decreased and 137Cs appears to be the main contributor to total dose
commitment (4.7).
Predicted doses

     A prediction of doses from atmospheric nuclear tests was made in a
study published in 1972 (4.8).   A summary of these doses is presented in
table 4-10.
Summary

     UNSCEAR provides population-weighted dose estimates on a worldwide
basis usually reported by temperate zone in each hemisphere.   The disad-
vantage to this reporting procedure is that this information  is not
specific to the United States.  However, in a way,  the data indicate
that the annual cumulative worldwide deposition reached a maximum around
                                 129
-------
 cfl
 cu
 e
 o
 (-1
 CO  CO
 4-1  CU
 (3 43
 4-1  CU


1H
 o
 O  C
     0)
 cu  at
 to  !s
 O  4-1
T3  0)
     42
 0)

H  Ol
*S"™''  "!-)
     CO
     O
  •  -H
rH  T3
r^  fi
CT.  -H
 
 o
 a  T)
     cu
 cu  T-I
 01  >-i
 o  n
 Q  cfl
     o
     CO
  •  CO
ON  4-1
 I
-d-

 cu
rH
42
 CO
H



'""x (3
13 O
Cfl -rl
J-l 4J
vS- *

3
CO p.
4J 0
a p
cu
B T3
4-1 i— |
•H p
g 0
B t3-
O
a cu
43
Ol 4J
CO
0 0
Q 4J


-3
a> o

0 M
PQ tfl
B



60
(3
•rl
(3 CO
•rlrH
i-HrH
1 CU
cu a
a
o
PQ



CO
13
Cfl
C
O
o


CU
(3
s~^ O
13 N
CO
W 0)
S 4-1
^ CO
^i
05 CU
4-1 CL
(3 E
0) 0)
e 4-1

•rl 43
0 4J
0 3
0 0
CJ CO

01 0)
tfl 43
O 4-1
O
rJ
O
H-l

^
 43
•H 4-1
g ^
B O
0 (3
o
Ol
CU 43
CO 4-1
0
0 H
o
MH



^
0) O
C r4
O !-l
pq co
B



60
fi
•H
(3 05
•HrH
rHrH
1 01
cu o
e
o
pq





05
13
tfl
fl
o
O




C
O
•H
4J
CO
•H
*rj
tfl
^1

MH
0

01
a

3
O
CO
J- o-
1

*3* ^3* rH rH *3* i — 1
^
CN


O

rH







-3" 1^ rH
1 • •
-3" O CO -xj1 in O r^» oo O
 \™X CO x™.' csj ^s ^~*
rH •
CT* VO X rH CN O P^ f^
i-H i-H CN rH rH




O
CN
rH

^-^
(^v
«^-
x— '

CM
f*^




^"^ s~**
s~\ t~*^ J" xO OO /-" s
00 00 1 rH CN -d" UO
^v->O x^coi-'1>-'O

CT. xo ^ i — i in o co r^ o
rH rH CN rH CN
^
»^-
vD


rH
00



^~x /-~x
X*x ^— Nj" CO /*"^
00 00 1 rH Vt
**,*' x_ / Q x,^1 rP) x^x
rH
CT. xD X i— 1 CN O r^
rH rH CM rH
CO
00


in
in

/^^
/^ /•" X X—N /— N X~X
xD xD J- CO -^ rH
CO CO 1 r-l VO CN
^s x_ / ^ x^x i^ v^ / v^x
rH
in CT. X *^" CN O CN xO
xO UO CN rH xO CN

o
|-^,
T-i
^s^

0
00
01



^•s
S* X ^™x x*-x CO *— ^%
xD xO -^ XO CO i — 1
00 CO 1 rH rH CN
°**s *^s CO *^ *~^ x— ' CN
rH
in CT. x *xf !n rH in XD xO
x£> m CN rH 00 CM


^^
O
^j-
CN
- — '

0
\O
CM





^— s ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
x£> XO J- CO rH
CO CO 1 rH CN
Xw' X_ X ^ X^ / S-X
H
in CT. X - LP| CN rH CN
^-N,
O
r-H
rH
^- s

0

rH



^~^
pQ
rH
tfl
4J
xt o
 60
d MH -H
co MH
0) CO 4J
43 (3 4J
4J >-, 0) !3
42 B cfl
rJ 4J O
O C -rl -H
14H O g MH
•H g 'rl
CO 4-1 O C
rH O O 60
rH 3 T\
CU n3 CU 05
O CU 05
WO O
60 T3 5
G < 4J
•rl CU
C 43 O
•iH . 4-1 4-1
rH 01
1C" 14H
CU O CO MH
a 42 4-1 O
O cfl
42 O T3 13
4-1 CU
O 4J 13
4J CO fi fi
(H Ol 3
4-i ccj -H O
C 01 0 M
> -i-l
B UH C
4J O <4H 01
•H m 3 01
g CO 42
B M fi
O CU -H CU
0 > >
o m tfl
CU O 43
CO CU
O 05 CU CO
13 O 05 rH
T3 3 cfl
CU Cfl 4-1
43 13 0 0
H CU Ol H
^ 4J pq x-x
tfl cd 43
X_> Jj x^
60 •
cu cu
4-1 fi
c o
•H N
                                                                                  130
-------
1965, and it has been decreasing ever since as radioactive decay exceeds
fallout.  Table 4-9 of this chapter summarizes the estimates of dose
commitment from the significant fission products of fallout resulting
from tests conducted prior to 1971.  Although the data are reported on a
global basis, they indicate that most of the dose is committed to the
                Table  4-10.  Total  annual whole-body doses
                        from global  fallout  (4.8)

Year
1963
1965
1969
1980
1990
2000
U.S.
population
(millions)
190
194
204
237
277
321
Per capita
dose
(mrem)
13
6.9
4.0
4.4
4.6
4.9
Dose for
U.S. population
(106 person-rem)
2.4
1.3
0.82
1.1
1.3
1.6
population in the Northern Hemisphere and that 137Cs appears to be the
most significant contributor to this dose commitment.   An estimation of
the doses to the U.S. population from fallout was presented in table 4-10.
These estimations indicate that the per capita dose will increase
slightly during the 1970 to 2000 time period.
Refevenaes


(4.1)  FEELY, H. W.  Worldwide deposition of 90Sr through 1975.   U.S.
       Energy Research and Development Administration Report, HASL-308,
       pp. 1-121 to 1-137 (October 1, 1976).
                                  131
-------
(4.2)   VOLCHOK,  H.  L.   Worldwide deposition  of  90Sr  through  1974.
       U.S.  Energy Research and  Development  Administration Report,
       HASL-297, pp.  1-2 to 1-20 (October 1,  1975).

(4.2)   BENNETT,  B.  G.   Strontium-90 in  the diet -  results through  1975.
       U.S.  Energy Research and  Development  Administration Report,  HASL-
       306,  pp.  1-95  to 1-114 (July 1,  1976).

(4.4)   BENNETT,  B.  G.   Strontium-90 in  human bone-1975  results  for
       New York  City  and San Francisco.   U.S. Energy Research and
       Development Administration,  HASL-308,  pp.  1-3 to 1-19.

(4.5)   BENNETT,  B.  G.   Fallout 239Pu dose to man.  U.S.  Atomic  Energy
       Commission Report HASL-278,  pp.  1-41  to  1-63  (January 1,  1974).

(4.6)   BENNETT,  B.  G.   Fallout 239,2«fOPu 1n  the d1et:  -1974 results.
       U.S.  Energy Research and  Development  Administration Report,  HASL-
       306,  pp.  1-115 to 1-131 (July 1,  1976).

(4.7)   UNITED NATIONS SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON THE  EFFECTS OF ATOMIC
       RADIATION.  Ionizing Radiation Levels and Effects Volume 1:
       Levels, United Nations, New York (1972).

(4.8)   KLEMENT,  A.  W.  JR., C. P. MILLER, R.  P.  MINX, AND B.  SHLEIEN.
       Estimates of ionizing radiation  doses in the  United States:  1960-
       2000, ORP/CSD  72-1.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  Office
       of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C.  (August  1972).
                                 132
-------
                   Chapter  5  - Uranium  Fuel  Cycle
                       Uranium Mining and Milling


     Uranium has been milled in the United States since  the  late  1940's.
Ores containing uranium have actually been mined  since around  1900  in
the Slickrock, Colo., area where the ore was  delivered by mules to  the
railroad and shipped to a radium mill in Pennsylvania  (5.1).


Mining locations in the United States

     Uranium ore-producing mines have been operated  in the States of
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,  Idaho,  Montana, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming.  From 1948 to 1975, 282,400 tons of  U308 have been  produced
from 124,327,000 tons of ore in the United States (average 0.23 percent
U308).  Most of the ore (75 percent) presently comes from the  States of
New Mexico and Wyoming, 45 and 30 percent (1975), respectively (5.2).
The significant uranium areas of the United States are listed  in  table
5-1.  The Colorado plateau area shown in figure 5-1, accounting for 66
percent of the U308 (produced and known $10 reserves), includes the four
corners area of Arizona, Colorado,  New Mexico, and Utah.  The  Wyoming
Basins account for 23 percent, and  all  others, 11 nercent of these
reserves.

     Most of the $15 and $30 uranium reserves  are also found in the
Colorado Plateau and Wyoming Basins ($15-52 percent  and  36 percent; $30-
51 percent and 36 percent, respectively).   Based  upon  present  produc-
tion, the States of New Mexico and  Wyoming contain most  of the $15  and
$30 reserves (New Mexico, 48 percent and 47 percent, respectively;  and
Wyoming, 37 percent and 37 percent, resoectively.

     The number of acres held by the uranium  industry  for exploration
and mining peaked in 1969 and on January 1, 1970, 27,279,000 acres  were
held.  The acreage held then decreased through 1972; and on  January 1,
1973, 17,677,000 acres were involved.  Since  then the  acres  held  have
shown an increase each year on January 1 (1974-18.8  million; 1975-21.3
million).  As of January 1, 1976, 22,911,000  acres were  held.  Forty-
four percent of this land was in the State of  Wyoming  (10,090,000 acres)
followed by Utah (18 percent), New  Mexico (16  percent),  and  Colorado (7
percent).  The remaining 10 States  ranged from Arizona with  942,000
acres (4 percent) to Oregon with 31,000 acres  (0.1 percent)  (5.2).
                                133
-------
Table 5-1. Significant uranium areas of the United States (5.2)
State
Alaska
Arizona





California

Colorado





Idaho
Montana
Nevada

New Mexico


North Dakota
Oregon
South Dakota


Texas

Area
Prince of Wales Island
Cameron
Grand Canyon
Globe
Monument Valley
Tuba City
West Central
East Central
Southeast
Front Range
Gunnison
Marshall Pass
Maybe 11
Rifle
Uravan Mineral Belt
Lowman
South Central Border
Austin
North Central
Grants Mineral Belt
Laguna
Shiprock
Bel field
Lakeview
Cave Hills
Edgemont
Slim Buttes
Falls City
Ray Point
U3Qg production
> 500 tons
X
X
X

X




X

X
X

X




X

X


X
X
X
X
X
and reserves
< 500 tons
> 10 tons



X

X
X
X
X

X


X

X
X
X
X

X

X
X





                              134
-------
      Table 5-1.   Significant uranium areas of the United States cont.
   State
                                                U308 production and reserves
    Area
                                                   > 500 tons
                                            < 500 tons
                                            > 10 tons
Utah
Washington


Wyomi ng
Canyon Lands
Green River
Inter River (Moab)
Lisbon Valley
Marysvale
Mexican Hat
San Rafael
Thompson
White Canyon

Spokane (Ford)
North of Spokane

Black Hills
Crooks Cap
Gas Hills
Powder River Basin
Shirley Basin
X
X
X
X

X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
       The Bendix Field Engineering Corporation performs as a prime oper-
  ating contractor for the ERDA's Grand Junction Operations Office and has
  published a report which summarizes the work done in support of ERDA's
  National Uranium Resource Evaluation or NURE program.  During 1976,
  nearly 80,000 miles of aerial surveys were flown; samples were analyzed
  by four ERDA laboratories, 50 geologic study projects were started,
  remote sensing LANDSAT data were analyzed, a drilling program was ini-
  tiated, and various related development programs were in progress (5,2).

       Aerial radiometric reconnaissance is used to determine broad source
  regions of uranium occurrence.  This equipment is calibrated using a
  calibration-pad which contains known amounts of uranium, thorium, and
  potassium.  This facility in Grand Junction, Colo., is available without
  charge to firms and organizations for calibration of airborne or vehicle-
  born spectrometer systems.
                                    135
-------
                                                                \
 Figure 5-1.  Geological  resource  regions of the United States  (5.2)
     The NURE program should expand the potential areas to look for
uranium reserves, but it should also add much information regarding the
gamma exposure from naturally occurring nuclides throughout the United
States.  It is also envisioned that other efforts such as the studies on
emanometry techniques (measurement of radon and helium gas decay products
from the uranium chain) will produce techniques and equipment that will
be useful in other areas of natural radioactivity.
Types of urani-ian recovery

     Two major types of uranium recovery are practiced in the United
States, strip or pit mining and underground mining.  Strip mining produces
the largest amount of waste because of stripping the overburden from
                                   136
-------
above the ore horizon.  For instance, in Wyoming during 1974, 2,666,000
tons of uranium ore were mined.  The wastes produced were 103,531,000
tons of overburden, 515,000 tons of waste rock, and 2,984,000 tons of
mill tailings.  Colorado mined 1,216,000 tons of ore and oroduced 1,210,000
tons of tailings (5.4).  All of Colorado's production was from under-
ground mines, while almost all of Wyoming's production comes from strip
mines; thus, strip mining produces vast quantities of waste.

     Uranium (U308) is also again being recovered from waste streams of
the phosphate industry.  During the 1950's and early 1960's about 500
tons of UaOg were recovered in conjuction with phosphoric acid production.
This method of uranium recovery was resumed in 1975.  The uranium recovered
from the waste streams has been called by-product uranium.  Extensive
research and development has also been performed with copper dump leach
liquor.  Estimates based on production through the year 2000, indicate
140,000 tons of U308 from phosphate and 25,000 tons of U308 from copper
will be available (5.2).

     A new category of uranium recovery called solution mining is now
also being used.  Mining companies for a number of years have used such
techniques as heap leaching, primarily for recovering the uranium from
old uranium mill tailings piles.  A new technique which has been used in
Texas and started in Wyoming in 1976 is called in situ mining.

     This process currently consists of pumping a sulfuric acid leach
solution into the uranium-bearing formation through injection wells and
recovering the leach liquor through a production well.  The uranium is
extracted from the pregnant liquor on ion exchange columns, eluted from
the columns with sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide, precipitated with
manganese oxide, and filtered.  At present, an impure yellow cake results
(about 50 percent UsOs);  thus, the product will be shipped to a conven-
tional mill for further refining.
Active uranium mills

     The uranium mills that were in operation in the United States as of
January 1, 1976, are shown in figure 5-2 and listed in table 5-2.
Ninety-three percent of the stated nominal daily milling capacity was
centered in the States of New Mexico (48 percent), Wyoming (33 percent),
Colorado (6 percent), and Utah (6 percent).  The remaining 7 percent was
in the States of Texas (6 percent) and Washington (1 percent).  Figures
5-3 to 5-6 show the trends that have been developing in the uranium
mining and milling industry since 1965.

     Strip mining probably produces more problems for the environment
than underground mining, but while underground mining does not produce
as great a volume of waste, it produces greater hazards for the miners.
Rock falls and equipment accidents are constantly present and another
hazard underground is the exposure to the radon daughters produced from
radon.
                                 137
-------
 O)
 o
 o

 Q.

 0)
 s-
 


 CD


 3
-------
       Table 5-2.   U.S.  uranium mills  as  of January 1,  1976  (5.2)
         Company
Anaconda Company
Atlantic-Richfield
Atlas Corporation
Conoco-Pioneer
Cotter Corporation
Dawn Mining Company
Exxon Company, USA
Federal-American Partners
Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp.
Rio Algom Corporation
Union Carbide Corporation
Union Carbide Corporation
United Nuclear-Homestake
  Partners
Uranium Recovery Corp.
Utah International, Inc.
Utah International, Inc.
Western Nuclear, Inc.
     Total
         Location
Grants, New Mexico
George West, Texas
Moab, Utah
Falls City, Texas
Canon City, Colorado
Ford, Washington
Powder River Basin, Wyoming
Gas Hills, Wyoming
Grants, New Mexico
LaSal, Utah
Uravan, Colorado
Gas Hills, Wyoming
Grants, New Mexico

Mulberry, Florida
Gas Hills, Wyoming
Shirley Basin, Wyoming
Jeffrey City, Wyoming
 Nominal Capacity
(tons ore per day)
       3,000
        I/
       1,000
       1,750
         450
         400
       3,000
         950
       7,000
         700
       1,300
       1,200
       3,500
       1,200
       1,800
       1,200
                                    28,450
_!/ Uranium obtained by solution mining.
2/ Uranium recovered from phosphoric acid.
                              139
-------
   n ooo
   10 ooo
              1966   1967    1968    1969    1970   1971   1972    1973    1974    1975
                                        CALENDAR YEAR


               Figure 5-3.   Uranium ore processing rates  (5.2)
   i 6  000
   15  000 —
£  14  000
   1 3  000 —•
"-  12  000	
   11  000
    0 000
              1966   1967    1968   1969
1970   1971
CALENDAR  TEAR
                                                      1972   1973    1974    1975
               Figure 5-4.   Uranium concentrate production  (5.2)
               (includes  production from mi 11 feed other than ore)
                                          140
-------
   .23
  .22
"- .2!
   .20
   .19
   .18
   17
   .16
           1966    1987   1988     1969   1970   1971    1972    1973   1974   1975
                                      CALENDAR YEAR

               Figure  5-5.  Grade of  uranium  ore processed  (5.2)
           1906    1967    1988   196£   1970    1971    1972   1973    1974    1975
                                      CALENDAR YEAR

                 Figure  5-6.   Recovery from  ore processed  (5.2)
                                       141
-------
Dose data

     Although the doses to actual individuals or populations living in
the  vicinity  of  uranium mills have not been  documented, doses  have  been
predicted for a model uranium mill (5.5)  and Ford, Bacon and Davis has
prepared exposure estimates in the Phase II reports that have been
released (5.6).  Dose estimates from routine effluents of a model mill
to individuals in the vicinity of the mill through the air pathway are
given in table 5-3.  The estimated doses to the population in the vicinity
of the mill are given in table 5-4.
                     Fuel Enrichment (5. 7) (5.
     Gaseous diffusion technology is used to enrich uranium-235 content
from about 0.7 percent to about 4 percent for use in light-water reactors
and to about 90 percent enrichment for use in high temperature gas-cooled
reactors.

     Radiation doses to individuals and to the population from various
pathways were estimated by ERDA for annual releases of radioactive
effluents from normal operation of 8.75 million SWU/y enrichment plants.

     Table 5-5 shows the estimated total body dose to an individual at
the facility boundary 1200 meters from the plant, resulting from all
exposure pathways.  Gaseous effluents contribute approximately 98 percent
of the estimated dose to the total body.  Dose estimates resulting from
the principal radionuclides in the gaseous effluents are given in table
5-6 for a number of organs.  Tables 5-7 and 5-8 are summaries of the
estimated population doses over an 80-km radius from the plant.  Gaseous
effluents are shown to be the primary contributors to population total
body dose.  Contaminated ground surface and ingestion are the exposure
pathways that contribute over 80 percent of the estimated population
dose for all reference organs other than the lungs, for which inhalation
is the most important exposure pathway.

     In summary, the isotopes of interest in the enrichment plants are
uranium-234, -235 and -238 and naturally occurring daughters.  The
environmental data indicate that it is unlikely that diffusion operations
significantly increase levels of exposure to the general population.
             Fuel Fabrication Plants  (5.8)  (5.9)  (5.10)
      In  the  final fuel  fabrication step, UFg  is hydrolyzed to uranyl
 fluoride,  converted  to  ammonium diuranate and calcined to the dioxide.
 The dioxide  powder is pelletized, sintered and loaded into stainless
                                 142
-------




















c
o
•r-
ro
ro
JC
C
•r—

3 ^
' i —
00 r™-
'TO 'E
3
T3 r—
•i- CO
5* ~O
•i— O
"O E
C
•i- ro

O 4—
-M O
00 >,
CO -P
00 •!—
o c
-a T-
o
C T-
o >
•r-
4-> CO
ra .C
•i- •»->
ra C
CL. *r-

,
CO
LO

CO
.a
ro
1—
















c
ro
cn
^.
o
,_

00
O
Q






















i
i
S
c
u











3
•a E
•i— v^
> ^— v
•r- O >>
•o oo ^
c E
•r- C. CO
••- s-
^•^s
ro T-
s- 3.
CO










c
r—
Q.

+J ^^^S,
03 >> >>
S- —
-— ro E
ro -a co
3 C S-
-0 3 E
•r- O 	
> -Q
•r—
"O
c:
K— (











ra
o c
•r- ro
+-> cn
•r- S-
S~ 0
CJ





^—
__ ^^
_ S- T-
3 CO 0
3 4-> E
^ 	 f



CO
•a
•r—
O
3
C
O
•r—
•^3
ro
o;


CNJ ro co c^J
1 1 1 1
O O O O
r™~ ^~ r" • t~~ •

X X X X

cn <* CM un
CO CO CM <*


















o u"> un o
r-. •— i— o
i— CM















cn cn CT>
c c c
333
_J _J _l







o LT> o LO
CO r- •— O
i— CM



^i-oo o
co co co to
CM CM CM CM i —
1 1 CM ra
E -0 E i -P
3 C 3 E 0
•r- (0 T- 31—
C S- -r-
ro O TD
S- -C ro














-a
C
0
Q- C
•a o
c: oo -r-
ro cn cn
c a>
E -r- S-
ro i—
"O T- >>
ro 4->
5 oo
S- CO C
ro +-> ^. CO
CO C -l-> -O
CO 1
CO E O C
s- -a -4-> o
O E •!-
U 3 E -M
1 O (O (O
ro E 's
r— •!- co a.
a ^: o
E -t-> Q-
S- ro C I
ra o .c: S
CO oo 4- cn o
CO >, CO 3 i—
-Q oo O O
S- 3 4-> S- «
o co -c: -a

U CO S-
-o -a ••- s- co ro
co ai -c ra en
E O 5 ro C
33 a> a. ra
00 T3 E -C CO
00 O QJ •»-> O) C
rO S- S- +-> 00 -r-
ra CL oo 4-
CO CO >, O >> «
s- >, ai oo ceo
ra -^ oo ro 4-^
S— ro oo "O GJ ra
i — coo oo c: S-4-+J
i — a_2 coosoc/)
•r- O CJ CL4->
E "O r— O ro C C
COr- S_ C CO S- S-
•— r— CO Q.ott-3CO
CO r— >, -I- 4-> 4J
-O -r- _C 4-> O CO 00
E ra ro CO -C 2
CO CO 4-> Q.-O
ro S- coi — a) ra C ro
O O S- i- ra
4- ro-o CO C
O 4-> ^ T- 00 O C T-
S 0 cn Q. O
oo 4->  4J o
•r- O 4-i— O •!-
4JOO O-i-l— OJ4-)
oo ***^" ro ro i — ra
•r-Oi— CO +-> U r— O
S~ O " oo O O O
COtOr— ID et t— O — J
"*~^
ro i — CM CO >^- Ln to

ro
-^~
O
ra
143
-------
        Table 5-4.   Collective  dose  to  the  general  population  in  the
                    vicinity of a  model  mill  (5.5;
  Radionuclide
Source
term3
(mCi/y)
         Pathway
                                      „  ...   n
                                      Cntlcal
            Collective critical
               organ dose*3
             (person-rem/y)
  Uranium-234
      and 238
  Thorium-230


  Radium-226
180


 15


 10
            Air


            Air


            Air
Lung


Lung


Lung


Total
2.2


0.2


0.1


2.5
   Releases to water pathways assumed equal  to zero,  and doses from
   radon-222 are not included.

  ""The population for the model  mill  assumes that 5.5 x TO4 persons
   are exposed within 80 km of the mill  site.
steel or zircaloy tubing which is then capped and welded into fuel  rods.
These completed fuel rods are assembled in fixed arrays into fuel  elements
which are installed into the reactor core.

     Radioactive wastes discharged from fuel  fabrication plants are
quite limited.  Most of the uranium waste compounds are solid and
conventional air equipment is used to remove the particulates from the
airborne effluents.  Liquid effluents are collected in settling tanks or
ponds.  Estimates of the quantities of isotopes released from typical
facilities based on limited monitoring information have been published
(5.9), and a summary of these estimates is given in table 5-9.  Dose
values have been estimated from these effluents and these are shown in
table 5-10.  The data indicate that the total body collective dose
estimate from fuel fabrication operations is about 3 x 10~5 person-rad/
MW(e)-y from liquid releases and 10"7 person-rad/MW(e)-y from gaseous
releases.
                                  144
-------
      Table 5-5.   Summary of the estimated total  body dose to adult
         individuals at locations of maximum exposure resulting per
         year of operation of 8.75 million SWU per year enrichment
         plants (5.7)
          Exposure pathway
Dose (mrem)"
                                                             a/
                              Gaseous effluents
      Immersion in air
      Contaminated ground surface
      Inhalation
      Ingestion
                              Liquid effluents
      Drinking water
      Swimming
      Ingestion (aquatic food chains)

           Total
3.9xl(T7
1.4x10-'
2.9xlO-2
1.3X1Q-1
9.2xlO-4
6.7xlO-6
3.8xlQ-4

0.3
      — Fromeither gaseous diffusion or gas centrifuge.
     The relative importance of various environmental pathways to popu-
lation doses calculated for model facilities is given in table 5-11.
External radiation exposures from contaminated air were found to account
for only a small fraction of the dose from all facilities except the
reprocessing plant where large quantities of 85Kr are released.   External
exposures from contaminated ground are relatively important only for the
facilities (U02 fuel fabrication and reprocessing) which release relatively
large fractions of gamma-emitting particulates.  Internal exposures from
inhalation pathways accounted for from 66 to 99 percent of total-body
population doses.

     Ingestion of radioactivity via terrestrial food pathways is a
particularly significant potential route in the case of uranium mills
and U02 fuel fabrication plants.  Since mills are typically located in
areas which are not particularly suited for farming or dairying, ingestion
                                   145
-------
     Table 5-6.   Summary of the estimated contributions to individual
         total  body and organ doses resulting from exposure to gaseous
         effluents released from a 8.75 million SWU per year enrich-
         ment plant during one year of operation (5.7)

Organ of
reference
Total body
Bone
Thyroid
Lungs
Muscle
Kidneys
Liver
Spleen
Testes
Ovaries
GI tract
Maximum
annual dose
(mrem)
0.4
2.4
.3
1.3
.3
2.2
.3
.2
.3
.2
8.4
Contribution

Uranium
86
95
86
95
82
27
61
82
86
86
3
to dose

"Tc
13
2
13
2
13.
70
25
13
13
14
75
(percent)

106Ru





2
2
3


22
probably does not contribute as greatly to radiation doses as was estimated
in this analysis.  However, the use of land for cattle raising around
current milling operations could mean that the consumption of meat could
represent a significant pathway for internal exposure.   Inhalation of
radioactivity may be considered a significant pathway of exposure for
all facilities.

     The estimated population doses from model facilities are given in
table 5-12.  For all facilities, estimated doses to bone and lung were
higher than those to other organs.   Table 5-12 is based only on atmos-
pheric releases.  The liquid release, assumed only for the U02 fuel
fabrication facility, was estimated to contribute 0.015 mrem/y to the
total-body dose of an individual drinking 1.2 liters of water per day,
eating 20 g of fish per day, and swimming 1 percent of the year.   The
dose of this individual was estimated to be 0.26 mrem/y.  These in-
dividual doses would amount to an additional 15 person-rem to total body
and 260 person-rem to bone for 106  persons so exposed.
                                   146
-------
       Table 5-7.  Summary of the estimated total body dose to the
           population from all pathways per year of operation of
           8.75 million SWU per year enrichment plant (5.7)
         Exposure pathway                      Dose (person-rem)—'
                               Gaseous effluents

       Immersion                                  7.4x10"^
       Contaminated ground surface                3.2xlcH
       Inhalation                                 5.8xlO~2
       Ingestion                                  2.5X10"1
                        Liquid effluents



Ingestion (aquatic food chain)             6. 9x10"
                                                        _3
       Drinking water                             9.2x10
       Swimming                                   6.7xlO~5
             Total                                6.4xlO"]
       a/
       ~From either gaseous diffusion or gas centrifuge.
     Table 5-13 gives the contributions of radionuclides to population
doses.  The potential exposure from 226Ra from uranium mills is evident.
Even with less conservative assumptions for food intake, this radio-
nuclide is significant from the standpoint of inhalation.   Airborne
226Ra from dusts and tailings accounted for about 20 percent of the dose
to lungs via inhalation.   This analysis and others indicate the potential
for relatively large exposure to individuals.   Population  doses are low
because most current mills are located in sparsely populated areas
relative to other fuel cycle facilities.

     Table 5-14 shows the estimated dose data from a fuel  fabrication
facility by various exposure pathways.  The data indicate  that it is
unlikely that fuel fabrication activity would increase levels of ex-
posure in the general environment (5.12).
                                  147
-------









E CO
O 3 +->
• r— /""^ C™
•r— vj i_
4-> CU CU
rO CO E
r— tO JC
3 cn o
CL T-
o o s-
CL+-> c:
0)
O ,
0 CL
•r- X i-
4-> O) CU
3 f">
O t —
-»-J E
•1- O ^ -N
S- i. 3 C\.
4-> M- GO .
S3 ^
o co E A^—
o c o
•1- T- C
"O +-* r~~ O
0) r— «— •!-
•»-> 3 T- +->
(13 co E 03
E CU i-
•r- S- LO CU
CO CO • O
CU CU 00
co 4-
OJ O E 0
jc -a o
4-> i- S-
M- to CU
O CO"O >,
S- CU
>, o co cu
ra -a cu o
E fO cu co
3 s_ c:
OO >> -I-
-o oo s-
O +-> 3
.j3 C ~O
cu
CO r— 3 4->
1 rO f— E
LO 4-^ M — fO
O 4- r-
CU -t-> CU CL
t—













I >
C
cu

d
o
o





















1













o

to
CO


cu
-a o
O) 03
_t \ ti
+•"* T*
("O SH>
C 3
*r~ C/)
E
(O "O
•4-* C
C 3
0 O
0 S-
CO






E
O S-
(/) ftf

CU E

pz
t— <





C
O
•r™
+->
r—
03
^~
E
i — i






o 'E'
cu cu
*-> s-
03 CU 1
E co c
r™ O O
^-* "O co
co S-
jj CU
CL
* — f

CU
0
E
CU E
S- (0
CU cn
<+- S-
0) O
a:


CnOOCOLOi — "^-LO^^OC^O
r^LocvjLoooor^crnoiooo







r— LOr— OLOO'^-'S-tO^-r-
n^otOCTlOr— OCMLO'd-
LO r— LO LO i— <3- •* UO OO















ooooooooooo
vvvvvvvvvvv










Oil — LO«3-rOLOOi — CTlUOLO
CO O t^ CO C\J CTt i — O O CO C\J
r— QQ r~~ r~ r~— r~~












•vl- CM CM LO *d" -vj- O
^Q LQ t^o t^o ^»O CVJ '-O ^^ *^O ^d"
c~H ^Q ^j- c~^ CVJ ^3 ^^* CD C5 c^> C^
^~





"O
O -f->
-Cl CJ T3 CO
03 -i- CU >i C CO CU
r-S_ OCOr—  O> •!-
O3 4-^ CU ^- Cn O E CD CU +-* i—
4_> E ^> E CO ~O 5* ^™" CO 03
O i— i O-JE 3 3 •!-•!- CLCU >
1 — C3CQI — — 1 S ^ 	 1OOH-O
148
-------
          Table 5-9.   Estimated radioactive effluents from fuel
              fabrication operations (5.10)
Radioactivity
(Ci/y)
U


226Ra
230Tn
234Th
23i+pa
Airborne
0.04
0.18
0.005




released
Liquid
1.2
1.8
0.5
0.09
0.04
0.26
0.26
Facility size
(GW(e)-y)a
27.5
90.0
26.0
27.5
27.5
26.0
26
Normalized release
(10-6Ci/MW(e)-y)
Airborne Liquid
1.5 44.0
2.0 20.0
0.2 20.0
3.4
1.5
10.0
10.0
Operation
conversion
enrichment
fabrication
conversion
conversion
fabrication
fabrication
Plant capacities:
Conversion   5,000 tonnes U per y
Enrichment  10,500 tonnes SWU per y
Fabrication    900 tonnes U per y
                                   149
-------
 O
 a>
 CO
 O)
i—
 OJ
 S-  v—
 o
M-  CO
    C
 co  O
 OJ  -r-
•M  -4->
 fO  ro
 E  i-
•t-  C1J
-l->  Q.
 to  O
 O)
    E
 01  O
 CO  -i—
 O  •»->
T3  ra
    O
 O)  T-
 >  S-
•r-  JD
•M  ra
 U  4-
 O)
i —  i —
i—  O)
 O  3
O  <4-
o

en
 O)
_a












•r-
•o
ro
S-
1
c:
o
S-
01
Q.
• — -*

co
i^
0
O
rO
<+-
O
~CJ

0)
T-
o
O)
f—
J—
o
CJ






0
rO
i_
+-J

1 — I
CD
-o
• f—
0
S-
1—
CD
C
3
_J





>~
O)
c~
-a
2



Ol
>
• i —
— i




O)

o
CQ

r—
ro >,
+-> "a
o o
l~~ ^""l
O)
to
ro
O)
i—
O)
S-

E

'c
rO
S-
3D





.
^~







{Q
*
,— .




^*
*
0





to 0

to to
CM


to LO
0* r-^





01
c.
i- ~O
O T-
JD 3
S- 0"
=£ _l




























0)

~gr
^~
— ^
"O
S-
1
c:
o
co
S-
Ol
a.
ro
1
O
r—
OJ
CO
O
-a
O)
•i —
4.3
t_)
O)

p.
O





O
ro
i_
-M

i — i
CD

• i —
0

JZ
1—
CD
E
ZS
	 |





>^
Oi
C"
-o
•r"


^
Oi
>
•i —
_j




O)

o
CQ

r—
ro >,
•M "O
0 0
1— -Q
Oi >,
CO 1
ro ^ ^
O> O>
i — ^ — ^
O) 3
5- 2:
-v^
e •«-
Z3 CJ
d tX>
fo 1
i- O
rD i —


c
o
•1 —
+J
rO
S-
O)
Q-
O




to CO «— i
0 0 O
0 0 O
000


CTi CM i —
O r— O
0 0 O
CD O O
** co o
r~» en i —
000
O CD O
• • •





^± C\J OO
CM ro o
o o o
0 0 O


<-o co i —
0 0 O
o o o
o o o
.



CT) CM CO
CTl CO i —
O i — O "vt- CM CM
o o o i — tn LO
,J

CTI CM r—
O r— O tO O O
o o o to en co
o o o o o o
• • • • • •




01
c o o o
S- LT) O CM "O • •
O • • • T- •* O O
_Q i — CMO 3^-CMCM
s- cr
< ^





c c
C 4-J O C 4-> O
o c: T- o E -1-
•r^ Ol 4-^ *' — OJ 4-*
co E ro co E ro
S- -C 0 S- -C 0
O) O T- Ol U T-
> -r- S- > T- S-
c: i- xj c s- .a
o c: ro o c ra
O LU U_ O LU LJ_












CO
o
o
o
o
•



















CM
CM
o
0
"
CO
r—
o
o
o
*










Ol
CO - — ••
0 >,
-o i
O> O)
•r- 3
o ^
a> -a
i — ra
i— S-
O 1
0 C
o
i — co
ro $•-
4-> 01
O Q-
1 — 	
                                                             150
-------
       Table 5-11.  Terrestrial pathways contributing to total-body
           population doses within 80 km of fuel cycle facilities
           (5.9)

Facility Submersion
in air
Mill <0.1
Fuel fabrication
U02 <0.1
Mixed oxide <0.1
Fuel reprocessing 21.6
Percent of total
Contaminated
ground3
0.2

31.9
1.0
12.0
-body dose
Inhalation
4.9

18.6
98.1
56.5

Ingestionc
94.8

49.4
0.8
9.9
aNo shielding assumed, 24 h/day exposure.

b20 m3/day intake,
CA11 food is produced in area of exposure;  daily intake is 300 g of meat,
 250 g of vegetables, 1  liter of milk, and  1.2 liters of water.
                                    151
-------
         Table 5-12.   Estimated radiation doses3  (person-rem)
             to population within 80 km of model  fuel
             fabrication facility (5.9)
Reference
tissue
Total body
Organs
Bone
Liver
Kidney
Thyroid
Lung
GI tract

Mills
4.4

46.7
5.2
7.9
4.4
8.9
4.1

U02
0.06

0.66
0.04
0.16
0.06
0.49
0.04

Mixed oxide
0.01

0.43
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.07
< io-3
Fifty-year internal dose commitment for 1  year of intake.

Population around mill  is 5.3 x ID4 persons; for other facilities
it is 3.56 x 106 persons.
                              152
-------
        Table 5-13.   Percent contribution of radionuclides
           to total-body and organ doses of populations
           around model  fuel fabrication facilities. (5.9)
Reference
tissue
Total body
Bone
Liver
Kidney
Lung
Thyroid
GI tract
Mill
226Ra(93.3)
230Th(5.0)
226Ra(83.4)
230Th(13.2)
226Ra(78.9)
210Po(9.1),21°Pb(6.0)
226Ra(51.6),21°Po(19.1)
23°Th(17.3),21°Pb(11.2)
226Ra(49.6)
222Rn(45.6)
226Ra(98.0)
226Ra(93.6)
U02
U(94.2)
U(99.4)
U(96.1)
U(99.3)
U(98.0)
U(94.2)
U(94.2)
U(86.0)
23nh(7.0)
Mixed oxide
Pu(93.6)
Pu(97.5)
Pu(94.7)
2ttlAm(5.2)
Pu(90.9)
21+1Am(7.7)
Pu(96.7)
Pu(93.6)
Pu(95.0)
aRadionuclides contribute 5 percent or more to doses.
                               153
-------
     Table 5-14.  Estimated doses from fuel  fabrication facility operations
                  (5.11)
                           Inhalation    Drinking water    Drinking water
      Type of dose           pathway       pathway           pathway
                               Lung          Bone           Soft tissue
Maximum dose to individual
  at plant boundary             10            0.6                0.6
     (mrem/y)


Average individual dose         a0.002       b0.06              b0.006
     (mrem/y)


Aggregate population dose       a3          a34                 a3
     (person-rem/y)
      aWithin 80 km of facility.

      bWithin 300 of facility.
                             Power Reactors
      In 1974 there were 44 civilian nuclear power reactors operating in
 18 States.  Radiation from reactors reaches the environment either as
 direct radiation, which may be of significance relatively close to the
 reactor boundary, or through discharges of low level, radioactive,
 gaseous and liquid wastes.  For this reason, the environment is monitored.
 Description of data base

      The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, requires that the
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission  (NRC) prepare an Environmental Impact
 Statement  for each nuclear power plant.  This document contains data on
 baseline levels of radioactivity in the environment and also estimates
 the  radiation dose to the public that results from normal plant operation.
                                    154
-------
After an operating license is granted, the licensee is required, under
Title 10, Part 50 oT the Code of Federal  Regulations (5.IS),  to file an
operating report semiannually (5.14).   An environmental monitoring
report may also be filed as part of the licensee's operating report or
as a separate report.  These reports are available to the public at NRC
public document rooms.

     Data acquisition for environmental reports is often accomplished by
contracting firms specializing in performing environmental radiation
surveys.  The information required in environmental monitoring reports
varies according to the technical specifications in the license of each
nuclear reactor.  The data generally include gross alpha, gross beta,
and gamma-emitting radionuclides, 90Sr, 89Sr, and 3H concentrations in
samples of air, air particulates, surface water, ground water, drinking
water, sediment, milk, and food products which are grown locally.
External dose is usually measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters
which are placed at various locations around the reactor consistent with
meteorology.

     State agencies frequently perform environmental radioactivity
surveillance around nuclear power facilities in the interest of protecting
the public health of their residents.   These programs vary in sampling
and analysis protocol, depending upon the number and type of facilities
in the State.  A summary of these programs has been published in references
5.15 and 5.16.

     Surveillance guidance has also been published by NRC in Regulatory
Guide 4.1 (5.14).   In addition, the EPA Office of Radiation Programs has
published a guide (5.17) which recommends a protocol for environmental
radiation surveillance.  The Atomic Industrial Forum has also published
a treatise on radiological environmental  monitoring which also includes
ecological monitoring (5.18).

     A joint field study by EPA and NRC (5.19) was conducted during 1973
to measure iodine-131 in environmental samples of air, rainfall, vege-
tation, and milk collected around the Dresden, Monticello, and Oyster
Creek nuclear power plants.  Data from this field study were compared
with levels of radioactivity in samples that were predicted by mathe-
matical models with a view of determining the validity of the models.

     A comprehensive radiological surveillance study conducted by EPA at
the Haddam Neck nuclear power station (s. 20) measured radionuclide
concentrations in the environment and external radiation doses around
the pressurized water reactor (PWR) facility.  This study followed the
techniques of similar studies conducted at the Dresden boiling water
reactor (BWR) (5. SI), and Yankee-Rowe PWR (5.22).   Another study by EPA
at the Shippimport Atomic Power Station (5.23) measured iodine-131 and
strontium-90 concentrations in milk and soil, and ambient radiation
levels in air.
                                 155
-------
     Figures 5-7 to 5-10 are graphs that have resulted from an EPA study
of reactor effluents.  These figures show the differences in the degree
of environmental contamination that can be expected from the operation
of BWR's and PWR's (5,24) .
Dose data

     Dose information is sometimes reported in semiannual  reactor operating
reports, for locations at or outside the site boundary.   Dose measurements
at Haddam Neck during 1971 (5.20) resulted in an estimation that an
adult at the nearest residence received 0.5 mrem/y from airborne effluents.
The maximum potential dose from the ingestion of indigenous fish was
estimated to be 0.13 mrem/y - whole body and 0.25 mrem/y to the bone.
The dose at ground level, 0.6 km from the vent, was estimated to be 0.2
mrem/y.
               CO
               o
               D
               O
               O
               cc
               a.
                     100
               O

               <
               z
               o
               01
               X
               CO
               LLJ
               E
               D
               o
 10
1.0
                                  BWR
                                  PWR
I
                             70    71    72    73    74
                          YEAR OF EFFLUENT RELEASE
      Figure 5-7.  Trends in the release of mixed fission and activation
             products from  light water-cooled nuclear reactors (5.24)
                                   156
-------
    10,000
     1,000
oo
LU
CO
<
O

Ul
_l
CO
O


CO
UJ
O
O
 I

3   100
        10
       1.0
                                        BWR
                                        PWR
                               \/
            1
1
I
               70    71    72    73    74

            YEAR OF EFFLUENT RELEASE
 Figure 5-8.   Trends  in the release of noble  gases
       from light water-cooled nuclear reactors (5.24)
                      157
-------
              100 i—
               10
CO
UJ

<



O

I-
cc
        UJ
        I

        CO
        UJ

        cc
        D
        O
              1.0
    I

   3i

   s
   C3
      0.1
             0.01
                                                BWR
                                                PWR
                     I
I
                      70    71    72    73    74

                   YEAR OF EFFLUENT RELEASE
Figure 5-9.
    Trends in the release of halogens and participates

    from light water-cooled nuclear  reactors (5.24)
                               158
-------
      10,000
                                    '*--.. PWR
       1,000
 :E
 D
 DC



 00
 UJ


 DC

 D

 O

O
        100
                                           BWR
10
                  I
                                    I
                 70    71     72     73    74

              YEAR OF EFFLUENT RELEASE
Figure  5-10.  Trends in the release of tritium from

        light water-cooled nuclear reactors (5.24)
                       159
-------
     Table 5-15 lists operational  and total  body population dose data
which were calculated from gaseous effluent  data reported by NRC for
BWR's (5.25).
Table 5-15.  Population dose, demographic and operational  data for BWR's

Number of BWR operating plants3
Energy generated (MWe-y)
Noble gases discharged (curies)
Population dose from noble gases
(person-rem)
Population exposed
1971
10
,1850
b3(6)

900
16(6)
1972
14
3400
4.9(6)

1646
22.5(6)
1973
14
4580
6.2(6)

1564
22.5(6)
1974
14
3890
5.8(6)

1564
22.5(6)
 Although 18 plants were in operation, only 14 were considered for this
 tabulation.

b3(6) = 3 x 106

Population within 80-kilometer radius of each plant.


     The New York State Department of Health (5.26) measured gaseous
effluents from one BWR, two PWR's and one high temperature gas-cooled
reactor (HTGR).  From these data, they estimated the following doses at
1 km from a theoretical 2500 MW(t) reactor.
                              Dose (mrad/y)

                    3H             mc            37Ar
BWR
PWR
HTGR
4
2
1.
x
x
2
1
1
x
0"
0"
1
3
3
o2
6 x
>4 x
-------
     As mentioned previously, environmental impact statements (EIS)
compiled by the NRC contain estimates of predicted radiation doses to
the public from normal operation of nuclear power reactors.  These
estimates are summarized in a report by the Office of Radiation Programs
of EPA (5.30).  Table 5-16 lists the calculated maximum doses at the
site boundary based on discharges of gaseous effluents for the years
1972, 1973, and 1974 and the maximum whole body doses as estimated in
the EIS's.  The large differences between the predicted dose values and
the dose values calculated from actual discharge information may be due
to differences in the assumptions used in the calculations.  It may be
seen in comparing these doses that the calculated doses for BWR's are
generally higher than the predicted doses given in the environmental
impact statements.  The reason for these differences is still being
investigated.
Summary

     Power reactors contribute to environmental radioactivity either
through direct radiation from the reactor which is generally significant
within the reactor boundary or through discharges of radioactive gaseous
and liquid wastes resulting from reactor operations.  The total population
dose from the gaseous effluents of BWR's for 1974 has been estimated to
be 1564 person-rem within a radius of 80 kilometers from each plant.
The estimated population dose from PWR's is 21.4 person-rem, a signif-
icantly lower dose due to the large reduction in the release of radio-
active gaseous effluents.
                           Research Reactors
     At the end of 1975, there were 68 research and test reactors of all
types exclusive of those owned by the Energy Research and Development
Agency (see chapter 6 for discussion of ERDA facilities).  Of these,
1 was an irradiation test reactor; 2 were high power research and test
reactors; 14 were general research reactors, and 51 were classified as
university research and testing reactors (5.31).  The rated power output
of the reactors ranged from near 0 to 50,000 kW(t).

     Research reactors are regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion (5.13), and the licensees are required to submit annual environ-
mental monitoring reports.  These reports are usually included in the
reactor operating report and amount to a short paragraph stating the
general condition of the environmental monitoring program.   The reports
are available to the public at the NRC public document room nearest the
reactor.  The most detailed description of the monitoring program for a
research reactor can be found in its Final  Safety Analysis  Report which
is filed with the NRC.  Typical surveillance programs include gross beta
measurements of water and air samples, and direct gamma dose measurements
using thermoluminescent dosimeters.
                                  161
-------















•=3-
CM
r~~
^
to
c
fO
r—
Q.
cn
c:
•r—
4->
to
S-
Q.
O
"re

to
cu
to
to
cu
r~
CU
s_

to
en
cu
i —
rt
o
c
E
O
H-

in
in
O
-o

-a
cu
r~™
Z3
U
tO
o


•
to
,—
1
LO
QJ
i —
to


















cu
s_
to *— •»
0 >>
Q. -a
X to O
O> 3 -Q--
0 £
~O QJ QJ i
QJ 10 i — !
4-> to O £
U CD -C ~-
T3 	 •
QJ
S-
D-

O)
I/)
O
^^
to \
"O E
C QJ
rs S-
0 E

CD
+J
•i~*
00






- — .
+-> >>
13 4J
0.-.-
+-> 0
=! tO
O Q.

r- (J
to
C O
•=£ &s
— ••




QJ >>] — 1
-4-> 4-) 	 .
•i- -i- CU
fO 3
-)-> Q.CD
CL) to 1 — l
2: o





a.
^

+j
s-
to
4->
^
+J 	
•r- QJ
. — 4->
•r— -f—
O OO
tO — '
U-













~*s
J









i —


CM
r*^
erj
i —





























to
_
a:
^g
a.
















CM
2: to v v
to







V V V


V V V




r- r— OO i —
V V V





o o ^j- en
to LO co co






CO *=d~ O to
to CM tO ^t"




o to ^d- LO
^t- i— r-- co




co •* oo co
r— i — ^d- LO
O r- O O








CD oo r^ r^%
to r^ to to
~\ ^ — — v. "^^
co LO to r~-

n
CM
<^D
co


CM

03

1 —

4-> T—
QJ C ^
S -r- CU 0
O O S- CU
Qi Cu M- 2;
0
QJ C C E
CU fO O to
-^ '1 — ~O
c xj c -a
tT3 C! fO fO
>- i— i OO 3;








V V V V








V V V ^3


V V V V V




CM < — < — ^~ i~~
V V V V





CM r-~ r^ i — LO
LO r-^ co ^J-






r~- r-~ CM i — LO
co to co •* to




r^ o CM CM to
LO r^ r^ oo




r-~. en o o co
^ en r^> r^^ to
o o o o i—








en CM o ' — oo
to r^ r^v r^-. r^.
\^ ^ 	 ^s^ ^^ — ^
i — LO en LO oo
»—
n n
O CM
r^ r**^
r-^ i^T
i —


CM

ogj
C
r— 0

to -C C CM
C C_> T-
C to -Q to oS
•r- CU O QJ
CD CQ C£ "O i —
to
•t-5 • 10 >,
LU C CQ -r- i.
•r- r- i.
O to 3
cer o_ x Q- oo








v v 
r^ i — oo
o \
r— OO tO
^


og
oo
00
oS
+-) QJ
C QJ CM
•i- ^. CM
o e
Q_ to i — o3
2»_
>, CU i —
QJ CU CU
-^ C C C
S- -i- O O
13 IO O -i-
i— s: o M








V








V


V




1
1





o
to






CM
**•




1
1




to

o








oo
p^
**^
CO














c
ZI
o

r—
tO
tJ

»
40
D_
162
-------














QJ
c

-T>
C
o
u
"
<=fr
r^
i
OJ
r^
en
^~
• — <•

00
+J
C
rO

Q.

CT>
C

4_j
tO
S-
QJ
CX
O
4-J
rO

oo
QJ
i/l
OJ
QJ
^~
QJ
t-

1/1
0}
C7>

QJ

_Q
0
C
E
o
s~
<4_

QJ
CO
0
-o

T3
QJ
4-J
rO
ZS
U
iTJ
O


*
o. -o
X CO O - — *•
QJ 13 -Q S
O y 	 -•
t. >,
rO \



0 E


QJ

•i —









* — •-

13 -t-J
Q.-I —
4-J U
rs as
o a.
fO
i — L)
rO
n 4-
C 0
C
•=C s-5
*. — •





OJ >>i — I
+J ^_J , —
-^ ••- QJ
fC S
4-J Q_ (JJ
QJ ro i 	 i
2: o







Q-
13

+J
S-
fd
4-J
uo













4->-— >
•F- <1J

o Jo
(T3^_-
Ll_





























<^)-

at
r—



CO
f^
en




C\J

en







S
en
r—




CO
r-^
en





CM

en





































(/I
-

3
CQ



















r- <; •=£ «a: r~ r-

*~ "O










r— CO r-> CM r— U3






c\j -^t- r^ ro c\j CNJ
i — ^ CO CM





ro LT> i--, i — i r^- i —
i — <^> V CO i —







r— -^j- r^, en r-^ CM
c\j LO (-O r^- |-O ^^






co co r-s (^3 ^- co
ro ^o r~** ^" '•O "^






un r-^ CM o CQ en
vo LO ^o "~o r^- un





O r^ f\ LO ^ c^o
CM o o o UD ^
o o o o o o









en CM ro f-v cr> en
x^ ^^ -^ ^^ N^_ ^^
o en CM r-x. LO en
i
















4-> e
C *r-
•r- :>, ^c o
O*O QJ Q-
Q- CQ QJ
•— i- cu
-^ 4~i QJ O i —
C O ~O LO •!-
QJ o — oo s- s:
T3 Qi O O 0}
LO -Q S- 4-* OJ
QJ C7> E O CO CT
i- -I- 3 H3 >i »r-
o CQ :n _i o 2:











,„ , — , — JD





ID CM ' — "d- «d- CM
rO





CM CO O •— I CO r-H
ro v v







co co CM r-- i£> -^j-
•^J- <^3 UO LO LO rO






^J" ^ CO CO <^ i —
ud> co LO r~^ <^j~ r-.






r- LO in co o LO
LO LO P-- CM i 	 r —





CM LO LO O i — <-Q
UD U3 LO ^ LT) U3
^- 0 0 r- 0 0









• — O O CM OJ CM

i — O OJ *z}- P") ijD
' — ' —
O r-


i— O









CM


0)
ro i — cu

e>3 i — 1/1 C
o a; ^3
CM CU •— -r- >- i—

C O CU •-- 4~J S
QJ +-> O O C -r-
"O V) ••- O S_
i/i i — 4-1 "O s~ en
OJ i — C rt3 S- i —
S- -i- O 13 CU -r-
Q S S cr > o.
OJ
to
n3
QJ

fQJ

1 —
fO


o
C

C
.C


^_
QJ
"en
•t—
c~
XJ

fO

LO
QJ
E

4-*

ex
13
T3

o


S-
QJ
4-J

O
^T
CO
c
., —

"O
OJ

r— —
^
CO
a>
s_

<~
o

jC
3:


Q,
C
-^
o
u
QJ
^
4-J

3

CO
E
QJ
-Q
O
i^
Q-
cn
c:
4-> 4-O
•r- f!3
C t~-
3 QJ
CL
ro O
S- O
O 4-»
4~
0)
QJ 13
S- XJ
rO
QJ
00  o>

QJ
4-> —

•r— Z3
"O CO
QJ ^5
s- c
Cu ID
rQ _O























































































t/J
4-J

C
=J
CM

O
<4—

CO


QJ

I—
<0

-o

4J
u

-a
CU

Q_
U
0
t-
CL
a.
n3

"1"
cu
s-
ro
cu


1*-
o
4-3
c

o
O-
4J
ro
fc
4-3
fO
O
-Q

rt3

C



i_


•*-

i.
a>
Q.

LO

—j
o
•c
o
0


t/)
cu
E

LO
LO
03

CU
to
o
-a


C2
E
CT
0)

••-
to
cu
r-



.
\x
L)
'!~

03
N

1 1

E
O

14-

c:
o
'<—
13 LO
X3 4-> 4-1

i- C C
4-3 3 13

o ce tt
033
Q- Q.
CU
-c: CM r-

CO
CU Di C£
"O IS "^
=3 CQ CQ

O CU — i O O
T3 CU t-

































































































CU


ro

>r_
03

ro
j \
O


II

g^
"^
163
-------
     In addition to the surveillance performed by the licensees, the
States in which the reactors are situated maintain environmental moni-
toring programs in the vicinity of each site (5.15,5.16).   Because of
the diversity of types and the variation of power output of these
reactors, the surveillance that the States perform at the sites varies
widely.

     There is little or no published information on dose to the public
or special surveillance studies carried out by government agencies.
                            Transportation
Authority
     The two agencies having overlapping regulatory authority for the
transportation of radioactive materials are the Department of Trans-
portation (DOT) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  A memorandum of
understanding defining the roles of these two agencies in the trans-
portation of radioactive materials was signed on March 22, 1973.

     Postal shipments are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Postal
Service (39 CFR 123-125).  Shipments not in interstate.or foreign
commerce are subject to control by a State agency in most cases (5.32).
International shipments usually are made consistent with the standards
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with DOT serving as
the USA "competent authority" (5.33).


Transportation of radioactive materials in the nuclear power industry

     In WASH-1238, "Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radio-
active Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, " AEC analyzed the
potential impact on the environment of transporting fuel and low-level
solid radioactive wastes for single light-water-cooled nuclear power
plants.  AEC determined that, under normal conditions of transport, the
radiation dose to the individual receiving the highest exposure is
unlikely to be more than 500 mrem/y and the average radiation dose to
those individuals in the highest exposed group is about 100 mrem/y
(5.34).  The cumulative radiation dose to all transport workers is about
4 person-rem per reactor-year, to other persons about 3 person-rem per
reactor-year distributed among approximately 600,000 people (5. 35,5.36).
AEC felt this generic analysis would serve to implement section 102(2)(c)
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
under which applicants for an AEC license to operate light-water nuclear
power plants must evaluate the environmental impact of transportation of
nuclear fuel and low-level solid radioactive wastes to and from the
plant.  WASH-1238 served as the primary data base for the AEC amendment
to 10 CFR 51 which permits the reactor licensing applicants in their
                                 164
-------
environmental reports and AEC in their environmental  impact statements
to state that the adverse impact results from the transportation of
spent fuel and packaged wastes from reactors falls within the values
contained in the regulations (5.36).

     The amendments to 10 CFR, Part 51 (§51.20(g), Summary Table S-4
(table 5-17) and §51.23(a)) became effective February 5, 1975 (40 FR
1005-1009, January 6, 1975).  In Supplement I to WASH-1238 (5.37),
NRC presents data and identifies the methods used in  deriving the values
contained in the regulations (Summary Table S-4).  The values in Summary
Table S-4 are those derived for the "typical" nuclear power reactor
described in WASH-1238, with the exception of the cumulative dose values
which are based on data tabulated from an individual  analysis by NRC of
the environmental impact of transportation for 84 individual nuclear
power reactors at 53 different sites for the period January 1972 through
March 1973.

     The Environmental Protection Agency has agreed that the values in
the transportation impact table (Summary Table S-4) in 10 CFR 51 are
reasonable for the routine impact of normal transportation; however, the
Agency feels that the impact resulting from transportation accidents or
incidents is not clearly defined (5. 38., 5. 39).  The DOT and AEC philosophy
regarding transportation safety is that safety is provided through the
use of special shipping containers.  EPA feels that the relationship
between packaging test requirements and the survival  of such packages
under various accident conditions has not been established.
Special Studies

     Holmes and Narver, Inc., in a study for EPA, made a quantitative
assessment of the accident risks associated with the transportation of
radioactive materials in the nuclear power industry for the period 1975-
2020 (5.40).  The radioactive materials considered in the report were
spent fuel, plutonium, high-level radioactive solid waste, and fission
product gases.  The consequences of accidents evaluated were radio-
activity released and population doses.  Methods of transportation
considered were truck, rail, and barge.  The study determined that the
public health risks from the release of radioactivity from transpor-
tation accidents in the industry is relatively small because of the low
probability of accidents, the small fraction of the accidents resulting
in the release of radioactivity and because the majority of releases are
relatively small fractions of the radioactive contents.  Nevertheless,
the amount of radioactivity accidentally released is sufficient to raise
issues of public concern.  The report also states there are very little
statistical data on which to assess the risk of release of radioactivity
from the shipment package as a result of an accident during transporta-
tion.  Within the United States over the past 25 years, there have been
about 300 reported accidents in transportation involving packages of all
kinds of radioactive material.  About 30 percent of those accidents
                                165
-------
Table 5-17.  Summary Table S-4.  Environmental impact of transportation of fuel
and waste to and from one light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor   (5.27)
                         Normal  conditions of transport
Heat (per irradiated fuel cask in transit)
Weight (governed by Federal or State
        restrictions)

Traffic density
  Truck
  Rail
Exposed
population
Transportation
  workers
Estimated
number of
persons
exposed

  200
Range of doses
to exposed
individuals'3
(per reactor-y)

0.0 to 300 mrem
                               Environmental  impact
                               250,000 Btu/h
                                73,000 Ibs.  per truck;
                               100 tons per  cask per rail  car
                               less than 1  per day
                               less than 3  per month
Cumulative dose to
exposed population
(per reactor-yjc

   4 person-rem
General public
Onlookers
Along route
1,100
600,000
0.003 to 1.3 mrem \
0.0001 to 0.06 mrem/
3 person-rem
                            Accidents in transport
Radiological effects

Common (nonradiological) causes
                               Environmental  risk
                               Smalld

                               1  fatal  injury in 100 reactor-
                                years;
                               1  nonfatal injury in 10
                                reactor-years;
                               $475 property damage per
                                reactor-year.
aData supporting this table are given in the Commission's "Environmental Survey
 Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants,"
 WASH-1238, December 1972.

 The Federal Radiation Council has recommended that the radiation doses from all
 sources of radiation other than natural background and medical exposures should
 be limited to 5,000 millirem per year for individuals as a result of occupational
 exposure and should be limited to 500 millirem per year for individuals in the
 general population.  The dose to individuals due to average natural background
 radiation is about 130 millirem per year.

 Person-rem is an expression for the summation of whole body doses to individuals
 in a group.  Thus, if each member of a population group of 1,000 people were to
 receive a dose of 0.001 rem (1  millirem), or if 2 people were to receive a dose
 of 0.5 rem (500 millirem) each, the total of person-rem dose in each case would
 be 1 person-rem.
j
 Although the environmental risk of radiological  effects stemming from transporta-
 tion accidents is currently incapable of being numerically quantified, the risk
 remains small regardless of whether it is being applied to a single reactor or
 a multi-reactor site.
                                    166
-------
involved release of radioactive material from medical and industrial
radiochemicals.  The report states that none of these accidents resulted
in perceptible injury or death attributed to the radiation aspects and
that there have been no releases from nuclear power shipments.   Holmes
and Narver estimate that nuclear power transportation activity will
exceed one million miles in 1980 and 10 million miles after 2000.

     Using current statistics, Holmes and Narver estimated there will  be
1.3 accidents per million vehicle miles in 2020, with total accident
frequency less than one per year in 1975, then increasing to one per
month after 2000, and reaching almost two per month in 2020.

     Up until about year 2005, spent fuel transportation will dominate.
Plutonium transportation increases dramatically after 1995 and exceeds
spent fuel transportation after 2005.  Shipment of radioactive waste
does not exceed 10 percent of the total until after 2000; shipments  of
radioactive gases comprise less than 2 percent of the transportation
activity.

     Holmes and Narver estimated the amount of radioactivity released
from the transportation activity in the nuclear power industry from 1975
to 2020 based on transportation data, estimates of the fraction of
radioactivity released during an accident, and the fractions of accidents
of given severity associated with damages of given severity.  These
results were averaged by transportation mode, accident severity, release
probability, and package damage severity.  The estimated average annual
releases of radioactivity are summarized in table 5-18, with the largest
average release of radioactivity occurring from spent fuel.  The average
annual whole body population dose associated with transportation accidents
is shown in figure 5-11 for the period 1975-2020.
Risk of transporting radioactive materials through large metropolitan
areas

     In May 1976 Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, began a
2-year study for NRC to assess the risk of transporting radioactive
materials near and through a large metropolitan area.  The main objec-
tive of this study is to prepare a generic environmental assessment of
the possible radiologic, nonradiologic, and economic impacts on a densely
populated, urban area produced from transportation of all radioactive
material to and through such an area.  Important factors such as city
demography, local meteorology and the effects of buildings will be
treated in the risk analysis.  A model will be developed that is suit-
able to analyze radioactive material transport through any large city.
Both normal and accident impacts will be considered, with the final
assessment to include health effects.  Under the present schedule, a
final report should be available about June 1978 (5.41).
                                167
-------




•^
•
LO
v_ f

>•>
•M
•r-
>
•r—
4_>
O
(O
O
•o
S_
<4_
O
(\\
\tJ
to
ro
CO

O)
s-

r—
(O
3
C
ro

CD
01
rO
S_
O)
>
(O

X)
0)
-P
CO
_£
to
LU

00*
i —
1
LO

CD
ro
i
\ —

























>p_
O


CD
to
ro
O)

CD
S-

r—
rO
C
c
ro

O)
C7)
ro
t_
O)

c^




















CD
i — to
_Q rO
O CD
•z.
(!) QJ
r— > 4->
OJ -i- to
> 4-> ro
O) O 2
r— ra
1 O "O
_C -r- -r-
O)T3 r—
•r- ra O
ac s- to






E

'^
o
40
ZJ
^~
Q_









C 4-*
O 0
• r— 113
tO "O
to o
•r- S-
U- Q.




CD
3
it-
E CO
CD •-)
Q.
oo


S-
ir>
CD
S-
rO
O)

r — . vo
CM r^. 00 00 CTi
• • • • •
O O i — CO LO

CO csl CM CM CM
1 1 1 1 1
O O O 0 0


X X X X X

LO r^. p^* r^^ vo
• • • • •
VO i — CO VO OO





jr -f co co to co CM
II I I I i i
O O O O O O O

X X X X X X X

LO LO i — O~l «3" VO i —
• ••••••
co cy> CM CM ^j~ r^. r—










vo vo co
r-~ ^" CTi ^J~ CM ^" ^"
• ••••••
O o o i— c\j co **•






^0 tO 1/5 r*!C CO CO CM
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
O O O O O O O
X X X X X X X

^j~ 13^3 r*** «sj* r^** o^ rxx'
• •••*»•
h^ CNJ oo «^- CNJ oo " —

S ^t en r^ co
O r— CNJ LO CO O CNJ

LO O LO O LO O LO
i^- co co c^ a> o o
CT> CT^ CTt O"t CT^ O O


VO
•
r*» c^ r-~







CNJ VO CTt
r-^ ^" f~
* • •
O 0 O





CM CM CM
1 1 1
0 O O

XXX

•3- vo r—
> • «
J—l f—^ f—











LO CT) CO
• • •
LO LO VO






CM CM CM
1 1 1
o o o
XXX

CM I-- r—
• • •
CM C\J CO


CO CO CO

O LO O
r— r— CM
o o o
CNJ" CNJ CNJ

168
-------
   u
   8
   a!
   W
   (X
   CO
   O
   Q

   z
   0.

   g

   U
   O

   2
   u
 pent Fuel

Fission

Products
                 High-Level

                 Solid Waste
                   1970
  1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Figure 5-11.   Annual average  whole body population dose  from transportation

        accidents in the nuclear power industry  (5.40)
                                       169
-------
Transportation by air and other modes

     In March 1976, NRC issued a draft generic environmental  impact
statement (NUREG-0034) on the air transportation of radioactive materials,
including packaging and related ground transportation.   Although directed
at air transportation, other transportation modes—land and water transport-
are considered.  Weapon shipments and all  shipments in  government-owned
vehicles were considered to be outside the scope of this document (5.42).

     The statement is intended to serve NRC as background material  for
a re-evaluation of its present regulations governing air transportation
of radioactive materials, to provide sufficient analysis to determine
the effectiveness of the present rules and of possible  alternatives to
those rules, and to respond to current national discussion of safety and
security aspects of air shipments of plutonium and other special nuclear
materials through highly populated metropolitan areas.

     A list of standard shipments was compiled (table 5-19) based on a
representative list of shipments as of July 1, 1975.  The majority of
packages of radioactive material shipped today contain  radiopharmaceu-
ticals.  An estimated 600,000 packages were shipped in  1974.   Three
materials, molybdenum-99, technetium-99m,  and iodine (including the
isotopes 123I, 125I, and 131I) accounted for over 75 percent of the
packages shipped.  For this report, NRC grouped all other radiopharmaceu-
ticals into one group called "RAPH".

     In its statement NRC concluded that the total annual population
exposure resulting from normal transport of radioactive materials is
about 9600 person-rem (table 5-20).  The largest fraction of this popu-
lation exposure (some 70 percent) results  from shipment of medical-use
radionuclides with industrial shipments (about 20 percent) and nuclear
fuel shipments (10 percent) making up the  remaining portion.   The largest
population exposure is from truck shipments because of the relatively
long exposure times at low radiation levels of large numbers of people
surrounding transport links.  Individual radiation exposures are at
generally low levels, only slightly above  background radiation.

     NRC's analyses determined that the radiation exposure from normal
transportation averaged over the number of persons exposed amounts to
0.5 millirem per year, compared to the average natural  background
exposure of 100 millirem per year, resulting in a statistical increase
of one latent cancer fatality per year in  the United States from normal
transportation of radioactive material.  This compares  to the existing
rate of 300,000 cancer fatalities per year from all other causes.
Abnormal transport occurrences would result in population exposure of
100 person-rem per year as an upper limit; actual exposures are expected
to be lower.  Alternatives to existing shipping practices for radioactive
materials were found to produce only small changes in population exposure
for normal transport.
                                  170
-------



















— N
C\]
\fr
*

V —

>}
i-

to
^3
-a
c
•r-


ra
CD
u
zs
c
CD
-C
-1-1
i.
0


t/1
4_3
c
CD
E
a.
• r—
JH
to

-a
i_
ra
-a
c
ra
4-J
00


CTl
1—
1
LO
O)
r-~
-Q
ca
H-



































4->
O


<4_
o

cH5
1
40
•i-
a.
to

ai
-a
o
E

4-J

O
CL
to
C

5^
1—




















s_

re

C
C
i.
re
C_





S-

re


O"
ty-
re
O_









S-
ro
O>

~^_
to
01
ai
ro
-^
u
ra
a.

i —
ra
4_>
o
p—












| 	
>r_
ro
ce


v^
CJ
^
s^
1—





c
ra
>
n
o?S









C
ra


o£J










LO
CO
en
r— ^














LO
p^
en
•—








.
en
s- "S.
o
• Q
Ol en
:> c
 CL

• r~
O







C/l
to
- ra
CJ



1 1 1
1 1 1




1 1
P 0 1








1 LO
i .
r*- o
00 O
i —







CM

o CM' i
O LO 1
i —








ul 10 ro
0 O O


XX X

to LO en
en en LO
, .
CM *3" CM







in i/> m
0 O O
1— r— r—

XX X

•=J- i— O
.— en o
r-^ i-^ r-^












t-~ oo to

O CD r-






CM
CO r-
CM o r-.

O O co
LO








ai ai
" C r— C CD
E -5 'rS -5 I.
en O E O ra
CT1 1— I C/) 1— 1 _|
oo co co
1 1 1 > 1 1 ... 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 LO LO LO 1
co co co
*" *
ro
(Ti C\J C\J 00 -H
1 1 ...
«3- loioi "^-^'^fLn'a
ro i — 01 i — i — i — G
r— CO
^
LO
Csl
r-l
f>
1 — 1
t^ LO CO
OJ
CM O r-. O 1 O III r-n
ro o ro O i o i i i to
r— • — r— OO CO
CU
Q.
o

o
LO

LO LO
• O)
CM 1 CNJ 1 1 1 III 1 -C
CO 1 LO 1 1 1 III 1 +J

cn
c

"O
^.
u
c:
^
LOJ-LO°"'J~C\I rocom ^
OOOOOO 000 .,-

Q
XXXXXX XXXLO.,-
CM

I%D oo ^~ co r^^ co 1^0 (~o ^o c
n3

„
c
a^
en
t

13
LO ro LO ro ro c\l -i—
OOOOOO 4^
r— " ^— i — ^~ n— i— Qj
o o o o c
xxxxxx i-^r^r^-r^jr
ro ro ro co (j
. — o ro o o ai
O CM CO P^ CO CO 40
r— t~^- 1-^ Cxi tD r-^ „
en
en
i
13
C
CD
-a
JO
>,
o

.
^J" CO LO 1^ CD CD CD > CD C
. -r- . rO
c\j ro o i — LO o o o O^LOJZ
r- 0 CT 4->
i— UJ
* 	 * £_
CU
o
ro

o ^ T '"T .Jf
CO O > > 4->
•i— -I— Z3
O O O ^ CD O O^CM^O COcu
co i^oo ocrcrocMo
i — O OLU LUCO tOrO
LO CM — ' - — CO £
ro
CL
0
s- a. v-
1 	 ^ »-H LJ_ XJ
rO ra
OJ -r- u. Ll_ Lu i_
r- OJ ^- OJS-Ol-S-OO OO 00
o i— o cn 3r i — m en >-< i- >— i ai ^,_

en E en ra ^t £ CT fOcnomroro i 3 e^"
r^t/> en — i ar.oo o; — i ^-100 -HQ^£ L^^d ^-^^^S c^- ra
171
-------






csa
^H

LO
v—
to
4_>
E
CU
E
a.
•r—
.E
to

4-5
E
CU
i-
s_
3
u
H-
O
40
fO
Q.
E
• r_

r—
(O
U
•r—
en
o
o
•r-
~&
•}
s^
fO
£
f—
3
OO


•
o
CM
1
LO
cu
r™
-Q
ro
1—












00
E
CU
•a
•r—
O
(J
ro
O
4-5

CU
•a
cu
to
o
-a

•
a.
o
Q.
1
r—
ro
3
E
E
££





•
00
E
fO
&_
4-5

r—
to
^
o
E
1
CU
o
-a

•
a.
o
o.
i

4-5 r^
E fO
CU 4->
4-5 ro
fO 4—











E
rO
OT
S_
-O





S-
cu
O 00
c cu
tO T-
O 4->
•r"
4»> ^~
C (O
CU 4->
4-5 rO
_J






^ — *•
E
cu
s-
CU 1
to c
o o
o to
S-
cu
a_















"O 4-5
S- E
to cu
-0 E
E Q.
(O •!-
4-^ t~"
oo to


O ro ro
• — it^t~~t'~-r^(£>to< — i' — ico j-
i i I I I I i I i i i
OOC3OOOOOOO O

XXXXXXXXXX X
co LO LO co r^ r— co *^- LO ro uo

cooooor^cMCMcnoo^^ ^

n
en 2
E O
3 S_
>, >, r- 1_ 0)
•O T3 ro E
O O « E O
"O ~U "O "O r^i t~\ ~^ t~*f
•f— 'r- *i — *f— T— CU
OO OOCUCUOE"
ens- s- cnoiS- s_ i— r— s_o en
E >s >s E c~ >^ >fc Q Q ^>\ _Q E
3 f c~ ^3 23 c-~ c— c- r~ t— ^
— Ih-l— _J_JI— f— 33h- _1









<— 1 OO CM VO CX3 UD O r— LO ^J-
CMCV)OLOCO'^-OOOO<^3 O
CO OO CO LO CO i~" CO CO CO CO CO
• ••••••••• •
o














F"~ O^ ^^^ C? O^l f**** ^O 00 LO LO f^O
r*1** r^*^ r^ ^j~ o^ ^™~* *^^ ^dh (*o co
i — I^ CM CM CM CM LO
CM >3- r—







( —
fO
•1—
S-
cu
* *4~*
i — CU CU ro
•— en r— cu o E
roi-r— cur— ens- r—
£~ fO ^"^ O^ fO ^_ ~^ ^j QJ
C/) ^•— f^J S» ^~ fO ^D ^O Z3
i i E ra to i — oo i- t|_
cu cu to i — i i i i
ucci ii:ais-s-4-5
r-i— T-OOQ-Q-i— ii— iC CM
-O-OS:S:<cr> °- 3
cr» i — i t — i en en ro rO f— < •—! oo o


j. ^ 	 ^
I -J"
O 1
,— O
X
X
CO
LO kO

LO LO
























^_Q 	 ^
UD CM
r— •
* .
[ ^ 	 ,













f — ^
CTl O
co o
LO <~O
en en
. 	 f


















	 i
I—
O



cu

4->
C

^5

O
^

CU
c

T3
O
•r-

-a
E
ns

„
s
en
en
i
3
cu
r-

CU


A
en

i

3
CU
-o

^^
r—
°j

E
rO

+J

S>- i i
cu^
-[ 1 , 	 1
o

i — C

o
• f— f<
^s?
CU CM
(_>,-l

E -
S_ i— i
n3 oo
^: 
-------
     Various Federal, State and local agencies were asked to comment on
the report.  NRC indicated the acceptance of doses to individuals from
normal shipments on aircraft of 340 mrem/year (maximum) and 60 mrem/year
(average).  EPA issued recommendations to FAA in December 1974 for a
dose rate limit of 0.5 mrem/h at seat level (42 mrem/y) since at least
one cost effective method can be used to significantly reduce these
doses (i.e., increased shielding) (5.43,5.44).
            Reprocessing Operations and Spent Fuel Storage


     Spent fuel from nuclear power plants is reprocessed in order to
recover isotopes of plutonium and uranium.   The separation of these
useful radionuclides from the spent fuel results in large quantities of
radioactive waste products.   Therefore, the waste management program is
of great importance at a nuclear fuel  reprocessing plant and the con-
trolled discharge of low level wastes  from the plant to the environment
is very carefully monitored.

     Since 1972, there have been no operating commercial reprocessing
plants in the United States.  The Nuclear Fuel Services plant in West
Valley, N.Y., operated from 1966 to December 1971, but was shut down to
expand its reprocessing capability to  750 metric tons of fuel  per year.
In September of 1976 Nuclear Fuel Services "notified NRC that they are
abandoning plans to reprocess fuel" (5.45)  because of economic reasons.
In addition to the NFS plant in West Valley, N.Y., a reprocessing plant
is under construction at Barnwell, S.C., but it is not expected to begin
operation before 1978.  The future of  the Midwest Recovery Plant near
Morris, 111., is uncertain.   It is now called the Morris Operation
(5.45) and is used to store spent fuel.  There are three noncommercial
fuel reprocessing facilities operated  for the U.S. government.  These
are under ERDA jurisdiction and are included with facilities discussed
in Chapter 6 of this report.

     Spent fuel is stored in special storage pools at power plants for
varying periods of time before being shipped to a reprocessing plant.
As a consequence of there being no commercial reprocessing plant in
operation since 1972,  more fuel is being stored at power plant storage
facilities as well as at facilities at Morris, 111. and West Valley,
N.Y.  The facility at Barnwell, S.C.,  is in the process of obtaining a
license for spent fuel storage.
Description of the data base

     Characterization of the gaseous and liquid effluents from nuclear
fuel reprocessing plants shows the important radioactive components  to
be li+C, 85Kr, 129I, 3H, 106Ru, 90Sr, 134Cs,  137Cs,  uranium and plutonium
(5.46,5.47).   A general assessment of the effects of these effluents is
given in three reports (5.11,5.48,5.49).
                                 173
-------
     Environmental monitoring reports are filed semiannually with the
NRC (5.13) by the operators of reprocessing plants as a requirement for
their operation.  These reports are available to the public at NRC
public document rooms.   Where spent fuel  is stored at nuclear power
plants or reprocessing  plants, the waste  management procedures are
combined in one program and, therefore, separate environmental moni-
toring reports are not  required.  The types of data that are required in
the reports to NRC are  included in the technical specifications of the
operating license for the facility.  At the NFS plant in West Valley,
N.Y., the quarterly reports for 1971 and  1972 contain information on
131I concentration in three milk samples  and gross alpha and beta concen-
trations in samples collected at perimeter monitoring stations.

     New York State Department of Environmental Conservation maintains a
surveillance program at the NFS site and  publishes an annual report
which includes the data collected (5.15,5.16).  A summary of environ-
mental surveillance through 1972 at NFS is included in a report by
Terpilak and Jorgensen  (5.50).  The Division of Radiological Health of
the South Carolina State Board of Health  has a preoperational surveil-
lance program (5.15,5.16,5.51) at the Barnwell site.

     Besides the sources of environmental monitoring data cited above,
special studies have been carried out at  the NFS site during its period
of operation.  Iodine-129 found in samples of milk, animals, and other
environmental samples is the subject of several reports (5.52-5.55).
Measurements of environmental levels of radioactivity due to gaseous
(5.47,5.56) and liquid  (5.46) effluents were made in field studies by
the EPA, Office of Radiation Programs.  Aerial measurements of radio-
activity were made periodically by the AEC (5.5?).  Other surveys of
environmental radiation from NFS have been conducted by New York State
(5. 58-5.60).
Dose data

     Dose data are generally lacking in environmental monitoring reports
filed with the NRC by fuel reprocessing plant licensees.  However,
several studies made by government agencies have reported dose infor-
mation based on plant effluent data and on field measurements.

     A report by the Office of Radiation Programs, EPA, which develops
the concept of environmental dose commitment to populations, projects
doses over a 50-year period from 1970 to 2020 from normal operations of
the nuclear power industry in the United States including fuel repro-
cessing plants (5.28).  Magno, et al. (5.27) estimates that population
dose from lkC may be significant.  Russell and Galpin (5.61) in a
review of offsite doses from fuel reprocessing plants indicate that
radioactive iodine and krypton-85 are the most important gaseous effluent
components in terms of dose to the public.
                                   174
-------
     The Office of Radiation Programs of EPA in a report (5.12) esti-
mating ionizing radiation doses in the United States from the year 1960
to 2000, includes dose data from reprocessing plants.  The average
annual dose (whole body) accrued to the population within 100 kilometers
of a fuel reprocessing plant, reprocessing LWR fuel is calculated to be
0.17 mrem/person/y, and 6.3 mrem/person/y at a distance of 3,000 meters.
A report by the NRC estimates the environmental impact of a model fuel
reprocessing plant (5.45).   The impacts given are derived from the model
fuel-cycle facilities used in the final generic environmental statement
and the use of recycle plutonium in mixed oxide fuel in light water
cooled reactors (GESMO).  Based on this model plant the "total whole-
body dose commitment to the world population from the reprocessing
demanded by a single light water reactor in a year is about 600 person-
rem" for the situation where uranium only is recycled.

     Witherspoon (5.9) estimates the population dose from a hypothetical
reprocessing plant to be 474 person-rem, (50-year internal  dose commit-
ment for 1 year of intake)  whole-body, to the population within 80 km of
the model facility.

     Shleien (5.62) calculated whole-body doses using the individual
dose commitment concept, i.e., the dose delivered (in mrem) to a critical
organ during a 50-year period from a particular intake.  The individual
dose commitment was based on field measurements of environmental activ-
ity at the NFS plant site during 1968.  For the "maximum individual,"
the whole-body dose commitment from ingestion of cesium-137 and cesium-134
(mostly from deer meat) was estimated to be 257 mrem.  For the "typical
individual," the whole-body dose commitment from cesium-137 was 1.7 mrem,
and this was attributed mainly to the dose from fallout.  Another study
by Martin (5.63), using effluent and environmental surveillance data
from the NFS site for 1971, found the most significant radionuclides
contributing to dose were tritium, krypton-85, strontium-90, cesium-137,
and cesium-134.  The average annual (for 1971) whole-body dose to indiv-
iduals in the maximum exposure group was calculated to be 5.8 mrem and
the whole body population dose was 23 person-rem.   An in-depth survey of
the intake of fish and venison caught in the vicinity of NFS in 1971 by
Magno, et al. (5.64)  resulted in the calculated maximum whole body
individual dose from fishing to be i.4 mrem and from ingestion of venison
(in 1970) to be 14 mrem.  These figures are considerably smaller than
the doses estimated by Shleien for 1968 (5.62).

     The Environmental Impact Statement for the Barnwell reprocessing
plant under construction predicts the maximum whole-body dose from
normal plant operations to be 4 mrem/y (5.30).
Summary

     There has been no commercial fuel reprocessing plant in operation
in the United States since December 1971.  The Nuclear Fuel  Services
plant operated from 1966 to 1971, and the data reviewed in this report
are for this plant during its period of operation.

                                  175
-------
     Spent fuel is stored in special  pools at individual  nuclear power
plants and at storage areas at NFS and Morris,  111.

     Dose estimates are generally not included  in reports by spent fuel
storage and reprocessing licensees.  However, State  and U.S.  government
agencies have collected data and reported dose  information in several
studies.

     Reprocessing operations and spent-fuel storage  is concerned with
conducting a safe waste management program with a view of recovering
selected isotopes and controlling the discharge of low-level  wastes to
the environment.  It appears that the most significant radionuclides
contributing to this dose are 3H, 14C, 85Kr, 90Sr, 131*Cs, and 137Cs.
                      Radioactive Waste Management
Genera 1
     The safe management of nuclear wastes may be the determining factor
in the future role of nuclear power.

     EPA views radioactive waste management in the broadest environ-
mental sense—all matters and forms of radioactive waste present potential
environmental and public health problems.  EPA does not limit its defin-
ition of radioactive waste to only those wastes resulting from the
production of power by nuclear reactors.

     EPA has divided radioactive wastes into the following general
classes or categories because of their markedly differing character,
volumes, and treatment/disposition requirements:  1) high-level; 2)  low-
level; 3) transuranium-contaminated (TRU); 4)  uranium mill tailings; 5)
decommissioning of radioactive-contaminated facilities and areas; and 6)
naturally occurring radioactive waste generated by nonnuclear energy
industries, e.g., mining and processing of phosphate, coal, and other
minerals (5.65., 5. 66).

     Waste management, as defined by EPA has meant confinement; that is,
assurance of the isolation of the waste from the environment (biosphere)
for the duration of its hazardous lifetime.  This may involve burial,
storage, or some other form to assure that dispersion into the biosphere
does not take place.

     NRC has grouped the wastes from the nuclear fuel cycles for uranium-
fueled reactors  into six major classes:  high-level wastes (HLW), trans-
uranium-contaminated wastes (TRU), non-transuranium-contaminated wastes
(often called low-level wastes-LLW), and contaminated facilities and
equipment.  Two  special classes of wastes are spent fuel from the fuel
cycle in which there is no recycling of uranium or plutonium (with no
reprocessing) and unused plutonium from the uranium-recycle process
(5.67).

                                  176
-------
     High-level wastes are defined in Appendix F, 10 CFR Part 50, as
"aqueous waste resulting from the operation of the first cycle solvent
extraction system, or equivalent, and the concentrated waste of subsequent
extraction cycles, or equivalent, in a facility for reprocessing irradi-
ated reactor fuels."  Only the fuel  cycles involving reprocessing generate
HLW under this definition.

     Low-level wastes may be either transuranic or nontransuranic in
character--transuranic wastes have been measured or are assumed to
contain more than a specified concentration (e.g., 10 nanocuries of
alpha emitters per gram of waste) of transuranic elements (i.e., elements
with atomic numbers larger than 92).  Some of these nuclides are particularly
toxic; some have very long half-lives (tens of thousands of years).
Waste materials containing significant quantities of these long-lived
elements require special long-term consideration.  Solid wastes contam-
inated with transuranics (TRU) are derived primarily from operation of
the fuel reprocessing plant.

     Nontransuranic wastes (low-level wastes-LLW) are any radioactive
waste material in which concentrations of alpha radiation-emitting
isotopes are negligible.  Maximum half-lives of the isotopes of concern
are about 30 years, so that decay to innocuous levels occurs in hundreds
of years, and isolation from the biosphere need not be for as great a
period as for transuranic elements.

     The long-term hazard associated with low-level and high-level waste
is not necessarily proportional to the nominal level of radioactivity,
but rather to the specific toxicity and decay rate of each radionuclide.
From the standpoint of waste management, the most significant radio-
nuclides decay with half-lives of months to hundreds of thousands of
years.

     Major facilities and the equipment they contain become radioactive
wastes at the end of their useful life.  The procedure of taking a major
facility out of service is termed decommissioning.  Decontamination
procedures vary according to the type of facility and may include such
actions as:  1) equipment removal; 2) removal of cell liners; 3) moni-
toring of all surfaces to assure adequate decontamination of the poten-
tially hazardous radioactive material (5. 67).

     Each facility or operation in the fuel cycle produces wastes.
Uranium ore is obtained from both underground and open-pit mining oper-
ations.  Wastes from underground mines consist mainly of rock removed in
creating shafts and passageways.  Wastes from open-pit operations consist
largely of overburden removed to expose the ore body.  Wastes from
either operation are expected to contain only relatively small amounts
of uranium.  Mine waste should have essentially the background radio-
activity typical of the region.  A uranium mill extracts uranium from
ore.  During milling, 20 to 80 percent of the radon gas in the ore and
small fractions of other nuclides are released to the environment.
                                  177
-------
Almost all of the radioactive decay products of the uranium ore end up
in the tailings, mostly in the tailings solids, but with small  percentages
in solution.  Large amounts of solid waste tailings remain following the
removal of the uranium from the ore.  A typical mill may generate 1800
metric tons per day of tailings solids slurried in 2500 metric  tons of
waste milling solutions.  Over the lifetime of the mill, 100 to 200
acres may permanently be committed to store this material.  Included in
the tailings are 97 percent of the radioactive decay products of the
uranium and about 4 percent of the original uranium.  Uranium mill
tailings piles are long half-life, low-level radioactive wastes.  As
such they will require perpetual care.  Mining and milling wastes are
discussed in more detail in another chapter.
                     Eigh-level wastes management
Waste from federal facilities

     More than 205 million gallons of high-level radioactive liquid
waste has been generated over the past 30 years at ERDA (formerly AEC)
facilities.  The majority of this waste is stored at the Hanford Reser-
vation in Washington and the Savannah River Plant near Aiken, South
Carolina, with a small percentage at Idaho National Engineering Labor-
atory near Idaho Falls, Idaho (5.68).  ERDA's inventory of high-level
radioactive waste in both liquid and solid form as of June 30, 1974, is
presented in table 5-21.
     Table 5-21.  Inventory of high-level radioactive waste (5.68)
                                        Quantity (1000 gallons)
     Location                      Solids         Liquids        Total

     Richland                      26,498         31,823         58,321
     Savannah River                 8,504         11,833         20,337
     Idaho  Falls                      329          1,907          2,236

          Total                    35,331         45,563         80,894
      The  chemical reprocessing of fuel us-ed in nuclear reactors is the
 largest source of radioactive wastes.  This process generates gaseous,
 liquid and  solid waste.  Of all forms of waste, liquid containing high
 levels of radioactivity  poses the most complex technical problems in
 management  and the  potentially most severe hazards.

      High level wastes require a system for their management which
 provides  radiation  shielding, protection against release, and a means
 of  heat dissipation.
                                   178
-------
     Strontium-90, cesium-137, and plutonium-239 contained in high-level
waste are of greatest concern.  Each is hazardous in terms of its poten-
tial effects on the human body, the pathways by which it may reach the
body, and the length of time it remains dangerous (table 5-22).   These
radionuclides cannot be neutralized.  Strontium-90 and cesium-137 require
about 600 years to decay to 1/1,000,000 of their original  level  of
radioactivity.  For plutonium-239, it takes about 500,000 years.   These
radionuclides can reach man through several pathways:  air,  water,
contaminated vegetation and animals and products from animals (milk,
cheese, etc.).
Table 5-22.  Principal long-lived waste constituents (5.69)
Strontium-90

     28.9-yr. half-life, fission product, 3 emitter
     Specific activity:  142 Ci/g

Cesium-137

     30.1-yr. half-life, fission product, y emitter
     Specific activity:  87 Ci/g

Plutonium-238

     87.8-yr. half-life, a emitter
     Specific activity:  17 Ci/g

Plutonium-239

     24,390-yr.  half-life, a emitter
     Specific activity:  0.062 Ci/g
     Waste management activities at these sites consists of containing
the liquid in underground tanks pending solidification,  solidifying the
liquid to prevent leaks and reduce volumes, and developing methods of
further immobilizing the solidified waste.   Management practices vary at
the three sites because of factors such as  geology,  weather and form of
waste.

     The solidification program consists of converting high-level  liquid
waste into salt cake at Richland and Savannah River  and  into calcine (a
dry granular form) at Idaho Falls.  Calcine and salt cake are not
considered the most acceptable form for long-term storage because they
are both water dispersible.  A more acceptable form  has  not been demon-
strated on a production basis.
                                  179
-------
     ERDA has estimated that 60 million gallons of commercial  high-level
liquid waste will be generated (but not accumulated) by the year 2000
and 238 million gallons by 2020.   This is in addition to the 205 million
gallons generated by AEC over the past 30 years and approximately 7.5
million gallons ERDA presently generates each year (5.68).

     From the early 1940's until  June 1974, AEC has experienced 26 leaks
in underground storage tanks containing high-level radioactive liquid
waste, 18 leaks occurring at Richland, releasing 430,000 gallons of
waste into the surrounding soil.   The remaining eight leaks have occurred
at Savannah River, only one of which resulted in the release of waste
into the surrounding soil.  No leaks have occurred at Idaho Falls.

     The principal deterrent to leaks from underground storage tanks is
the program of solidifying the liquid to calcine or salt cake form.
Table 5-23 shows the progress in reducing the volume of high-level waste
inventory.
Table 5-23.  Volume of high-level radioactive wastes at ERDA
             production sites (5.68)
                                   High level liquid waste
                                    (millions of gallons)
Date
12-31-67
12-31-68
12-31-69
12-31-70
12-31-71
12-31-72
12-31-73
6-30-74
Idaho
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.2
Richland
74.0
71.4
68.1
65.8
65.3
64.0
65.0
58.3
Savannah
River
16.8
16.6
18.2
17.9
17.9
19.0
20.0
20.3
Total
92.3
89.5
87.9
85.5
85.4
85.3
87.2
80.8
Waste from oormevoial fac-il-it'ies

     Approximately 600,000 gallons of high-level liquid waste have been
generated from commercial fuel reprocessing and are stored in underground
tanks located on State-owned land at West Valley, N.Y.  Nuclear Fuel
Services was the first commercial fuel reprocessor in the United States,
operating from 1966 until 1972.  The contract between Nuclear Fuel
Services and New York State expires in 1980 and neither plans to extend
the contract.  Two other commercial fuel reprocessors were scheduled to
begin operations during the late 1970's.  The Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant
at Barnwell, S.C., is presently awaiting licensing; the G.E. Midwest
Fuel Recovery Plant at Morris, 111., encountered technical difficulties
and it  is doubtful whether it will operate.

                                  180
-------
     Under the 1970 regulations issued by AEC (10 CFR 50,  app.  F)
commercial reprocessors must convert liquid waste to an acceptable solid
form not more than 5 years after it is generated (excepting the 600,000
gallons of liquid waste possessed by NFS)1'2 and physical  custody  of the
waste would be transferred to ERDA not more than 10 years  after it is
generated.  From that point on, ERDA would provide permanent storage or
disposal, with the cost to be borne by the reprocessors.   Technology for
ultimate disposal is still in the research stage.  It has  been  estimated
that the total volume of solidified high-level  wastes produced  by  commercial
nuclear power in the United States through the  year 2000 will  be equi-
valent to a cube about 70 feet on each side.
                      Low-level waste management
Background
     AEC has used three methods of disposal  of low-level  radioactive
wastes:  dilution and dispersion, shallow land burial,  and sea disposal.

     Dilution and dispersion through release of effluents is still
permitted under existing regulations but with increasing  emphasis on
maintaining such releases to the environment as low as  reasonably
achievable.

     Sea disposal of low-level wastes was discontinued  in June 1970.
However, between 1946 and 1970, approximately 94,600 Ci of low-level
packaged wastes were dumped at sea.  Most of these wastes have long
since decayed.  The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico
were used for disposal of low-level wastes originating  mostly from
research and development facilities such as  Brookhaven.  In June 1960,
the AEC initiated a phaseout of sea disposal by placing a moratorium on
issuing new sea disposal licenses but allowing existing licenses to
remain in effect.  By 1970 the practice of sea dumping  was discontinued,
mainly because land burial is more economical, but also because of
mounting pressure against sea disposal of any kind.  EPA  has the regu-
latory authority for issuing ocean disposal  permits but has issued none
since its formation in 1970.  In 1974-1975,  EPA conducted surveys of
disused deep-ocean radioactive waste dumpsites to determine the fate of
radioactive waste packages dumped there in past years and to make
preliminary determinations concerning the distribution  of any released
wastes.  These sites, located in the Atlantic Ocean off the Maryland-
Delaware coast and in the Pacific Ocean near the Farallon Islands,  had
received the majority of all wastes dumped during the 1946-1962 period
(5. 70-5. 76).
         NRC proposed regulation specifically governing the management
of NFS wastes is tentatively scheduled for publication in mid-1978.
     2
      EPA and New York State in conjunction with the U.S.  Geological
Survey are developing an environmental pathway model to assess the
impact of the waste burial site on the environment and man.
                                  181
-------
     Since 1967, some European countries, principally the United Kingdom,
have been disposing solidified low-level  radioactive wastes into the
deep ocean under the supervision of the Nuclear Energy Agency.   However,
this practice is presently limited to only a few countries with high
population densities and/or limited land space, and is subject  to
restrictions of the International Ocean Dumping Treaty.
Shallow-land burial

     During the early 1960's when the dangers of sea disposal  of radio-
active wastes became apparent, the AEC established a series of regional
disposal sites "as needed" to be located on State-owned land or Federal
property and some were licensed for operation by commercial enterprises.

     The first commercial land burial site located at Beatty,  Nevada,
was licensed in September 1962 and five additional commercial  sites were
licensed by AEC and Agreement States by 1971.  In May 1963 AEC stopped
handling low-level wastes from private industry.  The general  guidelines
for a burial license and the necessary environmental statement are given
in NRC Regulations 10 CFR 20, 30, 40, 51, and 70.

     At present there are six commercially-operated shalTow-land burial
sites located in West Valley, New York; Barnwell, South Carolina; Sheffield,
Illinois; Maxey Flats, Kentucky; Beatty, Nevada and Richland,  Washington
(table 5-24).  All but the Washington site are located on State-owned
land, with the Washington site located on Federally-owned land leased to
the State.  Five of the burial sites are located within "agreement
States" and are subject to State regulations (between the individual
States and NRC).  In the one nonagreement State (Illinois), NRC regulates
the site.  In addition to the six commercial facilities, there are five
principal Federal land disposal sites controlled by ERDA located at
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho; Hanford Facility, Washington;
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, New Mexico; Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Tennessee; and Savannah River Plant, South Carolina (figure 5-12).  The
hydrology, geology, geology and climate at the various commercially
operated sites differ greatly, ranging from those located in temperate
humid zones, to others situated in near-desert areas.  Rainfall, which
creates much of the eventual problem of waste leakage, ranges  from as
little as 2.5 inches per year to as much as 46 inches (5. 77, s. 79,5.80).

     Present sites receive a portion of their waste from the nuclear
fuel cycle and the rest from hospitals, universities, ERDA, and other
sources.  Low-level wastes generated in the LWR fuel cycle fall into
three categories:  wet solid wastes, compactable, and noncompactable dry
wastes.  Present policies prohibit the burial of plutonium (except at
the Hanford site) but some remains in place from previous years.  The
principal operations at a commercial land burial ground are the receipt,
temporary storage, and burial in trenches of packaged radioactive wastes.
                                  182
-------



















— ^,
IX
IX
d
to
§
o
i-
cn

f-~
ra
• 1 —
S-
J
f)

01
CO
ra
5
ra
•1 —
u
s_
01
£
o
CJ


•
*3"
CM
1
LO
O)
.a
ra
i—
































ro
E to
O 3
•1— +J
4-> ro
ro -M
S_ to
CU
CL
O




•a
ai
^D -M
iS-* CL
H- 01
CJ
O
ra


^J
^*"> r"*
n—
-I-3 "O
C Ol
O) CO
s_ c:
S_ O)
3 CJ
0 -r-
r—




CU
CO
d
Ol
•u IT
r— ra
0)

, — -. 	 s
P—
ra >,
c: .a

cn
•f-
o











J^_
o
4->
ra
i.
O)
Q.
o






c
o
•r—
4->
rO
CJ
o
_J

01 -a
CO O)
C T3
01 C
O Ol
•i- CL
i— CO
"T
S to

oo



CD
~*^
•r-
O
c

o

V

^
CJ
o;
^^

oQ

Ol
^_}
rO
-l_>
00




^_^
CM
CO
CTi
^_







O
LU
fc *
^_> ^
-P O)
rO -Z.
Ol
CO







c
Ol
CL
O



CD
^*^
•r—
C 1
C

0

V








Ol

ra
+->
oo




^_^
CM
10
cn
^_


>^
\s
U
~^
^_)
C
CU



















o
o
LU
z.

rt
to
-M
(-Q
r— .
LL,

>^ .
Ol >,
X ^
ro
S





T3
O)
CO C
O Ol
i— CL
cj o
m
4- 1 to
\ 01 CU
3 r— >,
Q_ O)
*»
o> s_ to
Ol *P
r— -C C tO
. 4-> ai o)
0 0 E >-


^
C^_)
C£


03

01 O)
J _^ J ^
ro ro
4^ 4_>
OO OO




^ 	 ^ f 	 ^
OO LO
CO CO
CTi CTi
•— r—


\s
i-
O


5 cj
CU LU
Z «=C










1 —
O"
3 to
LL. O)
O
i*- *r-
ro >
OJ i-
r— Ol O
cj oo cj
3 LU
•z. -z.

n
^"">
ai

r-~ n
ra T3 •
> • 1- -C
>- O to
4-> • H- ra
to Z C 3
CU ra
2 3C







C. C
Ol Ol
CL a.
o o



CD CD
*^^ -x^.
•r" T—
0 CJ
c c

o o

V V

*
CJ

•z.

o3

Ol

O ro
(•K' -J->
Z 00




	 	 H 	
r^ ^~
m) r^
CTi CT>
•— r-
rO
C
•p-
n—
O
_E S-
4-5 rO
CJ 3 CJ
LU O
<=C 00







•
O
E
S- H-l
ro
rjj **
i — tO
0 £
3 a>
~Z. 4-^
I co
O E >>
o ai oo
LU _C
2: o



tft
-a *
(— r —
Ol r-
•r- • O) •
M- r— 30
t(- i— C •
a> i— i s- oo
-E ro
OO CQ












































•
~*r
z.
OO
	 .

r—
rO
•r—
S-
o>
ra

s-
ra
O)

o
^
C"

1^
ra
•r-
o
O)
CL
to

>.
p—
E
o
to
0)
to
c
Ol
o
•r—
1—

o
r^
•z.

183
-------
The packages are normally buried as received,  with no processing or
repackaging of package contents.  However,  in  some cases,  the primary
package containing the waste is shipped in  a reusable over-pack  or
secondary container which may be required by Department of Transportation
regulations for shipment of the particular  materials involved.

     An average burial trench at a commercial  burial site  is  about 300
feet long, 40 feet wide, and 25 feet deep and  has a volume of about
340,000 cubic feet.  The volume is not completely utilized since there
are voids between packages, and between packages and the earth-fill.
(It is estimated that about 50 percent of the  volume is utilized).  The
filled trenches are capped with a mound of  earth to reduce infiltration
from precipitation.  However, because of individual site characteristics
such practices and procedures as trench construction, waste placement,
type and form of waste accepted, monitoring programs, water management,
etc. may vary from site to site.  In the wetter Eastern United States,
precipitation presents operational problems.  At two sites which have
burial media with relatively low permeability, operational experience
indicates that it is difficult to keep water from getting  into the
trenches (5.81).

     Until the early 1970's, no problems were identified in the regu-
lation and operation of the commercial burial  grounds.  Problems subse-
quently arose at four sites:  Maxey Flats,  Ky; West Valley, N.Y; Beatty,
Nev; and Sheffield; 111.  None of the problems has created a significant
public health and safety problem (5.77).
       Figure 5-12.   Major generating,  storage,  and disposal  sites
              for solid low-level  radioactive  waste (5.78}
                                   184
-------
     In the early 1970's, Kentucky became concerned about the accumu-
lation of water in completed trenches at Maxey Flats and at the increase
in volume and quantity of waste being received at the site for burial.
Studies indicated the burial ground was contributing radioactivity to
the local environment; tritium, cobalt-60, strontium-89 and -90,  cesium-134
and -137 and plutonium-238 and -239 were identified in individual  samples
in the unrestricted environment.   The levels ranged from slightly  above
background to orders of magnitude above background for individual  samples.
A water management program has been instituted at the site to minimize
the potential for migration of radioactivity.   Kentucky has an extensive
environmental monitoring program at the site,  and several USGS research
studies are currently underway.  The Kentucky  Legislature has imposed a
10 cents per pound excise tax on waste received at the site for burial,
effective in June 1976.  This tax makes the cubic foot charge at the
site about three times the charge at other sites.  As a result, the site
is virtually unused.

     In March 1975, NRC was informed of water  seepage from two trenches
at the West Valley, New York burial ground.  Increased levels of tritium
in water samples had been found in samples taken from onsite monitoring
stations.  The seepage was diverted to a holding lagoon and subsequently
processed through NFS processing plants' low-level waste treatment
system and released.  No significant increase  in radioactivity in  the
unrestricted environment was detected.  Operations were suspended  at
the site and, as of December 1976, no agreement has been reached between
State representatives and NFS regarding the conditions for reopening and
operating the site.  Several studies are being conducted by the State,
EPA and USGS at the site.

     In March 1976 the Nevada State Department of Human Resources  ini-
tiated an investigation of the Beatty burial ground and uncovered  evidence
that violations of the operator's license had  occurred over a period of
years, involving removal of contaminated tools, equipment and supplies
from the site by Nuclear Engineering Company (NECO) employees.  The
State suspended NECO's license on March 8, 1976, and NRC suspended its
license on March 11, 1976.  On May 25, 1976, the State lifted its  suspension
of NECO's license on the basis that emergency  conditions had abated and
that there was no significant hazard to the public health and safety in
the vicinity of the disposal site.  NRC will not take action to reinstate
its license to NECO to dispose of special nuclear material at the  Beatty
site until completion of the Department of Justice investigation.

     The present Sheffield, Illinois site is almost full unless new
technology can be applied.  Expansion of the site boundaries depends on
the outcome of local rezoning hearings as well  as NRC safety and environ-
mental analyses.
                                  185
-------
     Once a commercial site becomes filled to capacity, the licensee
operator ceases to have responsibility, the facility is decommissioned,
and the responsibility for long-term care falls to the State government,
although responsibility for the Hanford site will  eventually revert to
the Federal government (5.80).  One of the recommendations of the NRC
Task Force reviewing the Federal-State regulation  of burial grounds was
the establishment of a Federally administered perpetual care program of
the sites which can be accomplished through Federal land ownership (s. 77),
It is recognized that requirements for effective site decommissioning,
site care and further uses of the site are important aspects of shallow
land burial.  To date no commercial or ERDA site has been decommissioned.
Current volume and future projection of waste

     Currently, about 2.5 million cubic feet of wastes are buried each
year.  The approximate cumulative totals of wastes buried through the
end of 1975 are shown in table 5-25 (s. 77).
Table 5-25.  Cumulative total volume and quantities of commercial
             waste buried through 1975 (s. 77)
     Volume (ft3)                            13,100,000
     Byproduct material (curies)              3,300,000
     Source material (kg)                       680,000
     Special nuclear material (kg)                1,056
     Plutonium (kg)                                 113
     Figure 5-13 shows several projections for expected generation of
non-TRU wastes from 1975 through the year 2000.

     The nonfuel cycle generation (curve C) are staff estimates based on
the following generation rates:
                       Estimated nonfuel cycle
                      Medical/industrial/academic

     Year                          Generation rate (IP6 cubic feet)

     1975-80                                 1
     1981-85                                 1 1/2
     1986-90                                 2
     1991-95                                 2 1/2
     1996-2000                               3
These estimates are added to the ERDA projection resulting in Curve B + C
for all wastes.  Thus, curves A, B + C represent high and low estimates
of waste generation.

                                   186
-------
      CO
      en
      LU
      o
      m
      r)
      o
     to
      o
           lo-

           g-

           s'

           7-

           6-


           5-


           4-



           3-
                       WASTE VOLUME GENERATION

                   PROJECTIONS FOR NON-TRU WASTES
                        GENERATION PROJECTION.


                           A - EPA

                           B - ERDA - 76 - 43


                           C - STAFF NON-FUEL CYCLE ESTIMATES


                           A- GESMO
          .02-
          .01-
              I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  1  I
I  I  I  I  I
                                                      I  I  1  I
                        B + C



                        B




                        GESMO

                       CYCLE ONLY)
           1975       1980       1985      1990       1995       2000

Figure 5-13.  Waste  volume generation  projections for nonTRU wastes (5.77)
                                   187
-------
     Estimates of remaining capacities of existing commercial  burial
grounds are based on NRC discussions with State officials and  site
operators.  If all sites are utilized, the remaining capacity  is 6.4  x
106 cubic meters (the effects of expansion at the Sheffield site are
also shown) (E on figure 5-14).  The capacities of unused remaining
space at Washington, Nevada, and South Carolina sites are shown as D.
As discussed previously the future of Kentucky and New York are un-
certain (this capacity is estimated at 3.9 x 106 cubic meters) (5.77).
Surveillance information

     The site operator conducts an environmental  surveillance program in
accordance with State or Federal requirements.  The program includes
sampling of air, water, soil, vegetation, and animals, both on and
offsite, to determine whether radioactive material has migrated from the
burial location.

     Radioactive contamination has been detected migrating from the
disposal site to the environment at the Maxey Flats and West Valley
facilities.  Specific radionuclides, detected in leachates in the
trenches and free to migrate to the offsite environment, included: 3H,
22Na, 54Mn, 55Fe, 57Co, 60Co, 63Ni, 65Zn, 90Sr, 106Ru, 125Sb, 125I,
1291, 13*I, 133Ba> 137CSj 226Ra> 228ACj 229Thj 232Thj 23UU} 235^ 236^
238Pu, 239Pu, 240Pu and 2U1Am.  Little is known at this time about the
physical and chemical characteristics of the wastes or of the radio-
active contaminants being leached from them.  A striking similarity has
been noticed, however, between the leachates at Maxey Flats and West
Valley and the leachates found at sanitary landfills.  Both appear to
have a high dissolved solids content (~500,OOQ ppm) and significant
amounts of organic and inorganic acids.
Population doses

     There is no information on potential doses to individuals or the
general population from low-level waste burial practices.  However, two
of  the commercial burial sites, the West Valley and Maxey Flats disposal
facilities, have failed to perform as planned.  Authorization to operate
the burial facilities was based on analyses of the site hydrology,
meteorology, etc., which, it was believed, demonstrated that the buried
radioactive wastes would not migrate from the site. That is, they would
be  retained on the site for hundreds of years.  In 10 years or less,
radioactivity has been detected offsite.
                                188
-------
    10-J
    9-
    8-
    7-
    6-
    5-
 CC
 UJ
 t-
 UJ
 UJ
 O
 CO
 13
 O
CO
 O
 3-
   2.0-
1.0
 .9-
 .8'
 .7-
 .6-
 .5-

 .4-

 .3-


 .2-
           CAPACITY OF EXISTING SITES
          TO  MEET PROJECTED  NOIM-TRU
                WASTE GENERATION
        ILLINOIS ADDED
                                                    A
                                                 B + C
    1975
          1980
1985      1990
1995
2000
        CAPACITIES:
          D: WASHINGTON, NEVADA, S. C. SITES
          E: WASHINGTON, NEVADA, S. C., KENTUCKY, N. Y. SITES
        PROJECTIONS (FROM FIGURE D-1):
          A: EPA
          B + C: NORMALIZED ERDA


  Figure 5-14.  Capacity of existing sites  to meet projected
              nonTRU waste generation  (5. 77)
                          189
-------
References
(S.I)  HOLM, W. M.  Radium in Consumer Products on Historical  Perspective;
       Radium Chemical Co., Inc., 161 East 42nd St., New York, N.  Y.
       10017; Presented at the Symposium of Public Health Aspects  of
       Radioactivity in Consumer Products; Atlanta, Ga., February  1977
       (To be published by Georgia Institute of Technology) (1977).

(5.2)  Statistical data of the uranium industry (GJO-100 (76)), U.S.
       Energy Research and Development Administration, Grand Junction
       Office, Grand Junction, Colorado (January 1, 1976).

(5.S)  BENDIX FIELD ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Annual NURE Report 1976
       (GJBX-11(77), Grand Junction Operations, Grand Junction, Colo.
       81501 (1977).

(5.4)  A study of waste generation, treatment, and disposal in the
       metals mining industry, Volume I and II.  Midwest Research
       Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, Draft Report for EPA
       Contract No. 68-01-2665 (May 1975).

(5.5)  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.  Environmental radiation
       protection for nuclear power operations, proposed standards
       (40 CFR 190), supplementary information.  Office of Radiation
       Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
       20460 (January 5, 1976).

(5.6)  FORD, BACON, and DAVIS UTAH, INC., Phase II-Title I Engineering
       Assessment of Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings:  Vitro Site Salt
       Lake City, Utah, USERDA Contract No. E(05-l)-1658, Salt Lake
       City, Utah (April 30, 1976).

(5.7)  ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION.  Expansion of
       U.S. uranium enrichment capacity, ERDA 1543, Energy Research and
       Development Administration.  Washington, D.C.  20545 (April
       1976).'

 (5.8)   ATOMIC  ENERGY  COMMISSION.   Environmental  survey  of  the uranium
       fuel cycle, AEC WASH-1248, Energy Research  and Development
       Administration, Washington, D.C.  20545 (April 1974).

(5.9)  WITHERSPOON, J. P.  Population exposure estimates as derived
       from an environmental assessment of LWR fuel cycle facilities.
       Proceedings of the Eighth Midyear Topical Symposium of the
       Health Physics Society, Knoxville,' Tenn.  October 1974.  Health
       Physics Society Report, CONF-741018 (October 1974).

(5.10) Nuclear power production, United Nations Scientific Committee
       on the effects of the Radiation, A/AC.82/R.299 (July 2, 1975),
       (UNSCEAR).
                                   190
-------
(5.11)   Environmental  analysis of the uranium fuel  cycle,  part III.
        Nuclear fuel  reprocessing,  EPA-520/9-73-003-D.   U.S.  Environ-
        mental  Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs,
        Washington,  D.C.   20460 (October 1973).

(5.12)   KLEMENT, A.  W.  JR.,  C. MILLER,  R.  MINX,  and B.  SHLEIEN.
        Estimates of ionizing radiation doses in the United States
        1960-2000, ORP/CSD 72-1.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
        Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington,  D.C.   20460
        (August 1972).

(5.is)   U.S.  ATOMIC  ENERGY COMMISSION.   Code of  Federal  Regulations,
        Part 50, 10  CFR,  Licensing  of production and utilization
        facilities.   Superintendent of Documents,  U.S.  Government
        Printing Office,  Washington,  D.C.   20402.

(5.14)   U.S.  ATOMIC  ENERGY COMMISSION.   Measuring  and reporting  of
        radioactivity in  the environs of nuclear power plants,
        Regulatory Guide  4.1.  Director of Regulatory Standards,
        USAEC,  Washington, D.C.   20545.

(5.15)   CULLITON, M.  A.   State environmental radioactivity surveillance
        programs, 1972.   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.   Radiat.
        Data Rep. 14:145-173 (March 1973).

(5.16)   Directory of EPA, State and local  environmental  quality  moni-
        toring  and assessment activities,  Section  V.   U.S.  Environmental
        Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C.   20460 (December 1974).

(5.1?)   Environmental  radioactivity surveillance guide.   U.S.  Environ-
        mental  Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs.   ORP/SID
        72-2 (June 1972).

(5.18)   Environmental  impact monitoring of nuclear power plants. Source
        Book of Monitoring Methods.  2  Vols.  Prepared by Battelle
        Pacific NW Labs,  Columbus Labs  for Atomic  Industrial  Forum,  Inc.
        AIF/NESP-004.

(5.19)   WEISS,  B. H.,  P.  G.  VOILLEQUE,  J.  KELLER,  B.  KAHN,  H.  KRIEGER,
        A.  MARTIN, and C. PHILLIPS.  Detailed measurement of 131I in
        air,  vegetation,  and milk around three operating reactor sites.
        U.S.  Nuclear Regulatory Commission,  Washington,  D.C.   20555
        (March  1975).   NUREG-75/021.

(5.20)   KAHN, B., R.  BLANCHARD,  W.  BRINK,  H. KRIEGER, H. KOLDE,  W.
        AVERETT, S.  GOLD, A.  MARTIN,  and G.  GELS.   Radiological  surveil-
        lance study  at the Haddam Neck  PWR nuclear power station. EPA-
        520/3-74-007.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Washington,
        D.C.   20460,  pp.  63-117 (December  1974).

(5.21)   KAHN, B., et al.   Radiological  surveillance studies at a boiling
        water nuclear power  reactor.   U.S.  Public  Health Service.
        BRH/DER 70-1  (1970)  (Now  available from  EPA,  Washington, D.C.
        20460).

                                 191
-------
(5.22)   KAHN,  B.,  et al.   Radiological  surveillance  studies  at  a  pres-
        surized water nuclear power reactor.   RD  71-1.   U.S.  Environ-
        mental  Protection  Agency,  Washington,  D.C.   20460  (1971).

(5.23)   Assessment of environmental  radioactivity in the vicinity of
        Shippingport atomic power  station,  EPA-520/5-73-005.  Environ-
        mental  Protection  Agency,  Office  of Radiation Programs,
        Washington, D.C.   20460  (November  1973).

(5.24)   ROBBINS, C.  Population doses  resulting from light water-cooled
        nuclear power plant airborne effluents.   EPA 520/1-77-007.
        Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Radiation Programs,
        Washington, D.C.  (September 1977).

(5.25)   MARTIN, J. A., C.  NELSON,  and  H.  PETERSON,  JR.   Trends  in popu-
        lation radiation  exposure  from operating  BWR gaseous effluents,
        in Symposium on Population Exposures,  Proceedings  of the  Eighth
        Midyear Topical Symposium  of the  Health Physics  Society,
        Knoxville, Tenn.,  October  21-24,  1974.  USAEC Report CONF-741018
        (October 1974).

(5.26)   MATUSZEK,  J. M.,  C. PAPERIELLO, C.  KUNZ,  J.  HUTCHINSON, and
        J. DALY.  Permanent gas measurements as part of  an environmental
        surveillance program.  Report by  N.Y.  State Dept.  of Health
        published in Symposium on  Environmental Surveillance Around Nuclear
        Installations, International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA/SM-180/38,
        Vol.  I, pp. 225-233 (November 1973).

(5.27)   MAGNO, P.  J., C.  NELSON, and W. ELLETT.   A consideration  of the
        significance of carbon-14  discharges from the nuclear power
        industry,  in Proceedings of the 13th AEC  Air Cleaning Conference,
        USAEC Report CONF-740807.

(5.28)   Environmental radiation dose commitment:   an application  to the
        nuclear power industry.  EPA-520/4-73-002.   U.S. Environmental
        Protection Agency, Office  of Radiation Programs, Washington,
        D.C.  20460  (revised June  1974).

(5.29)   Environmental analysis of  the uranium fuel  cycle,  part  II
        nuclear power reactors.  EPA-520/9-73-003-C.  U.S. Environmental
        Protection Agency, Office  of Radiation Programs  (November 1973).

(5.30)   OFFICE OF RADIATION PROGRAMS,  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY.
        40 CFR 190 environmental radiation  protection requirements for
        normal operations of activities in  the uranium fuel  cycle, final
        environmental statement.  EPA 520/4-76-016.   U.S.  Environmental
        Protection Agency, Office  of Radiation Programs, Washington,
        D.C.   20460 (November 1976).

(5.SI)   U.S.  ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION.  Nuclear
        reactors built, being built or planned in the United States.
        TID-8200-R35.


                                  192
-------
(5.32)   DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.   Transportation  of  radioactive
        materials.   OHM Newsletter,  Office  of  Hazardous Materials,
        Vol.  II,  No.  8 (February  1972).

(5.33)   Transportation of radioactive  materials, Memorandum  of  Under-
        standing.   Department of  Transportation and  Atomic Energy
        Commission.   Federal  Register,  Vol.  38, No.  62 (Monday, April  2,
        1973).

(5.34)   U.S.  ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION.   Environmental  survey of trans-
        portation of radioactive  materials  to  and  from nuclear  power
        plants, WASH-1238. Atomic Energy Commission,  Directorate of
        Regulatory Standards, Washington, D.C.  20545  (December 1972).

(S.25)   Proposed  Rulemaking.   Amendment to  10  CFR  50,  environmental
        effects of transportation of fuel and  waste  from  nuclear power
        plants.   Federal  Register.  (February 5, 1973).

(5.36)   Amendment to 10 CFR 51,  licensing and  regulatory  policy and
        procedures for environmental protection.   Federal Register,
        Vol.  40,  No.  3 (January  6,  1975).

(5.37)   U.S.  Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  Environmental survey of
        transportation of radioactive  materials to and from  nuclear
        power plants, supplement  I,  NUREG-75/038.  Office of Standards
        Development,  U.S.  Nuclear Regulatory Commission,  Washington,
        D.C.   20555 (April 1975).

(5.38)   U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY.  Draft Impact  from trans-
        portation of radioactive  materials  to  and  from light water
        reactors.   Technology Assessment Division, Office of Radiation
        Programs,  Environmental  Protection  Agency, Washington,  D.C.
        20460 (June 1973).

(5.39)   U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY.  Testimony  of  Dr. W. D.
        Rowe  before the Atomic Safety  Licensing Board  in  the Matter of
        Amendment of 10 CFR Pt 50,  Docket RM 504  (April 2, 1973).

(5.40)   HODGE,  C.  V.  and A. A. JARRETT.   Transportation accident risks
        in the nuclear power  industry,  1975-2020.  EPA 520/3-75-023.
        Prepared  for EPA under Contract No.  68-01-0555.   Nuclear &
        Systems Sciences Croups,  Holmes & Narver,  Inc.  (November 1974).

(5.42)   Sandia Laboratories.   Generic  assessment on  transportation of
        radioactive materials near and through a large densely  popu-
        lated area, quarterly report for period 5/10/76 - 6/30/76, NRC
        Contract  No.  A-1077.   Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M.
        (July 1976).

(5.42)   Nuclear Regulatory Commission.   Draft  environmental  statement  on
        the transportation of radioactive material by  air and other
        modes,  NUREG-0034, Docket No.  PR-71.73 (40 FR  23768).   Office
        of Standards Development,  Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
        Washington, D.C.   20555  (March 1976).

                                 193
-------
(s.43)   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   Letter to  Mr.  Robert B.
        Minogue.   Office of Standards Development,  U.S. Nuclear Regu-
        latory Commission,  Washington, D.C.   20555  (July  22,  1976).

(5.44)   U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY.   Considerations for
        control of radiation exposures to personnel  from  shipments  of
        radioactive materials on passenger aircraft.   Office  of Radi-
        ation Programs,  Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington,
        D.C.   20460 (December 1974).

(5.45)   Environmental  survey of the reprocessing and waste management
        portions  of the  LWR fuel cycle, W.  P.  Bishop and  F. J.  Miraglia,
        Jr.,  Editors.  NUREG-0116,  pp. 2-1  to 2-3,  4-5, 4-6 (October
        1976).

(5.46)   MAGNO,  P., T.  REAVEY, and J.  APIDIANAKIS.   Liquid waste effluents
        from  a  nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, BRH/NERHL 70-2.  Avail-
        able  from Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of  Radiation
        Programs, Washington, D.C.   20460 (November 1970).

(5.47)   COCHRAN,  J. A.,  D.  SMITH, P.  MAGNO,  and B.  SHLEIEN.   An investi-
        gation of airborne  radioactive effluent from an,operating
        nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, BRH/NERHL  70-3!   Available
        from  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Office of Radiation
        Programs, Washington, D.C.   20460 (July 1970).

(5.48)   U.S.  ATOMIC ENERGY  COMMISSION.  Environmental survey  of the
        uranium fuel cycle.  WASH-1248, pp.  F-15-F-20 (1974).

(5.49)   KULLEN, B. J., L. TREVORROW,  and M.  STEINDLER.  Tritium and
        noble gas fission products  in the fuel cycle II:   fuel
        reprocessing plants, ANL-8135.  Argonne National  Laboratory
        (March 1975).

(5.50)   TERPILAK, M. S.  and B.  JORGENSEN.  Environmental  radiation
        effects of nuclear facilities in New York State.   Radiat. Data
        Rep.  15:375-400  (July ,1974).

(5.51)   S.  C. STATE BOARD OF HEALTH,  DIVISION OF RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH.
        Radiation Surveillance Data.   Report No. 73-A (June 1973).

(5.52)   MATUSZEK, J. M., J. DALY, S.  GOODYEAR, C.  PAPERIELLO, and J.
        GABAY.   Environmental levels  of 129I.   Symposium  on Environ-
        mental  Surveillance Around  Nuclear Installations.  International
        Atomic Energy IAEA/SM-180/39, Vol.  II, pp.  3-20  (November 1973).

(5.53)   DALY, J.  C., S.  GOODYEAR, C.  PAPERIELLO, and J. MATUSZEK.
        Iodine-131 levels in milk and water near a nuclear fuel repro-
        cessing plant.  Health Physics, Vol. 26, pp.  333-342  (April
        1974).
                                 194
-------
(5.54)   MAGNO,  P.  J.,  T.  REAVEY,  and J.  APIDIANAKIS.   Iodine-129  in  the
        environmental  around a nuclear fuel  reprocessing  plant.   ORP/SID-
        72-5.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency,  Office of Radiation
        Programs,  Washington,  D.C.   20460 (October 1972).

(5.55)   KEHLEHER,  W.  J.  and E. MICHAEL.   Iodine-129 in milk.   Health
        Physics 25:328 (September 1973).

(5.56)   COCHRAN, J.  A.,  W.  GRIFFIN,  JR.  and  E.  TROIANELLO.   Observation
        of airborne  tritium waste discharge  from a nuclear  fuel  repro-
        cessing plant, EPA/ORP-73-1.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection
        Agency, Washington, D.C.   20460 (February 1973).

(5.57)   BARASCH, G.  E. and  R.  BEERS.   Aerial radiological measuring
        surveys of the Nuclear Fuel  Services plant, West  Valley,  New
        York.   Atomic  Energy Commission.   ARMS-68.6.9.

(5.58)   DALY,  J. C.,  A.  MANCHESTER,  J.  GABAY, and N.  SAX.   Tritiated
        moisture in  the atmosphere surrounding a nuclear  fuel  repro-
        cessing plant.  Radiol.  Health Data  Rep. (July 1968).

(5.59)   SAX,  N. I.,  P. LEMON,  A.  BENTON,  and J.  GABAY. Radioecological
        surveillance of the waterways around a nuclear fuels  reprocessing
        plant.   Radiol.  Health Data  Rep.  10:289-296 (July 1969).

(5.60)   KELLEHER,  W.  J.   Environmental  surveillance around  a  nuclear
        fuel  reprocessing installation,  1965-1967.  Radiol. Health Data
        Rep.  10:239-339 (August 1969).

(5.61)   RUSSELL, J.  L. and  F.  GALPIN.   A review of measured and estimated
        offsite doses  at fuel  reprocessing plants in Management of
        Radioactive  Wastes  from Fuel Reprocessing, Proceedings of an
        ODCD/NEA-IAEA  Symposium in Paris, France, November  27-December 1,
        1972,  OECD,  Paris,  pp. 99-127 (March 1973).

(5.62)   SHLEIEN, B.   An estimate of  radiation doses received by indi-
        viduals living in the vicinity of a  nuclear fuel  reprocessing
        plant in 1968, BRH/NERHL 70-1.   Available from Environmental
        Protection Agency,  Office of Radiation Programs,  Washington,
        D.C.   20460  (May 1970).

(5.63)   MARTIN, J. A.  JR.  Calculation of doses in 1971 due to radio-
        nuclides emitted by Nuclear  Fuel  Services fuel reprocessing
        plant.   Radiat.  Data Rep.  14:59-76 (February 1973).

(5.64)   MAGNO.  P.  J.,  R.  KRAMKOWSKI, T.  REAVEY and R.  WOZNIAK.  Studies
        of ingestion dose pathways from the  Nuclear Fuel  Services fuel
        reprocessing plant, EPA-520/3-74-001.  U.S. Environmental
        Protection Agency,  Office of Radiation Programs,  Washington,
        D.C.   20460  (December 1974).
                                195
-------
(5.65)   STRELOW, R.  Statement before the Subcommittee  on  ERDA,  Envi-
        ronment and  Safety,  Joint Committee on  Atomic  Energy, U.S.
        Congress (May 12,  1976).

(5.66)   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY.   Preliminary  findings,  radon
        daughter levels  in structures constructed  on reclaimed  Florida
        phosphate land,  Technical  Note ORP/CSD-75-4.   Office  of Radiation
        Programs, Environmental  Protection Agency,  Washington,  D.C.
        20460 (September 1975).

(5.67)   BISHOP, W.  P. and  F.  J.  MIRAGLIA,  JR.   Environmental  survey of
        the reprocessing and waste management  portions of the LWR fuel
        cycle, NUREG-0116, Supp.  1 to Wash 1248.   Nuclear Regulatory
        Commission,  Office of Nuclear Material  Safety  and Safeguards,
        Washington,  D.C.  20555  (October 1976).

(5.68)   GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.  Isolating  high-level  radioactive
        waste from the environment:  achievements,  problems,  and uncer-
        tainties, RED-75-309. Comptroller General  of  the U.S.,
        Washington,  D.C. (December 1974).

(5.69)   ENERGY RESEARCH  and DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION.   Waste  Management
        Operations.   Savannah River Plant, ERDA-1537  (October 1976).

(5.70)   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.  Radiation protection  activities-
        1975, EPA-520/7-76-004.   Office of Radiation  Programs,  Environ-
        mental Protection  Agency, Washington,  D.C.   20460 (June 1976).

(5.71)   EISENBUD, MERRIL.   Environmental radioactivity.   Academic Press,
        New York 1973.

(5.72)   ROWE, W. D.   Statement before the Subcommittee on Conservation,
        Energy and Natural Resources.  Committee on Government  Operations,
        House of Representatives, September 17, 1976.

(5.72)   DYER, R. S.   Statement before the Subcommittee on Energy and
        Environment of the House Committee on  Interior and Insular
        Affairs, July 26,  1976.

(5.74)   DYER, R. S.   Status report of EPA radioactive  waste dumpsite
        survey No.  5, Atlantic Dumpsite - Depth:   9,300 feet.   Environ-
        mental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation  Programs, Wash-
        ington, D.C.  (1976).

(5.75)   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.  A survey of  the Farallon
        Islands 500 fathom radioactive waste disposal  site, Technical
        Note ORP-75-1.  EPA, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington,
        D.C. (December 1975).
                                 196
-------
(5.76)   DYER,  R.  S.   Environmental  Surveys  of Two  Deepsea  Radioactive
        Waste  Disposal  Sites using  Submersibles,  IAEA-SM-207/65.   Envi-
        ronmental Protection Agency,  Office of Radiation Programs,
        Washington,  D.C.  (March 1976).

(5.77)   NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.   NRC Task  force  report on  review
        of the Federal/State program  for regulation  of  commercial  low-
        level  radioactive waste burial  grounds, NUREG-0217.   Office  of
        Nuclear Material  Safety and Safeguards and Office  of State
        Programs, Nuclear Regulatory  Commission,  Washington, D.C.  20555
        (March 1977).

(5.78)   NATIONAL ACADEMY  OF SCIENCES.   The  shallow land burial  of low-
        level  radioactivity contaminated solid waste.   Panel on Land
        Burial, Committee on Radioactive Waste Management,  Commission on
        Natural Resources, National Research Council  -  National Academy
        of Sciences,  Washington,  D.C.  (1976).

(5.79)   COMMITTEE ON  GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS.   Low-level  nuclear waste
        disposal, House Report No.  94-1320.   U.S.  Government Printing
        Office, Washington, D.C.  (June  1976).

(5.80)   SUBCOMMITTEE  ON ENERGY AND  THE  ENVIRONMENT.   Safeguards in the
        domestic nuclear  industry,  committee print no.  17.   U.S.  Government
        Printing Office,  Washington,  D.C.  (August  1976).

(5.81)   MEYER, G. L.   Recent experience with the  land burial of solid
        low-level radioactive wastes.   Office of  Radiation  Programs,
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington,  D.C.  20460.
        Presented at  the  International  Atomic Energy Agency  Symposium
        on Management of  Radioactive  Wastes  from  the Nuclear Fuel  Cycle,
        Vienna, Austria (March 22-26,  1976).
                                 197
-------
                  Chapter 6  - Federal  Facilities
     There are two groups of federal  facilities  that handle  radioactive
materials and publish reports of their monitoring  activities.   These
groups are those facilities that are operated for  the Energy Research
and Development Administration and the Navy's nuclear fleet  and their
support facilities.
ERDA facilities

     There are 26 facilities that report their environmental  surveil-
lance results to the Energy Research and Development Administration
(ERDA) (6.1-6.2).   The operators of these facilities are contractors for
ERDA and operate facilities that have a potential  for environmental
impact or may release a significant quantity of radioactive  or  nonradio-
active wastes.  In accordance with the ERDA Manual  Chapter 0513,  these
contractors prepare annual  reports containing data  on levels  of radio-
active and nonradioactive pollutants in the environs of each  site and an
interpretation of the sampling results in relation  to the appropriate
standards for environmental protection.  These reports may also include
estimates of offsite exposures and summaries of effluent releases that
may be necessary to aid in calculations of any offsite exposures  (6.1-6.2).

     Many of the monitoring reports submitted to ERDA by their  con-
tractors contained an assessment of the radiation  exposure of the public
which could have resulted from site operations during the past  calendar
year.  Each of these assessments provided an estimate of (a)  the  "fence-
post" dose at the location of the site boundary where the maximum
exposure rate exists, (b) the dose to an individual  and population group
in those locations where the highest dose rate occurs, and/or (c) the
80-kilometer (50-mile) person-rem whole body dose.   The latter  dose  is
the dose received by the population within an 80-kilometer radius of the
facility.

     The annual reports were investigated for two  types of doses. The
first is the boundary dose or the dose to an individual at the  perimeter
of the secure area of the contractor facility.  Twenty-two of the 30
sites (several of the facilities consist of more than 1 site) reported
boundary doses in 1974, and 23 of the 29 sites reported boundary  doses
in 1975.  These doses ranged from a low of 0.11 yrem/y at the Pantex
plant to a high of 137 mrem/y at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in
1974 and a low of 0.2 yrem/y at the Pantex plant to a high of 258 mrem/y
at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in 1975.

                                  199
-------
     In addition to reporting the boundary doses due to the activities
of a facility, many facilities also reported a background dose that they
measured as part of their monitoring program.   These background doses,
which are a measure of the ambient radioactivity in the environment
around these contractor facilities and are due to naturally-occurring
radioactivity and sources other than facility operations, ranged from 66
mrem/y at the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory's Kesselring Site to 200-
250 mrem/y at the Rocky Flats Plant for 1974 and 59 mrem/y at the
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to 165 mrem/y at the National Reactor
Testing Station in 1975.

     The second dose estimate that some of the contractor facilities
reported is the dose to the population within 80 kilometers (50 miles)
of the site.  The majority of the facilities reporting an 80-kilometer
population dose reported these doses in the units of person-rem.
However, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center reported doses for radii smaller than 80 kilometers
in 1974 and 1975.  For those facilities that did report comparable
person-rem doses, the doses ranged from 7 x 10~7 person-rem at the
Pantex Plant to 157 gerson-rem at the Argonne National Laboratory in
1974 and from 3 x 10 6 person-rem at the Battelle Columbus Laboratory to
181 person-rem at the Ames Laboratory in 1975.

     The dose to an individual or population group at those locations
where the highest dose rate occurs was presented by very few facilities
and, consequently, was not tabulated.  In many cases, this dose corre-
sponded to the dose at the site boundary and, in all instances, was
equal to or less than the dose at the site boundary.  Consequently, only
the doses at the site boundary and the 80-kilometer doses are tabulated
in tables 6-1 and 6-2.
Department of Defense

     Of the facilities using radioactive materials in the Department of
Defense, one that issues a report on its environmental program is the
nuclear Navy.

     At the end of 1974, the U.S. Navy had 105 nuclear-powered submarines
and 6 nuclear-powered surface ships in operation (6.3).  These totals
were increased to 106 nuclear-powered submarines and 7 nuclear-powered
surface ships in 1975 (6.4).  Nine shipyards, 11 tenders, and two sub-
marine bases are involved in the construction, maintenance, overhaul,
and refueling of these nuclear propulsion plants (6.3-6.4).

     The Navy monitoring and radioactivity control program begins with
tight surveillance and control of radioactive releases and waste disposal.
The radiation monitoring program consists of analyzing harbor water and
sediment samples for radioactivity associated with nuclear propulsion
plants, monitoring of radiation around the perimeter of support facil-
ities, and monitoring of effluents.  The primary radionuclides of concern
                                  200
-------






















t-s

eo
1
^
^
•Q \
0) C E
i/i 13 CU
O O S-
X) S~ 1
rtl C
c o
O tr> to
•»- 3 S_
ro T3 a.
!— ro . —
3 i-
Q-
o S
Q- ^C
O
CO

c~
o >>
O TO Q)
•M r— S_
CU O.S-
i/) O
0, CL >,
•O 4-»
>>T- r^
1_ .,_
ro i— o
c: is *4-
3 X)
O -r- O
CO > -M
X3 QJ
C 13
-•- X)



>>
C E
3 CU
£1
CP,-— *
U w
ra aj
CQ W
o
X)











c
o

40 o
u c:
u.
I
c



o en o o
O OO O 0
lO f~~~ ^J- O
O r-. ro ro LT>
CTt LO 	 CM C3
LO h^ to ro
r-. CM


j-
o
1 — - —

LO *=r co^ c^1
S 5 3 ^'^ °"
•













CO
0

X
°1 ^ 1£ ^ °1
CM m — CM CM












—- o .— * o oi













j^ ro M- ro

-J O -—
•i— ro to
i — 4-> (_3 3 O TO
ro - ro -a -i- Q-
C r— C - E JZ
0 •— i- -^ 3 O
ro -i— K- i QJ s- i — -g-
3-M 4->ro O" *Di
o ro« ca. oui ^3&-
• i— « P*: QJ i— • 3 ro 3
-Q C ro QJ -Q _J -Q
ro** cue  f— E i/i
—ICO CO OO r—3 CO-U
QJ CCJ> -r-C QJr- -i- 4->
coE Ot- Ero 4->o 4->-'-
QJ «C Oi Q_
= S_ 4J ro QJ
cc -
0

rO • " QJ Z C
c s- c "O 5 • a> o
O OC i — ^1 O^-P'CUCJ
•r- +J -r- ro CO Q_ -t— C ^
•M • O E C ro ^oOO-r-"
ro>- ro S- ^ oojro 4-»t/ii_
2^ « E ••- 3 c ••- t. »n
CZ CU -r-XJ OC^>»T-EOX3
OJ J-> "LOC-Mroi- i/> C
>« cu-r- t. ro  -*: <— +-» x) -r-
roc >oi rocu T3i — i — i/icji/)C3
-CO -r- S-M S-^T a>'r-
-^-P dJx: c oo r-ozrwi-33
OCL .— XJQJ M- T- r— C QJ
£13 ^ LU CU t_> C Di O V* ^
r— cu ro c
03 UJ U- 31 ^





ro







U3
^~~


















ro
CO
CM








o
o

1
o










t





at •«—

cu ro
Lawrence Berki
Berkeley, C



to
o

(T3
CO -— -
^






CM
CM ro
-Q » 	 ,


















'ro'
r-. -• —


u









co — -










_Q

	 |

CU <*- OJ



s_ o
Lawrence Live
Livermore,
Livermore
Site 300




o o
go
0
CM O
ch o
oo
CM






CO
CM
—•
O
•< •
ro
"ro >
c ro
0 4->
•r- ro
4-> CO
ro
z:

201
-------
c
,C OJ
2 w
0 O
ro -^
^ O
Q.CO
O
CL.


-P
-C U
-P ro
'3 ">i
•o \
QJ C E
(/I 3 QJ
O 0 S-


c o
•r- 3 S-
ro "O Q.
r- fO — -
Q.
S. ^
O
CO




c-—
£1=
O ro QJ

QJ O- — *
tn O
o CL >>
"D -P

S- •!—
(O r— (_)

~ . r-.
CO > -P
-O QJ









*"^


c £


t- E


rO QJ
CQ CO















rO
•P O

Lu
QJ
E
c


o o o o «£>
o o o o r^
LO ro o - — • o LO
CTl ^t cT — - UfT LO"
LD «tf- CO O





r->
o
o *"" 53-
cxi o -— x ro

OJ o o ^-' r*v
v i —











en i
C 0
3 r-
X r>J
O r-
 — r^ -P r- o

i — — " r-. cr> i —

















o
LO

O I 0 - — -—* O
LO CO CD .,-J_ 3 . O)-P3
(Jt/lOOQJu O>> 1 — C^l
QJi — -P U_OJCO C«i — t-

U- Ol>> QJ~O O JZ i — i — ±J
r— I — S_OVi— rOO_p — COQJ
fOCO 3-OQ^_c: O -r- ro Q,
CO^: (OO -i— ro 3 XS- i —
O'i-rO TDS- Qi-^ U-P-O O>fO r— •
•r- -P "O fO Ot ro 3 C ro -P £ O) -P
•P ro »— < > S»~ _yf Q "O ra fy c 
0) -O
S- rO O- O CD
Or- 0
o_ o_ a:


o o o o
o o o *±-
o o o o
O LO O OJ
CO i£> O 4-
ro ^j- o






LO
o
o
CD CO

•— LO LO
V LO 4_
*













^-* O> r—

— ' CO O
OJ
V



















o to to o
LD OO r-. O







S-
o
•P
m

QJ
X ^~
OJ -P QJ
S c: (j • u
fO -i— (O (_> •

QJ QJ (_> I- QJ O
3 > -P O C
. or -i- ^. CL T- «v

ra at Q. rd c S-
_J3 jz« cn-P-i- -ao
cr rac cooo. s_tt_
•r~_Q C-^ Q.t..r- H-fO
c«=c >-,
CO -P
0 O- 3
i- a. o
• en ra o
rjj (j Cf_ to
i — • ro O O
-P J3 S
C OJ ro
rO i — co i —
E ro o «a;
co S~ "O
•1—3 tO
-O -P .— ' O
(O rfl VI __j
C C Z3 -M
QJ c c: tf_
QJ s_ c ?j o •

"4- "— tO C
LO r- **- -P *0
03 T3 (« 4- c i —
-C QJ CT QJ QJ O.
-P O "O
£_ (J -r- QJ -r- QJ
o a> -p > to jc

(J t- T3 -P S-

QJ U (O fO O O
S_ 0 0 S-
C C T- O **-
S- QJ rO T3 «
QJ QJ rO f*^ flj
> -Q QJ i- r— . —
•r- -P -i-
Di QJ rd 	 I QJ E
> O — 1 -£T

r— -C TZ)
UJ C E S- OJ
ra •(— O O CO
OJ -P S- 4- O
_C H3 C 4- TT

•r- Ot CO "D
*> at -P en o c
-a -P co ra o ~o ro

•P O -C O C C
i- a_-p i— c o o
O QJ O -r- T-
Q. i_ 4- co -i- -P -P
Q) O T- -P rO ra

-P C C TJ O- Q_
O -i- O -P (O O O
rO -Q CJ~ -O OJ 4-


202
-------
 !5 VI


 C M-
o
o
o

o
                                                  o
                                                  o
                                                  o

                                                  cT
                                                  10
                                                   •—  s-
                                                                                                                                                         n c r—
                                                                                                                                                         : o  o
                                                                                                                                                         3 CQ -c
                                                                                   S
 3 -O
 O •:-  O
O3  > +->
                                                                                                                CO~


                                                                                                                C\J
                                  d • .-
                                  O r—

                                 •r- (0

                                 J-> O
OJ  i-
-»->  n3
c Q_
                                                                       +J -i-

                                                                       O J=

                                                                       ~5 O
                                                             r-        -O
                                                                                                          OJ ^-  O>
                                                                                                                      ^
                                                                                                                      i—    pfdl/>
                                                                                                 «t/7 O Q

                                                                                          UOJfd-P-P
                                                                                         •f— -P C C7>i — •(—
                                           O l/>



                                           £1
                                           (U t—
                                           •(-> O
                                           +J O
                                           (O
                                           CO
                                  -Q  S-


                                  _l -O
                                  4-> -i-     O Q.
                                                         j U1
                                                         J
                                                         :  ,    — 1 S.
                                                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                           QJ  E  01  +J
                                                                                           C  01 -i- -r-
                                                                                           !U  > _!
                                                                                                                                                   CU r—

                                                                                                                                                   U »-H

                                                                                                                                                   U
                                                                                  203
-------


























T3
01




c:
o
u

t^
m




"
•1—

o
ro
4-


O
+->
U

S-
c
o
CJ

Q
UJ

-a
c

1
ra
(/)
QJ
o
XJ

E


o
CO
"O




to
•D
c

o
ca



CM
CU

_a
ra

c.
-C CU
•M +->
3 W

C M-
O O

-M E
ra -^

^ o
0_ CO
0
D_
C i —
-C (J
-M ro
•r- <+- . — ,
3 >>
•a ^.
cu c: E
t/> 3 CU
O O t-
"D S- 1

c o
O i/l (/)
•i- 3 S-
-*-> T- CU
fO -O Q.
— fO * — '
2J S-
Q_
o e
d. J*
§


c- —


-*-> E
O ro  -M
-a * u
4-» O
•^ -D
O C
ro (O
LU
E
C '




o o o
o r- o
o .— o

=3- CM O













CM
CM
o
CO O <3-

co r^-.




















^0 -*^» «d~
ro
— - CO

















LO O O









c
C7> O

•r-  1 1 _ QJ (/>
QC ra 1/1 ** 01 *o
U- Qj >> rjj ~O ^5
' 	 1 	 i- OlM—
 cu CM
C C O CO
3 O O O
_l CQ O O



















LO • 	 O
CM ra CM








o


4-


r— Q
t/)

Ol O
X S- OJ
• CO +J 25 irt
>i 1 — C _o (tf
*• rO O Q- 
C ra +-> e m -M -(->
•P fO "— i >S Jki O "OfOD. C^! CCO S-
ra •*-* r^j (Q ro r^ fO T~ O
^CO ^ O CUCL Q, Q_ D_




0 0 O
0 O  CU
SE c u • U
(O -i— rO O •

C Z Q_ O ••-
O ra • -(-> * S- r—

.C O_ i — CUCUCJ S-CUC_)
wo . cr *r- • i- Q. -i- •>
o r— c _J3 -c« o> ••- ~a o
•M u_cu cr roc ceo. s- 4-
-M -^ >>r— -r- JD c -^ Q--r- T- 4- QJ
a_ CE; co to coco coo






























OJ
S-
E

0
0
E

X
o
S-
Q.
Q.
4-
0 •

tn c
O 3
-a o


-------
are cobalt-60 and tritium.  The total radioactivity, less tritium,
discharged to all ports and harbors from these facilities was less than
0.002 curie in 1974 and 1975.   The total tritium released to all  ports
and harbors was less than one curie in 1974 and 1975.   Based on the
radioactivity released, the maximum radiation dose to  any member of the
general public in 1974 and 1975 was less than 0.01 millirem.
References

(6.1)  U.S. ENERGY RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION.   Environ-
       mental monitoring at major U.S.  Energy Research and Development
       Administration contractor sites, calendar year 1974,  ERDA-54
       Division of Operational Safety,  U.S. Energy Research  and Devel-
       opment Administration, Washington, D.C.   20545 (August 1975).

(6.2)  U.S. ENERGY RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION.   Environ-
       mental monitoring at major U.S.  Energy Research and Devel-
       opment Administration contractor sites,  calendar year 1975,
       ERDA-76-104 Division of Safety,  Standards and Compliance, U.S.
       Energy Research and Development  Administration, Washington, D.C.
       20545 (April 1976).

(6.3)  MILES, M. E., G. L. SJOBLOM and  J. D.  EAGLES.  Environmental
       monitoring and disposal of radioactive wastes from U.S.  naval
       nuclear powered ships and their  support facilities, Report NT-
       75-1.  Naval Ship Systems Command, Department of the  Navy,
       Washington, D.C.  20360 (May 1975).

(6.4)  MILES, M. E., G. L. SJOBLOM and  J. D.  EAGLES.  Environmental
       monitoring and disposal of radioactive wastes from U.S.  naval
       nuclear powered ships and their  support facilities, Report NT-
       76-1.  Naval Ship Systems Command, Department of the  Navy,
       Washington, D.C.  20360 (August  1976).
                                   205
-------
              Chapter  7 -  Radiopharmaceuticals
     Radiopharmaceuticals are used in the diagnosis  and,  in  some  cases,
the treatment of disease.  Their use has  increased fivefold  from  1960  to
1970, and it has been estimated that an  increase  of  sevenfold may be
experienced from 1970 to 1980.   If this  trend  continues,  and there are
no technical changes, it is estimated that the whole-body dose  to the
United States population in 1980 from the use  of  radiopharmaceuticals
will be 3.3 million person-rem (7.1).

     In June 1976, the Bureau of Radiological  Health published  a  report
on a pilot study of nuclear medicine in  United States hospitals.   This
study compares current nuclear medicine  data obtained from six  hospitals
with survey data collected from the same  institutions in  previous years
(7.2).   Although these data cannot be considered  to  be representative  of
nuclear medicine practice in all  U.S.  hospitals,  the study notes  that
several trends are apparent.

     These trends are:

     1.  An average increase in nuclear  medicine  procedures  in  excess
         of 17 percent per year.

     2.  An increase in the average whole body and gonad  radiation
         doses per radiopharmaceutical administration when compared
         to 1966 national data.

     3.  A high proportion (21  percent)  of nuclear medicine  procedures
         performed on patients under the  age of 30.

     The contribution of nuclear medicine to the  total  medical  radiation
exposures to the population may be greater than previously estimated if
the trends indicated in the pilot study  are a  reflection  of  the practice
of nuclear medicine throughout the United States.

     Although radiopharmaceuticals used  in diagnosis and  treatment of
disease result in the major doses to man, additional doses to man result
from the manufacture of radiopharmaceuticals and  from the discharge of
these materials to the environment from  patients  and medical facilities.
                                 207
-------
     A search of available literature unfortunately has not revealed any
information concerning the release of radiopharmaceuticals to the environ-
ment during manufacturing processes, thus, the effect of these materials
cannot be determined.

     In order to estimate the total contribution to population doses
from the discharges of radiopharmaceuticals, each medical  facility would
require evaluation because of the unique ways each might contribute to
the environmental contamination.  Thus, it is concluded that little
inference can be made at this time about the dose and contamination that
results from the discharge from radiopharmaceuticals from patients and
medical facilities.
References

(7.1)  NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES-NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL.   The
       effects on populations of exposure to low levels of ionizing
       radiation.  Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological
       Effects of Ionizing Radiation.  NAS/NRC, Washington, D.C.
       20006 (November 1972).

(7.2)  MCINTYRE, A. B., D. R. HAMILTON and R. C. GRANT.  A pilot study
       of nuclear medicine reporting through the medicajly oriented
       data system.  FDA 76-8045, Bureau of Radiological Health,
       Rockville, Md. 20857 (June 1976).
                                   208
-------
                   Chapter  8 - Medical Radiation
     The responsibility for controlling medical  exposure to radiation is
divided between the Federal and the State governments.   Within the
Federal Government, the Bureau of Radiological  Health in the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare has the responsibility of adminis-
trating the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act (Public Law 90-
602).  The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare is required by the
act to submit an annual report to the President for transmittal to the
Congress (8.1).

     A model State Radiation Control Act containing suggested model
regulations for control of radiation was published by the Council of
State Governments with the cooperation and assistance of interested
Federal Agencies (8.2).  This publication assisted the States in making
regulations compatible with each other and with the Federal Government.
Fifty states, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico now have laws for the regulation of ionizing radiation (8.3).

     The use of radiation by the medical profession is recognized as the
largest manmade component of radiation dose to the United States popu-
lation.  This includes medical diagnostic radiology, clinical nuclear
medicine, radiation therapy, cardiac pacemakers, and occupational
exposure of medical and paramedical personnel.   However, the main contri-
butor of the total dose from medical exposures is diagnostic x radiation;
the contribution from dental radiation, radiopharmaceuticals, and radi-
ation therapy being far lower.  Medical diagnostic radiology accounts
for at least 90 percent of the total manmade radiation dose to which the
U.S. population is exposed.  This is at least 35 percent of the total
radiation dose from all sources (including natural radioactivity)
(8.4,8.5).
Genetically significant dose

     The Bureau of Radiological Health (BRH), in cooperation with the
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), conducted an X-ray Exposure
Study (XES) in 1964 and another in 1970.   A dose model  was developed for
use in calculating the gonad dose from the XES data and a report was
published in April 1976 illustrating changes in gonad and genetically
significant dose (GSD) from diagnostic x-ray procedures between 1964
and 1970 (8.6).  However, the report considers only medical  radiographic
examinations and the  radiographic portions  of fluoroscopy.   Dental  x-ray
examinations and doses from therapy  were  not included.

                                  209
-------
     Ten statistically significant changes in mean  gonad dose  per exam-
ination from 1964 to 1970 were observed (table 8-1).   The largest increase
occurred for barium enema examinations of females (578 mrad  to 903 mrad)
and the largest decrease occurred for intravenous or  retrograde pyelogram
examinations of males (537 mrad to 207 mrad).

     Examination types which involve the abdomen result in high mean
gonad doses while those examination types which involve the  head, neck,
thorax and extremities generally result in low mean gonad doses (table
8-1).  Therefore, eight examination types produced  over 90 percent of
the GSD in 1964 and in 1970 (table 8-2).  Theoretically, restriction of
the beam size to the film size would have reduced the 1964 GSD by 33
percent and the 1970 GSD by 21 percent.  The change in the estimate of
the GSD from 17 millirads in 1964 to 20 millirads in  1970 was  not statis-
tically significant (8.6).  This report notes that recent evaluations
indicate that genetic effects should not be considered the primary hazard
of radiation and that increasing emphasis is being  placed on the somatic
effects of radiation (8.6).
Somatic dose

     In January of 1977, BRH published a report presenting estimates of
the mean active bone marrow doses to adults resulting from x-ray exposure
during radiographic, fluoroscopic, and dental  examinations.   The report
analyzes data from the 1970 X-Ray Exposure Study and estimates that
medical radiographic procedures contributed approximately 77 percent of
the total mean active bone marrow dose to adults from diagnostic radiology,
while fluoroscopic and dental examinations contributed about 20 percent
and 3 percent, respectively.  Examinations of the upper and lower abdomen
contributed approximately 78 percent of the dose to adults,  followed by
12 percent from the thorax, 6 percent from the head and neck (including
dental examinations), and 4 percent from pelvic examinations (table 8-3).

     The major contributors to the mean active bone marrow dose in the
15-34 year old group are x-ray examinations of the lumbar spine and
lumbosacral spine.  After age 45, the highest contributors were the
upper GI series and barium enema examinations (8.7).   The estimated mean
active bone marrow doses for children were not included because the data
were not available.

     The estimated annual per capita mean active bone marrow dose to
U.S. adults from diagnostic radiology procedures in 1970 was 103 milli-
rads, compared to 83 millirads in 1964 showing an increase of 23 percent
(tables 8-3, 8-4).  This increase probably resulted from an increase in
the doses associated with radiographic procedures and not from an in-
crease in examination rates.  The increased dose is attributed to an
increased exposure per film (8.7).

     Another estimation of somatic dose was presented by EPA in 1972
(8.4).  They estimated that the annual abdominal dose to an individual
in the U.S. population from medical and dental radiation was 72 mrem in
1970.  This results in a population dose of 14.8 million person-rem for
1970  (8.8).
                                 210
-------













a;
Q.
>•>
-M ^f"
10
^> C7i
.Cl r—

E •*
O 10
•r- CU
4») +-*
03 03
C 4->
•i — (/")
E
re "o
x cu
CU 4J
•r-
i- E
CU =2
CL
^
 TJ
rt3 T3 C
cu E re
E -r-
E
-a re
a> x
4-> CU
re
E o
•1— •!—
4-J c*
(/) Q.
LU re
s»_
CD
• O
i — -r—
I ™rj
co re
s_
cu
r— 4-
-Q O
re
I—











































,^-^
•o
re
S-
E


cu
to
0
-a

-o
re
E
0
CD

E
re
cu
2!

































CU
re
a>
La-


































cu
r—
re
s:














UJ
•
oo
o
en
'
E
re
cu
s:



B
UJ
•
oo

^~
to
en
P—

E
re
cu
s:






•
UJ
•
oo

o

en
r—

E
re
cu
s:





•
UJ
•
(/)

^^
10
en
r—

C
re
cu
s:












E
0
•r~
«M
fO
C
*r~
E
re
x
cu

4-
o

D-
>^
1—

II II CM 1 LO i — f^^ f^ LO O <=i~ LO 1 1 *3~ ^J"
i — i — i — <3-CMLncoi — oo


re
II r— CO r— 1 r-CO CO CO r— r— O «3~ 1 1 «3" <£>
i — r^o r~~ cocMCMi — CM CM
i — en incMr^cMi — LO
* ** -)c -K -K -K *





i i i — i — coi cnco LO coi — Locni — i— i i co CM
r— VO r-~ ^J" ^" tO r" • CO ^"





re
i i LOLOr~.i coco CM r — oo o o to <— i i UD «*•
i — CMP^ i^ coo i — LO
i — CM CM CO VO 00
* *







ii IILOI i — to i CM i— en i — -^-ii — cOi —
LO i — ^j- r-^ CM co o ^j" i — " r^*
i — i — CM i —




re
II i — IIOI CMCO 1 I^.COCO«3-COICOi — i —
«* CMCO COVOO^3-i — COCO
i — LO i — ^J- 1--^ CO







cu
-a cu
re 4->
•— j_ re
re CD i — wi
o c o a. E
•r- T- &_ s- re
-E 4-> O 4-> 4-> X
cx to cu re i/i t/i cu
re cu >, s- P— cu cu
S- 4-> JE £ 4- T- ••- r-
4Jre
E •!- O E T- re S- O - T- -r- E
•r- ^:s--r- o res-en CQCU EE-r-
CL O.OQ- S- ECDOtoEOE CUCUE
to resoi 4-> cuo-r-3re^T- s-s-o
S-i — to E4->CT>O£- Q. 4->4->TDS-
i — CD4- OS-retOCUt/)CECD«>cO XXJDCU
re oo-r-cucDCu >-,recuoE cucure-E
O T-4->O-O T-E(Jr—>r— CUS-tO 4->
i — T- 4-1 "O o re i — ^-i- 3CuorecuEre *r- &_ i- s- o
's ^ cucSo- o o Q.S!'sI'o'o4-) a!-§ E r^ a. a. % -E r-
•sX Q) c" C~ C" O fQ C" £; O ^ Q^ ip— pi Q [ * p»
oooo i— oo^> CQCJ t-t cc-jo-rnr^—ioec





o

Q.
O 0
4J
V CU
f\_ _^3
^ — re%
E 4->
re re
u
•r— 5L.
4- •!-
•r- ro
E 1
CD E
•p- *r—
to I
CU
>> cu

f— <4_
re
O "
•r- CU
4-> S_
to 3 •
•p- to OO
4-> O 4J
re D. E
4-> X CU
to cu E
cu
to 4- S-
re o 3
2 t/>
co re
o cu cu
r-^ 3 E
O-l r—
p- re cu
> s-
O 3
4-> -O to
cu o
«3- E Q-
<£> CD X
en -r- cu
i — 01
LO <_>
E re T-
O 4-
S- E -i-
4- O 0
Q. CU
CU 3 Q-
to l/l
O to T3
TCJ T3 CU 4-
re to o
-a s- re
fr< .|— f} v^
E r— U
o P- a> re
CD-r- S- r—
E re
S- E CU
o re LO co _E
S- CU • CU 4->
s- E o s-
CU 34-
E E CD O
•a T- re T-
S. -C 4- O)
re cu 4-> co
-O CD CU 3
E E vi to re
re re oo cu o
4-) -E CU -E CU
OO O p- 1— J3

II II II II

.
LJJ -« i re
.
oo




211
-------












cu
CO
o -o
TD C
•P
C C
fO O
U -r-
•r- -P -v
M — fO ^O
•r- C •
C T- 00
C7> £ x —
•r- (0
in X O
cu r-.
>> CD
i— -I—
n3 .C T3
O O. C
-P S-
CJ C7^^"
i^ IQ trt
cu T- cn
CD ~O r—
to
r— S- «
(O tO
3 4- CU
C O -P
C (0
tO CU -P
0.00
•O >5
CU -P T3
-P 0)
£ -Q ••-
•i- C
•P CO ZD
to C
LU O «
•r- X
• 3 to
CM -Q
P •!—
co s-
•p
cu c
r- O
O Q
(«
1 	
(__



































TJ
03
s_
E


to
o
-o

•P
c
(O
u
•r—
M-

c
cn
CO

>>
, 	
 00 O
i — CD O




•
•^^



•
LU
oo



•
S o •£?
CTI oo o
r— CD U




•
^^








C"
o
•r—
40
(Q
p*
•r*
E
It!
X
cu

lf_
o

cu
Q.
>»
h-
CM ^" LO OLOCMLOr— CM
Or— O r— O r— O O i—
r— «3-h~.VOCMr— r— i— CM O
O Oi — OOvJi — OOi — O OO
*
COOO I^LT>IQ« ^o to to
oo«* co^Oi — CM r^-vj- uo ooooLncMCMr^Oi — oo
00 CM i—




O r— OOOOO Or—




O O r r— O O O O O CD





CM O CM CO CO CO CM tO LO CO CM !"••* CO CO t — CO CTi «^-
i— co r^ r— oo ^f "=d~r^ vo crir^«s}-cMi — OOCTICMI —
i — r-^i — i — i — CMCMi —



r~~ r**x r^ r**^ c^ *^' ^^* c^ vo r**** ^o
o o oo «*ooroi — Or —




r— • OO f™~ ^^ OO ^sf" OO ^*^ LO ^J ' f**v
0 O OO r— 0 0 CM 0 r— O





CT» IO ^J" VO f1^ Is** r-^ CM CT» tO c=d~ LO CM OO ^1" ^O OO tO
OOCM CO CM r— r— I^OO CM «d-UOLOOOr—r— r^r— «*
OO CM i — i —

CU
t3 CU
03 -P
r— i. to
tO CD r— CO
0 C 00 E
•r— •!— i- S- n3
-C -P O -P -P X
O. to CU (O co CO O)
(O CU >, S- r— CU CU
S- -P -C E 4- T-T- r—
CU OC75CU C Q-rOS- +J-P03
C T- O C T- fO S- O « -r- -P- C
•r- ^rs_-r- O rOS-C75 CQCU E E •>-
Q. o-oo- i- EcnotoEZDc CUCUE
to (O3CO +J CUOT-303^T- S-S-O
s-i — to c-pcnos- o. 4->4->"as-
i — om- os-rotocutocccn^to xxxicu
(O OO'i-QJCDCU >)(OCUOE OJCUro-C
(J -r-+JOTD -r-ECJl— >r— CUS-tO -P
r— •r-4->T3On3r— S_S_3CUOn3CUE(O'r- S-S-S-O
r— > to (O c~ ^. t3 CU CU *r~ r-~ C" ^_ >^ Q f*i > CU CU CU
31-CUQ:Q_OOO.tOS-OO-P O.-O Ei — Q. O. 2 JC i —
^s CU ^^ C" f o (Q g" c~ (^> ^ CU *r~ f^ O -P r-~
oocjcj i— oo ID coo i— i «a:_io_n:rD—io<:








o


V

O-

1 %
+-*
c
(O
u
• 1 —
M-
•r—
c
01

to

>^
•—
to
o
•<-
to
•r—
(O
+J
to

to
to
s

o
!**•*
o^
r—



 O3
^ i J3 C
CO •(- 4->
cu LO i_ s- c:
CO O O -P O
(O • S- C O
0 O S- O
CU U Q
4- C OO
O rO -O Q CD
.c s- to
s- -p to CD c:
CU -0 -r-
-O to c u
E to ro cu
3 CU -P -CD
c: r— to -P- c:
C IXJ
II II II O -C
U CJ
z: i
LU Q II
• to
00 CD *


212
-------
      Table 8-3.   Mean active bone marrow dose to the adult population (1970) (8.7)
Examination
Mean active bone
   marrow dose
per examination
     (mrad)
Annual per capita
examination rate
Annual per capita
      dose
  (mrad ± S.E.)
Head and neck
Skull
Cervical spine
Other
Thorax
Chest-photof 1 uoro .
Chest-radiographic
Thoracic spine
Ribs
Other
Upper abdomen
Upper GI series (total)
Radiographic (subtotal)
Fluoroscopic (subtotal)
Scan
Spot films
Lumbar spine
Gall bladder (total)
Radiographic (subtotal)
Fluoroscopic (subtotal)
Scan
Spot films
Small bowel series
Other
Lower abdomen
Barium enema (total)
Radiographic (subtotal)
Fluoroscopic (subtotal)
Scan
Spot films
IVP
Lumbosacral spine
Abdomen KUB
Other
Pelvis
Pelvimetry
Pelvis
Hip
Other
Extremities
Femur
Dental


78
52
—

44
10
247
143
--

535
294
241
167
74
347
168
129
39
29
10
422


875
497
378
268
no
420
450
147
--

595
93
72
--

21
9.4


0.020
0.022
—

0.073
0.306
0.010
0.009
—


0.046
0.045


0.023

0.027
0.006


0.002



0.024
0.024


0.024
0.013
0.020
—

0.002
0.012
0.009
—

0.002
0.312


1.6±0.1
1.2±0.2
0.6±0.2

3.2±0.3
3.2±0.1
2.5±0.4
1.3 + 0.2
1.9±0.4

24.3±4.7
13.5 + 4.3
10.8±1.9


8.1 ±0.8
3.7±0.4
3.5±0.3
0.2±0.3


1.0±0.3
2.1 ±1.0

21.2±1.8
11.9 + 1.0
9.3±1.5


10.1 ±0.6
5.7 + 0.7
2.9 + 0.4
0.4±0.2

1.4 + 0.5
1.1 ±0.2
0.7 + 0.1
1.2 + 0.7

0.04 + 0.02
2.9±0.2
Total 103 + 5
                                           213
-------
      Table 8-4.   Mean active bone marrow dose to the adult population (1964) (8.7)
Examination
Mean active bone
   marrow dose
per examination
     (mrad)
Annual per capita
examination rate
Annual per capita
      dose
  (mrad + S.E.)
Head and neck
Skull
Cervical spine
Other
Thorax
Chest-photof 1 uoro.
Chest-radiographic
Thoracic spine
Ribs
Other
Upper abdomen
Upper GI series (total)
Radiographic (subtotal)
Fluoroscopic (subtotal)
Scan
Spot films
Lumbar spine
Gall bladder (total)
Radiographic (subtotal)
Fluoroscopic (subtotal)
Scan
Spot films
Small bowel series
Other
Lower abdomen
Barium enema (total)
Radiographic (subtotal)
Fluoroscopic (subtotal)
Scan
Spot films
IVP
Lumbosacral spine
Abdomen KUB
Other
Pelvis
Pelvimetry
Pelvis
Hip
Other
Extremeties
Femur
Dental

65
31
65
10
232
124
--
408
229
195
161
34
336
183
146
27
24
2.5
271

624
351
273
229
44
453
418
183
--
288
116
97
--
13.2
0.016
0,018
0.120
0.219
0.009
0.006
—
0.042
0.042
0.020
0.021
0.002
0.003

0.022
0.022
0.022
0.010
0.020
—
0.001
0.012
0.008
__-
0.267
1.0±0,2
0.6±0.1
0.6 + 0.2
7.8±0.9
2.0±0.3
2.0±1.0
0.7±0.3
0.5±0.2
17, 9± 1.6
9,7±1,0
8,2±1.3
6.7±1.4
3.2±0.4
3.1 ±0.5
0.1 ±0.2
0.7 + 0.3
1.0±0.6
13.7 + 1.6
7,7±1,3
6.0±0.9
9.9±1.2
4.0 + 1.0
3.6 + 0.9
0.3±0.4
0.3±0.5
1.4 + 0.5
0.7 + 0.4
1.2 + 0.7
—
3.5 + 0.2
Total 83 + 4
                                          214
-------
Cardiac pacemakers

     In the United States, heart disease is now the leading killer.
However, thousands of men and women are alive today because of artificial
cardiac pacemakers which use electricity to help the heart operate.

     Cardiac pacemakers control heart rhythm by delivering electrical
impulses to the muscles of the heart causing their contraction. These
devices are implanted in patients suffering from certain forms of
abnormal heart rhythms.  The conventional pacemakers powered by mercury
batteries last from 2 to 3 years and require surgical  replacement of the
entire pacemaker when the battery power is no longer sufficient.  How-
ever, since 1972, cardiac pacemakers powered by nuclear batteries
containing plutonium-238 have been implanted in hundreds of patients in
the United States on a limited investigational  basis.   These nuclear
batteries have a life span of over 10 years (8,8).

     In July 1976, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards issued a Final Generic Environmental
Statement on the routine use of piutoniurn-powered cardiac pacemakers.
The statement concludes that the benefits to the patient outweigh the
risks involved, therefore, piutoniurn-powered pacemakers can be licensed
for routine use.  Prior to this, the Commission had licensed plutonium-
powered pacemakers on a limited investigational basis (8.8).

     Total critical organ and whole body doses  received by pacemaker
patients are less than 5 rem/year while exposure to families and others
in the population involves a dose equivalent to individual spouses of  up
to 7.5 millirems per year and to individual nonfamily associates of up
to 0.2 millirem per year (table 8-5) (8.8).

     The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed a general license for
routine use of plutonium-238 powered cardiac pacemakers in the Federal
Register on March 14, 1977.
References

(8.1)  The annual report on the administration of the radiation
       control for health and safety act of 1968 (Public Law 90-602),
       covering 1970.  U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
       D.C.  (1971).

(8.2)  FLORA, D. H., L. A. MILLER, and B. H. STEINER.  An evalua-
       tion of the compatibility and uniformity of State regula-
       tions for the control of radiation.  BRH/ORO 70-7, Bureau
       of Radiological Health, Rockville, Md.  20857 (November 1970).

(8.3)  MILLER, L. A.  Report of State and local radiological health
       programs, fiscal year 1975, FDA 77-8005, Bureau of Radio-
       logical Health, Rockville, Md.  20857 (July 1976).
                                  215
-------







oo

oo


in in
i. CU
0) •!-
-^ S-
to cu
E 4->
CU 4-1
O ro
ro -Q
CL
E
O 3
ra •!-
•i- C
-o o
S- -M
ro 3
O i—
a.
E
O -E
i- 4->
«J >r_
5
Ifl
a. to
3 S-
0 CU
£- ***
en ro
ra O
O ro
•r- CL
L)
T^
•r- O
S- ro
O •!—
-a
0 S-
+-> ra
o
in
cu -a
in cu
0 4->
•o c:
ro
E i—
0 Q.
+J •/—
(t3
•r- O
•a o
ro O
CCL "
o
r~

to en
1 C~
1 ^_
fo (P_
WJ *^~
(D 3
i — t/i
_Q i/)
/rt rrt
*W "W
L^ ,,_„,
p— *>•— •"•











Q. — -
3 S-
O ro
S- CU
cn >>

0 ~E
1 1 f\ I
•t--* \Lf
i_
CU 1
in c~
o o
"D to
t_
i— CU
ro Q_
-M • —
0
1—

-o
c c
•— 3 O
ra O •!-
i- S- 4->
3 Cn ro
4-» ^i -r-
ro O TD
2: (O rO
J3 S-



o
E S-
0 CO
5_ vx
f- ro
ai cu
tO O
O (0
Q Q.



s_
(O
cu
>, CO
^ to
E o
O TJ
to
S- 
i "*
01

T3
C C
r— 3 0
(0 O T-
S- S- +J
3 en ro
4-> ^i -i-
(0 0 T3
2: ro ro
X> S-



t
to in
u >>
•i- ro
T3 S_
CU
^- v
to
0
•a
ro ra
3 P^ S—
^J CZ ^"
-0 O CU
•r- s_ ^:
> >4- (O
-a cu cu
c to o
i— i O ro
Q Q.



c
o
o. +->
3 tO
a r-
i_ 3
CD Q.
0
Q_




to
0 4->
4-> c:
cu
Q-*r-
•r— 4-J
g- ro
C/) f"*
C™
O S-
•r— CU
4-> ^
ro rO
CU CU
a: o
rO
a.
vo CM -3- oo o
^j- ' — "J" r*~ o
^^3 CTl OO CO O
•* ** »*
r~- CM o
CM O
«d-
•*
CM






LO LO
CM CXJ o «d- cn
^- i— r- r— «d-






g S S S g
r— _ r r1" r— p—





P-) 00 CO CO 00
P^ r^ r-v i-v |v~

^ IT) CM r— r-
r-^ r— d o
1 1 1 1 o
LO r— r— LO v
d V
^-J •
O



o o o o
fO LD 0 0
^ CT. 0 0
•>"«•>
vc oo CM oo
r^. 1 —
CM


cu
o
ra CU
0 r- >
to 3 O
5" cu Q.JD
S- 0 4J 0 ra
CU to ra Q.
-Q 0) -r- -0
E 4-> 0 . CU
CU ra O CO "O
E -r- 00 .3
o to ro p—
"O O ro o
r- tO C C
00 0 01 _* ,r- T-
m -C fO S-
to <^ O r— 4->
3 to J* S ro 0
0 3 i- C 4-> C
a. o o o o
oo ^ 3 z: t-













CO
CM










-a
to
4->
c
CO
•r~-
4->
ro
a.
o
4-J
cu
to
o
-a
cn
c.
•n~
•o
3
o
X
cu
c
o
•r-
4J
rO
3
Q.
o
a.

•
oo
ro

o
4->
CO
to
0
-a

r—
ro
4->
o
1—




to
4->
o
ai
ll ^^
H— >x
1, '
t- c:
CO ra
cn c
C -i—

"O "O to
i — CO CU
CO to -i—
••- 3 4J
-C •! —
to E >
3 T—
-0 -i- 4->
c c: o
ro O ro
4->
" =» >•>
VI ^— ^~
o a. -r-
 T-
cu c ^:
4-> 3
o o cn
? 1 c
>- ro •!—
rO i_
-C CO 3
0 Cn T3
rO
•— s- oo
01 CO C
3 > 0
4- 03 to
S-
** CU CO
4-> JC Q.
C 4J
CU o
4-> IO CO
C -i-
0 4->
0 J=. 3
00
E ••- _a
3 JC ro
>r~ 2
C .C
0 E 4->
4-> 3 •!—
3 -r- 2
i — C
CL O CU
4-> 4->
CO 3 ro
^: • i — •!-
4-> r— CL 0
CU O O
c -a 14- to o
o o o to o
CL E ro
3 T- o
t- o o o
CO CO 4-> O
C^X 1 ^^
-j£ ^J^ n
•r- ro -a o
T3 E CO CO r—
C CO C 4-> CM
CO 0 -r- 0
CL ra to •/— 4-
cu CL 3 -a o
"O CO
S- CO i. E
>>  CL O
S- r— 0 -r-
rO 3 "a to 4->
> O ••- ro
•i- -0 r-
r— 4-> CO 4-> 3
•— S- 4-> • E CL
•i— rO ro >5 CO O
3i 0. i. C -r- Q.
cn co 4->
CO ro CO 4-> ro
m 4-> 4-> CL oo
0 H- C. ra
o o i— i .a <: ra
fO ^3 O "O
216
-------
(8.4)   KLEMENT,  A.  W.  JR.,  C.  MILLER,  R.  MINX,  and  B.  SHLEIEN.
       Estimates of ionizing  radiation doses  in the United  States,
       1960-2000, ORP/CSD  72-1,  Environmental  Protection Agency,
       Office of Radiation  Programs, Washington,  D.C.  20460
       (August 1972).

(8.5)   NATIONAL  ACADEMY  OF  SCIENCES -  NATIONAL  RESEARCH COUNCIL.
       The effects  on  populations  of exposure to  low  levels of
       ionizing  radiation.  Report of  the Advisory  Committee on
       the Biological  Effects of Ionizing Radiation.   NAS/NRC,
       Washington,  D.C.  20006 (November 1972).

(8.6)   PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE.  Gonad doses and  genetically  signifi-
       cant dose from  diagnostic radiology, U.S., 1964 and  1970,
       FDA 76-8034, Bureau  of Radiological  Health,  Rockville, Md.
       20857 (April 1976).

(8.7)   SHLEIEN,  B., T. T.  TUCKER,  and  D.  W. JOHNSON.   The mean
       active bone  marrow  dose to  the  adult population of the
       United States from  diagnostic radiology, FDA 77-8013,
       Bureau of Radiological  Health,  Rockville,  Md.  20857
       (April 1976).

(8.8)   BAILEY, J. G.  Personal communication   to  F. Galpin,
       July 25,  1977.

(8.9)   U.S.  NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.  Final generic environ-
       mental statement  on  routine use of piutoniurn-powered cardiac
       pacemakers,  NUREG-0060, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
       Washington,  D.C.  20555 (July 1976).
                                  217
-------
      Chapter  9  - Occupational  and  Industrial  Radiation
     There is surprisingly little data published in  the  scientific
literature on the contributions of occupational  exposure to  the  popu-
lation dose from ionizing radiation.   However,  there is  a large  quantity
of data available in various dosimetry programs  throughout the United
States (9.1,9.2).   In general, personnel  monitoring  programs are designed
to check that exposures of radiation  workers  do  not  exceed some  specified
level.  In addition, it is usual to ignore doses below a minimum detectable
level or below the "investigation level"  set  for monitoring  purposes.

     The Federal Radiation Council in May 1960  recommended Radiation
Protection Guides for the use by Federal  agencies in their radiation
protection activities (9.3).  These guides (table 9-1) are being reviewed
by the Environmental Protection Agency, and it  is anticipated that  EPA
will formally submit updated guidance to  the  President for approval
sometime in 1978.

     Close adherence to the FRC guides and the  recommendations of such
bodies as the International Commission on Radiological Protection,  the
International Labour Organization, the World  Health  Organization, and
the International  Atomic Energy Agency insures  that  most workers receive
very low exposures and that very few  workers  exceed  the  recommended
maximum permissible doses.  The maximum permissible  annual  dose  to  the
whole body is about 50 times that received from  natural  radiation
sources.  In 1970, the total per capita dose  from occupational exposures
to radiation was estimated as 0.8 mrem/y, with a mean  dose per worker
of 200 mrem/y (9.4).

     One of the problems encountered  in dealing  with occupational
radiation is in defining "radiation worker."  It can mean all of the
staff in certain establishments, or in other  work places, only those
personnel whose exposures might exceed three-tenths  of the annual dose
limit.  In 1966 the ICRP introduced the concept  of a single  category of
occupational exposure, the radiation  exposure received by any worker in
the course of his work, with the recommendations that only those workers
whose doses might exceed three-tenths of  the  annual  maximum  permissible
dose require individual personal monitoring and  health supervision.  But
in practice, this recommendation has  not  been carried  out, and the
majority of persons issued personal monitoring devices still  record
annual doses less than three-tenths of the maximum permissible doses.
                                 219
-------
































— ^
to
•
01
*v_*

in
cu
•rjj
•p-
3
E
O
0
CU
4J
o
s_
Q.

E
O
• r-*
| *
CO
•P—
•o
CO
Q:


•
r-H
1
cn

cu
r—
t~\
tO
r-






























^-^-,
E
CU

»*— X


cu
to
o
o





c~
o
• r—
•4-^
• f—
TD
E
O
f ^




























O)
i.
3
to
o
Q.
X
cu

t>_
Q

cu
Q.
>«j
I—







(^ 	
O •
00
S- P—
cu
-Q CU
E o>
3 CO
C
•^j
CU E
-E O
~t~^ ^)
CU
CO J3
CU
E to
•p- S-
4-> CO • •
CU • O O
LO >>CO CO p—
cu
CO
o
-o
cu
-p
CO tO tO
r— ^ sx
3 CU CU
E cu cu
3 2 S- 2
O co
O CO CU CO
< P- >- p-






cu
> CO
•p- E
-(-> CU
Or- -0
co -p-
i. 0
" O i-
^s >^
C. •> -E
3 to -t->
s- -o
•(-> CO -O
E C
-O O co
E O5
fO >>

"O to O
co E ja
CU co
JC O5 CU
^ 1—
* o o
•• >> JZ
i- -O 05 2
CU O E
_\/ ^*> «r- ^—
S- E 0
0 CU S-
2 t— 0 E
04- T-
E JZ CU -VJ
O 3 T3 >, 00
•p- O CU
4_> , 	 > O 	
CO CO P— M- J2
., 	 J2 O 	
-o
CO
o:

























• •
LT> LO
r^. CM






- r—
—*s~




CO
cu

sx
E
CO

T3
C
CO

4_>
CU
cu
<+—

*»
CO
E
S-
CO
CU
s-
o
M-

•^
r"
CO

CO
-a
E
CO
n:

^— ^
o
s — ^



4J
LO c
CXJ CU
CSJ p—
1 co
E >
3 •!-
•r- 3
-a o-
cO CU
Sp.
r—
4- co
O 0
•r—
E 05
CO O
i. r-
05 O
O •!-
1- _0
o
•p- CO
E i '
•r—
p— •
• S» LO •
o o p— in



c
cu
T3
i- to
3 -^
JD CU
CU
>^ S- 2
X> CO
O CU CO
CO >- r-
•— y— '



























to
c
(O
05
S-
o

i-
cu cu
E -C
O 4->
CQ O

*• — ^ *^-x
T3 CU
	 *• «*-^-'














•
•— s.
>^
T3
O
JO

CU ' — ^
i — CO
O "O
^= CO
2 C
vS O
O5
in —
•
O LO







^,
CO
cu

cO
CU O
>- CO






























r—
 cO
• • -p- i.
C T3 CU
O E >
•r- I— I 
cO ' — * *• — ^
r^ CO .Q
^ s 	 ^ ^ 	 X
O-
O
0.
220
-------
     The UN Scientific Committee reported that a representative figure
for the number of radiation workers for most developed countries is  1-2
workers per thousand population, with the U.S.  1970 figure being some-
what higher.  The UN data for the United States reports 1.33/thousand
workers engaged in medical  work, 0.87 in dental, 1.55 in research and
education, with a total of 3.7/thousand (9.2).   There are no data
reported in categories termed atomic energy and industrial, and it is
not clear whether the medical category includes diagnosis, therapy,
chiropractic, or veterinary.  Klement et al. reported 3.76 radiation
workers in the United States by "using reported numbers of workers and
judicious estimates in nonreported areas" (9.1).

     There is no requirement for uniformity in collecting and  reporting
occupational exposures.  There are considerable variations in  the
terminology used by reporting agencies.  For example, results  of per-
sonnel monitoring data are reported as exposures (R), absorbed doses
(rad) or dose equivalents (rem).  The dose equivalent is used  frequently
because this is the term used by the International  Commission  on Radio-
logical Protection (ICRP) to express the maximum permissible doses for
occupational exposure and by the Federal Radiation  Council for radiation
protection guidance for federal agencies.

     With external monitoring, there is generally little data  available
about the actual doses received by the various tissues; workers gener-
ally wear one dosimeter—doses to those parts distant from the moni-
toring device will generally be lower.  The value reported is  assumed to
be the value of the device (recorded dose).  "For various reasons,
therefore, it is probable that the direct use of data about individual
doses from personnel monitoring programmes will tend to overestimate
population doses for the various tissues of interest, but at the low
levels currently involved, this is not considered to be a serious
problem." (9.2).

     Data on licensed installations in the United States in 1968 re-
ported in a UN report indicate that in general  the  great majority of
exposures reported through film badge monitoring of a sample of workers
using radioactive materials are in the lower dose ranges.  However,  the
data indicate a large percentage of waste disposal  workers with exposures
in high dose ranges, and this was also true to a lesser extent of indus-
trial radiographers (9.2).

     A survey carried out during the period 1965-1970 by the United
Kingdom showed that the radiation doses received by site radiographers
were significantly higher than those of radiographers in factories.   The
survey was of radiographers employed by firms who use ionizing radiation
in nondestructive testing.  The reasons are probably complex;  the type
of equipment used and the standard of protection provided for the
operation are important controlling elements (9.5).
                                 221
-------
     Accidents and overexposures are rare in most types  of radiation
work today.  However, there are some exceptions—most reported radiation
injuries occur in industrial  radiography and users of x-ray crystallo-
graphic machines.  There is a problem in reducing the inhalation exnosures
of miners (particularly in underground uranium mining) which is the
major casual factor for the excess of respiratory cancers  among uranium
miners as a group (9.6).

     Extensive use of radium in medicine and industry began in the
United States in 1913 and the highest occupational exposure to workers
occurred before 1925 when the toxic effects of radium became known and
safety measures were adopted.  Up to about 1930, other persons acquired
significant burdens through deliberate intake of radium  for supposed
therapeutic effects.  A revival of the radium dial industry during World
War II led to the exposure of another large group of people with signif-
icant levels of internally deposited radioactivity.

     The Radium Project Registry, which registers all authenticated
cases of radium exposure, is maintained at the Center for  Human Radio-
biology at Argonne National Laboratory.  From the records  of earlier
radium projects and from search efforts since the Center was formed in
1969, approximately 5,000 persons have been identified by  name and by
type of exposure to radium.  Annual reports are published  by the Center
each year which include papers and reports dealing with  different aspects
of the Center's studies of the effects of internally deposited radio-
nuclides in humans as well as exposure data for persons  whose body
burdens of radium have been measured.  Another major project of the
Center is a study of the health of former thorium workers.  The study
involves analysis of mortality and morbidity in former workers in a
company concerned with the production of thorium (and rare earth)
chemicals (9.7-9.9).

     There has been some difficulty in the luminizing industry in pre-
venting excessive uptake of tritium by the workers.   Tritium and, to
some extent, promethium have replaced radium as the light  activator in
phosphors.  In general, the occupational exposure to radium is higher
than to tritium (and radium offers little advantage as compared to
tritium).  The occupational exposure to promethium-147 cannot be
measured with any degree of accuracy—no data are available and none  can
be expected to be available because of the extreme difficulties in
measuring the body burden of the workers.  The chemical  properties of
radium and promethium are similar.  Table 9-2 summarizes risks from
processing 1 curie of radium, promethium-147 and tritium.   Table 9-3
contains average occupational exposure to tritium as measured by Moghissi
et al. and Krejci (9.10).

     In a study sponsored by two flight attendants'  unions and NRC,
radiation doses received by flight attendants from shipments of radio-
active materials transported on commercial airline flights in the United
                                222
-------
        Table 9-2.  Total risk  from various  radionuclides
                     per curie processed   (9.7)
                                    Risk per Ci processed (person-mrem)	
Occupation	Radium	Tritium	Promethium-147
Dial Painting

Bone
Whole body
Lung
200,000
600,000
125,000
Assernb ly

Whole body                        69,000

Storage

Whole body                       Unknown

Environmental  (user's dose from wristwatches)

Whole body	(65-70)106
NA
9.1
NA
                4.5*
               12*
               30
Unknown
    5*
Unknown
              Unknown
              Unknown
               5000
'"'Estimated values with limited usefulness
          Table 9-3.   Average occupational exposure to  tritium
              according to Moghissi,  et al.   (9.7)


Location of
plants
U.S.A.
Switzerland
Switzerland
Switzerland
Switzerland
Switzerland
Switzerland
Switzerland
Average
Average
activity
in paint
(mCi/g)
150
150
227
102
164
262
354
453


Processed
tritium
(Ci /person -y )
104.3
193.4
64.9
140.8
222.2
67.6
79.6
65.3

Average
urine
activity
(uCi/1)
20.4
2.57
3.43
7.64
13.1
4.86
9.57
14.2


Risk
(person-
mrem/Ci)
19.1
1.3
5.3
5.4
5.9
7.2
12.0
21.7
9.1



Reference
Moghissi et al
Krejci
Krejci
Krejci
Krejci
Krejci
Krejci
Krejci

                                    223
-------
States were measured in late 1974 using thermoluminescent dosimeters
(TLD) to measure the exposure.   Flight attendants spend as much as 1,000
hours per year on board aircraft in relative close proximity to the
cargo department.  The study, however, has limited value because of many
aspects such as reliance on volunteer cooperation of attendants, inability
to always determine the transport indices of packages of radioactive
materials on the flight, inability to determine the geometric relation-
ship of the flight attendant to the radioactive cargo, differences
between the control and body badges, etc.  Nevertheless, analyses of  the
data indicate that there is little increase in the radiation dose received
by flight attendants from shipments of radioactive material; the average
increase in dose to participating flight attendants was estimated to  be
about 11 millirems per year.  The maximum increase in dose to any indiv-
idual flight attendant is unlikely to exceed 140 millirems per year.
According to the same report, individuals in the United States receive
an average annual dose of about 100 millirems from natural background
radiation sources (9.12).

     A program for the reporting of certain occupational radiation
exposure information on monitored individuals to a central repository
was approved by the AEC in 1968 and arrangements were made for the
establishment of a central, computerized repository at the Union Carbide
Computing Technology Center, Oak Ridge, Tenn.  Information was required
from four categories of AEC licensees (operating nuclear power facili-
ties; industrial radiographers; fuel processors and distributors of
specified quantities of byproduct materials) and from AEC contractors
exempt from licensing (Part 20.407 and Part 20.408 of Title 10, Chapter
1, Code of Federal Regulations).  Certain information obtained from
personnel overexposure reports submitted by all licensees and contractors
would also be maintained in the repository (10 CFR 20.403, 10 CFR 20.405,
and AEC Manual Chapter 0502).

     With the division of the AEC into the two agencies, the Energy
Research and Development Administration  (ERDA) and the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), in January  1975, each of the agencies
assumed responsibility for collecting occupational radiation exposure
information relating to its own activities.  Both ERDA and NRC have
continued to retain similar data and computer systems at the Union
Carbide Computing Technology Center at Oak Ridge.

     In 1974, 10 CFR 20.407 was amended  to require covered licensees  to
submit an annual statistical summary of  exposures and data rather than
identification and exposure data for individuals whose annual exposure
exceeded applicable quarterly limits.  The new reporting system was
adopted to give a much better indication of the actual distribution of
whole body exposures.

     A summary of the distribution of annual whole body exposures of
some 78,713 individuals reported by 387  NRC-covered licensees for 1975
                                  224
-------
is given in table 9-4.  The average exposure per individual  based on all
exposures was 0.36 rem (table 9-5).  The figures reported in these
tables are based on radiation exposures as determined by various types
of personnel monitoring devices.  Very few of the annual exposures that
exceed 5 rems are personnel overexposures because licensees  are permitted,
under certain conditions, to allow a worker to receive a whole body dose
of 3 rems per calendar quarter (or 12 rems annually) (9.12).  Annual
exposures that exceed 12 rems are overexposures.

     The Office of Standards Development of NRC is currently developing
a proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 20 of NRC regulations to require
licensees to use personnel dosimetry whose performance has been tested
and found to be reasonably accurate.  The proposed amendment would apply
to film badges and thermoluminescence dosimeters—dosimeters that are
processed by the licensee himself or processed commercially  for the
licensee.  It is anticipated that the proposed rule will be  published in
July 1977 (9.13,9.14).

     Sections 20.403 and 20.405 of Title 10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal
Regulations, require all licensees to report personnel exposures in
excess of applicable limits to the central repository at Oak Ridge.
Table 9-6 summarizes the personnel overexposures to external sources of
radiation reported by NRC licensees for the years 1971 through 1975.
The types of licensees included in the category labeled "other" consist
primarily of test reactors and research and educational facilities.
Personnel exposures to excessive concentrations (usually airborne) of
radioactive materials are summarized in table 9-7 (9.12).

     Data from NRC on occupational radiation exposure at light-water-
cooled power reactors is presented in table 9-8.  This table represents
an updating of the information contained in WASH-1311 and NUREG-75/032
which provided data through 1974.  Data on those plants operating during
the period 1969-1973 were obtained by direct inquiry to the  reactor
licensee.  The 1974-1975 data were obtained from two sources:  1) annual
statistical summary of exposure and data reports submitted to NRC to
meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.407, and 2) annual,  semiannual
or monthly operating reports submitted in accordance with individual
station Technical Specification (9.15).

     The term person-rem used by NRC is a unit of collective dose and is
the accumulation of the occupational radiation exposures of  all indi-
viduals at the plant site including utility station personnel, temporary
utility personnel, contractor personnel and visitors.  NRC determined
this accumulation of exposure by either of two methods:

     1.  Approximately one-half of the licensees submitted the summation
of the actual exposures of all the individuals at their site.

     2.  For the remaining licensees the accumulated exposures were
determined by summing the product of the numbers of individuals in each
annual exposure range specified in 10 CFR Part 20.407 b(2) by the mid-
point exposure in each range.

                                  225
-------









-p
c

r~"

3* £— ^
OJ 
O
C 0
O 1
•r- 0
4J Q;
3 z:
JD
i- -O
11
CO T3
•i- O)
CD 4->
S_
O
• Q.
1 S_
en
o>
JD

^
1


CM
1
CM
1
1
O
0
T
CTv
?

O

O
*~


o

CM
CO i—
CO
1^.
r^.
t
to

LA

LO



CSJ

o


Ol
LO

*d~
CM
*d-



^j.
1
ro
CM
en

ro
ro r-
\
CM
CO


CM
r—
CM
CO
en
ro

LO O
r^. o
O r-
CO
ro
•—

O LO
LO r*»*
o o
CO
^

LO O
CM LO
0 0
CO
CM
O LO i—
0 0


CU
wr~.
EV
C r-
"3 f^
JZ fO
+-> s-
tn txi
t/) (Q
CO
o



o
to
o



01
CM

CM

r—

'
CM


, 	

ro




CO


CM

LO
ro




^-f-


•^
r—


CO
ro
LO


ro
CM


5
ro

CO

ro
CO



CO



LO
CO



o

o
o


LO
"—
^
•~
01



r-

O
ro

O





P^


ro
LO



CO
ro


CM


ro
ro
«*

CM
O
r-
CM
0



CO
CO
CTl



O

LO


O

O
o

,_

1
ro


n_

o

ro


CM


^

en
ro

1^^,
i —
en
CM
^
ro

r—
cn

CM

CO
ro
LO



ro


LO



O


CO
P-
CO
CM
CM
CM

O
LO

r-.
CO


§8

LO
LO
r—

LO
LO
CM

«*•
CM

CM
ro
LO

r-*-
en
r-.

CO
CM
LO



1
en
CM
O
LO



OD
s


CM
CO
CO
*~ ro
       O CL>
       Z S-
          o
       •— -P
       fd -r-
                                       i—       ro
    Oi      o

T3  E      0)
 CU  O  <_)  t/1
 i-  cno:  c
 cu   -M      u
 o  -
o o  o _J
          ro  D-
    t/1     •*-  rt3
    t.     S-  S-
    o
 S- -M
  -r-     +J
                OS-     O
                « 4->     I—
                                   226
-------
             _
          O C TD "O
          a o; -i- o)
            «—  > t/1
          QJ ftl ••- tO
               "
 CXI
                           OOCD   OOO    OOO    OOO
 CT)
 to
 c
 O)
 u
           f    TJ O  l/l
            -l-> 3    
 O
 O
oroi—
r^-cotn
cooro
                                   ID CTi O




                                   CO CM CM
 (/I
 CD
 S-
 o
 en
 O)
4->
 to
 o
                       ID^-LD    r— r— l—
-o
 O)
 rO

 :3
 O
 O
   1/1

O to



TO > •
4-> -r~ _
o -o b
                                                  LD r— O
                                                  O C\J i—
                                                  «^- en 10
                                   ro ro CM

                                   ro oo «^
                                                      -
                                                     a> ^
                                                     o c
 CU
 to
 O
 CD

'o
LO
  I
                                    O  tfl
                                    S- 'r-
                                   a. o
                                                                    O S-
                                                                    i- , (Q
                                                                    CQ E:
                                                                                   _
                                                                             -M OJ  OJ
                                                                             O >  >
                                                                             I— O 
-------
to
o
i.
O
CO
rO    05
 S_
 a;
 to
 O)

 3
 tn
 o
 a.
 x
 OJ

 cu
 i
cri
 O)
 to
 01
 0)
 to
-a
 a;
-i->
 s_
 o
 ex
 S-


4-

 O


•M
U
QJ

C
QJ
U




QJ

4-> 3
U JD
rO i—
C in
« •!—




S-



G, 0)
Of




V
T— JC
r0 O
r- 03
S, S-

i/i O

"c "S



C

in
S S
in ce
o
o

4- in
O QJ
S-
o m
z. o
Q.
i— X
ro QJ
O QJ
O
M-
O
£-0
Q.
•0
C l-
Qj ra
P— QJ
re >-

— ^ ^

CM r-
ro • CM • ro CM
if. ^ IS
,^_» ^_,
in
E
QJ
U

ro «a- i i

CO
LO




CO - — .
t- QJ
LO I LT> S-.
UO
CVJ i —
•— _ •

^-^
C
ol
CM S- I t
1 1

^






in - — •
E t/i
£ 1
o t tn i-
CM CM 1

CT) "s^


'



0^ CVJ r-
CO CM CO












4->

QJ S
r— >> C L.
O -0 — 4J
j: o J* x
3: co to LU



, —

^
in in
E E tn
t.
in r—
O • •— • CM O
"S 5 H





i i <







^ —
§e
QJ
t. S.
ro i co
ro i ^r
• PO
• — • • — .
4

in
E
^
iO 1 t


5







i i
QJ S-
CO i- I *3-


CM •
r*» o
ro •—
—


CO r-
o

0






T^ i — CM






QJ QJ
O T3 -i- 4-J
J= 0 -* X
IS CD CO LU



CM

01
in tn
E E -—
QJ QJ in
ro vn i.
*3- • CM • CM
r— CM «±
in


U

CTt r^ 1
• 1
CO
CM




in i/
QJ QJ
ro i CM
CJl 1 ^t
•a- —


^
E
QJ
i_
CTt CM 1 1
i — .) i

UD







QJ y
i- E
ro t >— a
CM CO I J.
r- IX
0 CC

* —



ro tn
o ro
r— CM CM
CM r-.






CO CM tf>
in



4->

QJ §
O T3 "- 4->
JT O J* X
31 CO tO LU



CO

CT1
i ~
§

CT> 1
r- CO
l/l *—
E in



CO CVJ 1 r—
* 1 CVJ
«3~ CVJ
m <—




? |

coo, , vog
CM -^


^


*~
ro cr> i i

tT)








in

O> S- 1 I
CM 1 1
CM


ro



ro Oi

§CO CO
o
CM





LO r- r-







O "O •*- 4J
J= O ^ X
3: co co LU



,-j.

en
t ^

i. t.
LD CO t
VI
E
QJ


CM ro i i

CO





1" --
QJ in
t- E
QJ
ro m i CM i-
i
CC r—
. — -

^^
§_„, .
in


r— • 1
^- ro
*s- co







in
QJ in
»— i. i CM £
i — 1 QJ
co i-

in r-




CM r—

r— CO CO
CM CTt






p — i— T**.




4->

QJ C
0-0 -p- 4->
jC O J* X
7 CO tO LU



IT)
r-
en
                                                                                                              €
                                                                                                               £
                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                 a.
                                                                                                                 OJ
                                                          228
-------
   C
   O
   "3
   0)
   o
   c
   o
   a

   a;
  •i —
   CO
   to
   a>
   u
   x
  CO
  o
  a.
  x
  O)

 4-
  O
 on
r--.
  i
CTi

 CJ

.a
        o
        CM

        "O

         CO
        o
        -
T j p\


r-4 en i en i


1 1 I 1 I
1 1 1 1 I




ox ( i en i



r-4 1





1 CM -3- 1 r-4





1 CM OX 1 |
1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1




n 1 1 vD rH
•H 1 1



1 C3X 1 | rH
1 I 1





OX IT> | ,_(
I Ox CM 1





en 1 CM i rM
1 1

1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1




•* 1 1 "* 1
1 1 1



1 ox 1 I rH
It-Ill





1 v£> in | |
1 CM i-4 1 1





CM i— 1 I H ,-j.


1-1 j j | J




i 1 !



j ^ j | |





1 O O 1 I
1 en rH 1 |





CM 1 CM tH 1 |
1 1 1

III!!




"ill!!



! I I ! i !





i sr rH i i i
1 CM CM j | |



cC
(
H c
<1> t
3 >.
Jjt^ C
U
i-
>-l C
CU 4-
S c.
O n
CL, a
e:
cr
o n
n x
CU -r
•S >
E i-
3 X
Z C
co t:

•H i-
iH C
3 C
2: p-
n)
T3 >-
C c;
ai a
H >
CO
:
'. 1 CM -3- 1 r-4





i>- i i i 
1-1 r-4 ^^ TO
IE 1 0) U
•• 3 Ox o >-i ..
in -H en 33
CM C CM « 4J «
»~( et( | en X •>
1 ^3 1 T-( Xl
M s ^ a s a,


rH

Ox

1 Ox ITl | r-4
1 Ox CM 1





1 1 1 1 iH
1 1 1 1




en O  BM as a a


CM

OX
rH

1 VO ID | |
1 CM rH 1 1





1 1 1 1 |
1 1 1 1 1




i — in r^ N-t- (vx
^t rH


V-l
CO
3. I
1 B (U
- 3 OX M /-,
tA 'H m 33
rH g 7 en % °i
1 M 3 1 -H O
rH O CU « 2 CJ



en
Ox

1 O O 1 I
1 en rH 1 |






1 1 1 1 _.
1 1 1 1 %





iA 00 O r—t — .
-------
 (O   LO
 E   !"-»
 E   en
 3   T-l
 CO     I
     en
 c   vo
 o   cr>
 ro     "
 i.    to
 
 
 
 Q.  -P-
      E
 ro
i—    O
 CD    4-)
 C
 C
 o
 CO

 OJ
      O
      ro
      O)
      t.
 O)
 $-
      cu
      o
      Q-
     TD
      O)
 CO
 O   r—
 Q-   O
 X    O
LU
CO
 I
CTl

 OJ
 ro
      U
       I
      S-
      O)

      ro
      CD
                                              230
1 S-
c: O)
O CL >•
i- E 3C
(U O) ^
n. U
CT> OJ
fO QJ O.
(DOE
> "O 
O t-
Ol
CL



Personnel

OJ -

Reporting organization


c
o
S-
~
Contractor
Maintenance
Operations
2
o
•4-J
Contractor
•5
O
H-

3£
E
d
J

,_
O
CO
o







£
o
cn
OD
in
ARKANSAS 1
Docket 50-313, DPR-51
1st commercial operation 8/74
Type - PWR
Capacity - 850 MWe
^.^^^-^UJ-

CM r**» CM cO ro
CO {Q P*- O"* CO CT' CO
00 0 0 CM 00
LO ^ O
o^ ro to
i— CM (—
O CM O
^r ^r CM
CM CM
CM CM
CM i —
•tf- CO
ro cr> CO cO fo r*» co
«— ^- r— r— CO CXI r—


Ln o o u"> cr> -— ^o
i— CM CM r- i— CM CM
CMU^ ir>cn ^^
^^ ^ ^^ ^^
o~i o <^~ CM co ^ un
BIG ROCK POINT
Docket 50-155, DPR-6
1st commercial operation 3/63
Type - BWR
Capacity - 72 MWe
0

*
O




tn
CM


o
CO
ro
CM
cn
CO
CM
Ln
P-.
BROWN'S FERRY 1
Docket 50-259, DPR-33
1st commercial operation 8/74
Type - BWR
Capacity - 1065 MWe
LO r-. co r- - «• q-
r— CM r—
r^  «tf- u"i cr*
i — r-* CM co cO tn r^
.0 r- CM vo - - cn
M^S^SCHS
cr> o i — CM co ^r Ln
HADDAM NECK
Docket 50-213, DPR-61
1st commercial operation 1/68
Type - PWR
Capacity - 575 MWe
CM
O
ffi
o
§
10
r*.
m
CM
s
o
-
£
.3.
1
LO
1 — .
COOPER STATION
Docket 50-298, DPR-46
1st commercial operation 7/74
Type - BWR
Capacity - 778 MWe
-------
1 L.
C  E
£«,
O) C
I/I O
O wi
O I-
~
Reporting organization
^

c
o
l/»
1-
o>
ex
>
4-J
^J
_J
Contractor
Maintenance
Operations
(Q
V
O
1—
>-,
+J
4->
Z3
Contractor
(O
-*-)
0
V—

e



CM Ln co vo co o Ln
CO /— CM «3"
co ^r-.
LO OCO
o — o
CD LO CO
rx. O O*i
UO LO O
oo r-> . —
CO LO •—
ro i—
CM
i — m
pv. LO
r^ CTv
CM
co 
t O
O C CO
UO O
* +J CTt
r-, (O o
ro i- co
CM OJ
1 CL
O Ln o O
ro LO CM O
r— C\J
* * * (T3 r—
CM O cn •>— r-- LU
— •— u *-* 3
- t S- — CsL -£.
*— O - QJ r- 2
LO O E CO >>
2; r_ g - 4_)
UJ •*-> 1 O CM 1 •»—
o i ra
O O — h- LJ
CM

CO
LO
O
un
o
CM
CO

CM
o
o
cr>
s
a>
LO
*3-
ro
CM
Ln
CM
LO

FORT CALHOUN
Docket 50-285, DPR-40
1st commercial operation 6/74
Type - PWR
Capacity - 457 MWe
co ro *r LO co  CM CO CO o^
CM CM LO u~> co co
r- r-r- 0 — 0
CM CM «3- ro,
CT^ CM LO LO
i — ro (--« i —
LO CO CO • —
, — O F^. CTl
r- CM
ro i— r— <3-
r~ LO LO CO
i — ro cj* • —
•3- CT* «— O
o*> LO r-» LO
r-^ O CM "3- «=T O
O CO CO "3" CM CD
CM «3" O CM CM <3"
<=r LO r—
. — O i —
r- CM t3-
LO «3- LO
to ro UD
r— CM
o o r^ »— «=r co
f*- <3" r** CM CO un
r— ro LQ T CO Ln
LO co LD i-n r-- CM
CO r--. un Ot ro LO
LO CM  ro i — ro

>— , — r^ r— P^. O
ro CO <— CT> r — o i —
— "-
CM CM 1 — VO CM
LO r-*. CM CTi CsJ
i— i — CM i — CM
CM r~^. LO r** o
i — ro LO Ln • —
LO a> co CM CM Ln «=r
en r-*. f^- /*-. o . — o
i — ; — CM CM CM
Oi O «d- •— CTi ro co
O ro j — CO LO O CM
*g- O> CM ro i — CO CM
LO O O^ Ln LO i — ro
i — CM CM CM CM rO ro
*3- O r-- ro Ln ro
co CO CO r- r-» r-x
j — m co o- i — o
^r ro LC LO CM ro
C\J CM
Ln Ln o r^ LO LO ro
CM . — «a- CM ro cr» o
i — i — i — i — C\J CM ro
LO ro LO f— •— ^r ro
O CT> CT> ro o ro tn
*r ^r co *s- uo 
r-^ CO ro
r- O •—
LO <=r
LO co
ro Ln
CM
CO CM
rv
C\J
Cvj CT>
^r r-
«T -=T
 co o i~o ro i — CM
C\J LO r^» CT> r— CTi tO
r— uO
LO r-*
O O
CT> =3"
^J- CO
i — r-*
CO Ch O
O^i »— CO
cr> o *=•
Csj r—
oo ro O ro f— vf
ro ^O ^J" CM O *O «d"
co ^J* LD - i — CM ro «q- Ln

LO CM
CM LO
*O OJ
LO •— ^Z
i c
0. O CO
Q ••- rx
*J CO
» ftf
r- i- "
«cj- OJ OJ
CM CM c, 3
-d,° E
r— LO i 	 LO
ft) LO
I— „.,- CM
2; ro (j
—(ii- a; i
O O 0) 3
0_ uO g Q_ >>
^ •!-> O (*} t -l~
<: a; u r^ (j
K-. ^t \ a) m
O (j •*-> CO a. CL
2^ O ^ >i T3
— CJ •— t— O
231
-------
i i-
e a*
o a. -
t/t
t- E 3
Q) 
n. c
a>
en
t
«
a
>







4_
f
N
C
«:
c
i.
C
O
c
•f.
t.
C
c
c
a:

>,
c


c
o
3.
£
i
s-
o
a
(T3
u
•M
C
O
a»
u
c
c
CU

c
ItJ
(/I
c
0
•a
i.
OJ
3
o
+J
§
o
u
+J
c
o

03
•M
O
H-

|




1
)









n
>
.


O



LO

«.

-





CM










CM

,-

ro
CM




LO

a^
O



LO
1 —
5
VO
C
0
CO -M


ry Qj CU
Q- CX 3
O O "Si
.p— O
in its vo
O *'"• tO
ro u
I S- K l
O 0) 3
UJ »n g CL >i
rs a; u o
<£ J* 01 (Q
3 u -u cx cx
UJ O u? >> rtJ
i
03



u-y r^ ro ro ro

gr

CM



co i — r*- m LO
C\J f— r— r— •—

. — CM *T Ol O
SSS£3



f— CM rO ^- LO

s
a?'
c
o
m *->


II S
* i— "^
CJl (^ Q
0-.- LO
^ u
1 S- Qi |
O .
to S Z»
on -*-> o i -r-
O CU O (j
a: -* cu as
O O •!•* CX CX
^ O (/* >s rn
_J Q r— (— O

ro o LO
<— O


en co O
CM VI3 VO
0 0 O
O CM O
LO ro LO
CM ^~
i— CO f —
LO co en





LO ro
ro ro





.0,-



r— O I*X
CM CM 
0- CX 3
00 2T
* p— O
en us en
LxJ O T— (**•
UJ CM (J
^ i s- a: i
^ O CU 3
^
>- S •*-»
4-> O | *r—
UJ 11 O W
2E -^ CU rtS
•-H (J -)-> CX CX


LO rx ro co
r— CM ro **•


ix. ^- CO CO
o o a o
1^ LO
LO CM
CM CM
O LO
ro ro






CU (T3
1 I-
CC U QJ
r— 0. Q. 3
Q 0 S
sz '•— a
i— < ID TO CJ^
O -3- ••- to
CL C\J U
1 i- C£ \
UJ O (U 3
Z. LO = CO >,
o S -w
t— •!-> O 1 ••-
00 01 u O
_j u +-> a. CL
t— ' O t/1 >) (T3

r- «• O CM
•— CO


to LO <}• O
000^
O l/> CO
CM
-S5





r— CM
CM r-





O CM




f— «st- cn co
r— ro ro

O i — LO
en co >
uu £ -u
0 4-* O li-
•— i 2J U (J
>— ^£. CU fl
2E (J -4-> CX CD-
CO O '/I >\ fQ
S O — 1— 0

CM ^0 oo ro r— cTi
r— CM •—


u"* en co *T r— ^
O (— ro C7\ i— O
O O O O r- r-
r^. en co en LO oo
CM co en o «tf rx
r— i
s: +j o i •'-
 cx ex
•— • O ^ >> «5
232
-------
1 L.
d  -D Q>
,
S>
ffl O)
s- t-
1
O) C
in o
SO
1_
0)
Q-



Personnel

-n
aj-
t. +•>
QJ rtj
3: (- ;
o >
i
c
o
\n
Oi
Ll
>,
-t->
4-*
Z3
Contractor
Maintenance
Operations
,
4->
4->
O
Contractor
fC
-*->
o
t—
>,
1
B



r-^ ro

i — «a-
^o oo
0 0
ro ^r
r>* r*-
ro n
^ ro
*r co
cn •—
CD cr.

r^. o co
CO — CO
CM 4J
fO *
* i_ i^3
O  un f« r^ co
-^D ••- ^. CO
CM CM - U CM
t fv. i. <— a: i
*O «!r OJ 3
r- in E -Q_ >>
* =  a. a.
o o ct: vi >> ^
o o a i — t— 
O o •— r— — o
CM co m ro CM m
in ^- i— in CM 
^- -3- O CO CD
""
j— o O m vo co
CM m m CD us ^
m o CM <*o •d' CM
^o sO ro
m CD CD CM i-n o
CD — CM m r*.
«a- <=r m «a~ ^* m
CD o i — CM m ^j- m

OYSTER CREEK
Docket 50-219, DPR-16
1st commercial operation 12/69
Type - BWR
Capacity - 650 MWe
r«*
CO CD
(v> o O
^
ro f— CNJ
CM 00 \Q
<— O O
CM
VO
r^
 vo O O
r- CO i — O
OJ CM ro
CM m •«g- in

PALISADES
Docket 50-255, DPR-20
1st commercial operation 12/71
Type - PWR
Capacity - 821 MWe
CO
o
*r
CM
o




CO
CM
CM


!-»-.
CD
m
^
ro
CM
«n

us *r
^n r-v
--N.
«CM
 ID
fO VO
- s- o
CO >
CO = -M
4-> O 1 •*-
Z 
C_J Jitf Ol fO
<; u -M Q. CL
UJ O f >i <^
Q. O ^- f— <-J
cvj co ^r
i — CM
«=r cr> ^£>
<— O r—
o
•^
ro
§
ro
IT) CM
«=r f—
<*o
O^ CM
CM n
-------
1 t-,
C. HI
O CL
(D H'
CL L. "
OJ t-
 "O OJ


1) C
W O
cn t.
0.




Personnel

t- +J ";
X J- 3
0 tU £
Cu C *-
OJ
cn
s-

Reporting organization
^
E
•£
VI
i,
Ol
Q.
ZD
Contractor
r Maintenance
Operations
t!
-M
O
t—

>i
^
•M
=>
Contractor
f«
O
s
:



LOCO-d-^3
r- O
co *r
00-
OJ
CO
§LO
OJ
LO OJ
O 0
O O to "-O
co r-. cn LO
LO LO OJ «3~



cn o cn
CM o oo
r*v «g- oo
ro r*x CM CM
CO OO O i —
>. cn LO o
ro LO r-» oo
CM CO «tf- LO

r*^ O
OM r^
**•— 3
^ '^ Ol
f~~\ 4_j «^-
. s-
i— >
co E -w
h— 4J u r*^ tj
p-i u *J rr a. Q.
O 0 "1 >, 13
a. o ' — t~ o
Lf>
O
C\J VO
0 0
2



CO 00
i— CM

§;
LO
O r^
LO r*x
^0
CO OO
•— CO
<3- LO

O ro
ce: o o
o 4-> LO
T3
LO D UJ
"O Q_ 3
Q -•— 3 O
"SH CM (T3 Q_ OO
«< CO 'r- LO
— 1 OJ C_» *•
co i s_ ex: r
— o a 3
co s a. >>
LU g ^± -M
>— < -M O r-. 1 -i—
ce nj cj ^^, o
•— « ^^ CM o ^a
< u •*-» i— cs. a.
ce o ^ >•> ti
Q_ O i — i — O
CM LO r»-
~
r*. ^— o
ro r** i —
O O O
CsJ LO OO
CJ> LO CM
LO ro cn
LO
ro r-..
' — CM
CO CO
CM cn
«~ CM LO
O CO CO
CM *a- ro

o -a-
cn LO
r— LO
CO CO
CO r-
ro CO CM
ro r-. r-..
LO LO cn
<0r-^
cn co oo
o LO ro
CM en co
ro  i — CM
*T LO i~o LO OJ r^*. cn
.— CM ro CM

i — cn cn LO f —
cn LO o co ro
r— •— , — ro
CM CM CM , — (—-
ro cn i — «^- 
-------
1 S_
.c  CL
O) O E
> "O tt)
*f i-


«,•£
4-> E
rtJ (U
S- L.
Q) C
(/> O
SV)
t.
OJ
CL




Personnel

~O
Ol '

C7>
i
q
>
arting organization
Q.


c
o
V)
L
at
o.
>,
+J~
•*->
Z3
Contractor
Maintenance
Operations
(T3
+J
O
1—

>.
-U
-M
ID
Contractor
rO
4-1
O
I—

X
=~


J


CM CM U1
r— i—
tO CM i—
r— Lf> Cn
o o •—
cn
^r
in
o
o
o
CM «a-
r~ CM
CO m
CM tn
r^ ro
CM *3- Cn
in co *3-
r— CO L0



lO IT) CO
ro r- o
cn r-^ co
^- «3- r-.
cr\ r-. cr»
CM (— CM
r—
m *f in

r*. CM
ro r*.
"-^
- CM OJ
CMr- 3
ro E!
1 C
OL O ro
0. -r- CM
Q -M CO
fO
M s- »
r— »
*— e •*->
4-> O CO 1 -r-
OC -^ --^ O* rO
oi u -M in Q. a.
tD O tfl >, 113
CO O i — h- <->

0
01
^r
o
CM
UD
CM


m
CO



CO
UD

c
0
O -M
in to
.— I S-
ce ai *>
s: s -M
+J 0 I '•-
bJ -X d) (13
a: u -*-> Q. a.
31 O wi >> .
<3- rs r-
en ^3- r-*
tn 
T3
*> S-
*T i— 0» OJ
in CL 3
oB CM O 2
ro *r— in
O r3 **
h- »
S -w
>- -M O O"> 1 •»-
^ -X ^%» > rtj
1— Q r- K- C_J
^j- i — m

LO f— l^>
ro ^0 m
000
m CM
r- CO
ro r«s
O LTJ
CM LD
cn r-N
^- ^J-
CM  VD cn
CO •— CO
CM f—

m
CO
<3-
•O
^3- r-*. p*x
t 50-271, OPR-28
ommerclal operation 11/72
- BWR
•ity - 514 MWe
E -^  a. a.
UJ O Wi >» nj
=* O r— I— CJ
co co tn CM — co o
,_ ^_ f^ i— i— •—
i— co o ^o ^r ^
r— p-. tn cn m co o
r— O O O O O O
»— r», r— CO ^O to O
cn cn r-* o r>. O ^3
CO CO Cn r-. O cn CO
cn m ^o in to
u3 cn pj- cn r-v
^o o ^i- o CM
«3- i^D «3- ^O >O
*
ui tn o m ^o ,
e -*J
UJ 4-» O 1 •>-
^ ^C CU T3
^ (j •*-» a. o.
«C O W >> T3
>- O f— r— CJ
CM r—
0
CO CO
^- o
O
CO CM
<3- r-v
m in
r~ *f
0
to
to r-»
tn r—

cn m
r— cn
CM ^T
r--. co
CO CO
cn
.
* £ •*-*
i— +^ O ^ 1 -r~
z: j-: -^ oj fo
o u -M cn a. a.
"— O tn >-, itj
1*^1 O < — i — O
235
-------
     Table 9-8 shows the annual  person-rem at each  LWR  power  station  for
each year 1969-1975; where there is more than one reactor  per station,
the figure shown is the total  for all  units.   Table 9-9 shows the  whole
body exposures by exposure ranges for  calendar year 1975.   The average
exposure per reactor per year for all  reactors and  for  PWR's  and BWR's
is shown in table 9-10.  In 1975 an average of 578  persons per reactor
received measurable exposure with an average exposure per  individual  of
0.8 rem (table 9-11).  The number of persons at commercial reactors
receiving exposures in excess of the limits established by 10 CFR  Part 20
are reported in table 9-12.

     Data on personnel and radiation exposure by work function are shown
in tables 9-13 and 9-14.  Routine and  special maintenance  continue to
account for the major portion of in-plant exposure.  The data accounts
for approximately one-half of the total  exposure received  at  LWR's
during 1975 because not all data submitted by licensees could be cate-
gorized by the work function.

     ERDA Standards for Radiation Protection are applicable to ERDA  and
ERDA contractor operations not subject to Nuclear Regulatory  Commission
licensing.  The two basic requirements for all ERDA operations are:   (1)
that all operations are conducted in a manner to assure that  radiation
exposure to individuals and population groups is limited to'the lowest
levels technically and economically practicable, and (2) that radiation
exposure to individuals or population  groups be maintained below pre-
scribed limits.  The prescribed limits for occupationally  exposed  indiv-
iduals are given in table 9-1.

     Table 9-15 gives annual whole body exposure data for  ERDA and its
contractors for the past 12 years.  The number of  people monitored by
ERDA has decreased over the period but that is not  necessarily a good
indicator of the number of radiation workers because contractors have
some flexibility as to whom they monitor.  The increase in total number
of workers monitored in 1975 does reflect increased employment in  a  few
technical programs.

     Table 9-16 gives information on trends in higher exposures.   The
percent of employees with high dose equivalents increased  somewhat in
1975 and in table 9-17 the source of this increase  is more evident.   The
increase in dose equivalent in the Oak Ridge Operations Office is  due
primarily to the expansion of the gaseous diffusion plant  capability; at
Pittsburgh Naval Reactors, the replacement of a steam generator and
major plant modification for installation of the light water breeder
reactor (LWBR) core at the Shippingport Atomic Power Station  contributed
to the increase; at Schenectady Naval  Reactors, the increase  was due to
the overhaul, refueling, and  modification of naval prototype reactor
plants to test newly designed naval reactor plant components.  It  is
expected that radiation exposures will diminish when some  of  the work is
completed.
                                 236
-------
~O  CO
 QJ  CU
 to  i-
 c  rs
 CD  to
 o  o
•r-  O.
r—  X
    cu
+->
 fO  >>
   •o
i—  O
 O) -Q
 C
 C  01
 O i—
 tO  O
 S- ^
 O)  S
 a.    L
   un V
•o r-~
 a) cn
 CO r— I
 X  (O  to
 CU  O) -P
    >>  s-

^  g.
i—  ro  01
 n3 "O  S-
 c  c:
 o  cu rv.
•i- r— O
4->  ra •*
 ro  O   •
 a.    o
 3   I  CXJ
 u
 U  to Di
 O  0) U_
   •r- O
 >>•*->
ja T- o
 Ol U  S_
 > ro  CU
•r- 4-  0.
    o
 O)  Q.
 to
 o  s-
Q  ra
    cu
  I
cr>

 cu

-Q
 ro
    (J
    3
    C


















£

C/J
QJ
C
(TS
C£.
CU
t/)
O
O-
X
UJ





















H-
io
0) 0
1
o o
eo cn
o o
p- 00
t
0 0

vo P~
i
o o
1
o o
o o
o o
CM ro
O O
. — CM
1
r- o
o i—


O U1
0 0

IT) O
CM W5
O O
o in
. — CM
o o
01
ja
/o o
s. o
13 ' —
vl V
ro
111
E
u
.O
fO OJ
i- S-
3 3
trt (/t
ro O
o> cx
z: x
o
z:


•o
ro o
z
Z C
dl
•M U

0

CM
CO
*-












*-

ro
CM
CO



CM

CM
cn


LT)







CM
r-
IT)
*




O)
^
o:
1
OJ CO
11 1
.* a:
c a.
ra a

ro
ro










-
*
*
CM

ro
CM
r-.



5!

CM
O


ro







S




+J
o
a.
u
O ^D
ct:
ca
1
ro
O
ro











CM
CM
a

z
Ch



Lf)

o
CO
CM


o
o







00





>,
&
Huraboldt
DPR-7

CO
CM












»

ro
a,



-

CO
o
CM

IT)







CM
*

CM >J3
Lf>
r- ,
•M *
OD T
0 CU
10 0-
OJ Q
CX

P-.
CO











-
-
ro

IT)
r-
CM



3

CM
ro


S







ro
ro





0)
i.
o **>
C r-
c a.
•0 O
CO

r-
^h-


/-

<-

0


CM
CV
ro
s

CM
O
CM
^



S

2
in
"

ro







CM





0)
01
U
WVD
t- r—
0) 1
t/> a.

ro
CO












-
o
CM

O
CM
«*



co

CO
01
ro
cn


CM







S





C
c
O CO
• 1
LU Of
a.

S











-
cn
CO
ro

r*.
LO
CM



ro

m
o


o
CM







cn





01
0)
•o O
fO CM
t/1 1
£!
cu

5
ro


ro

r~

O


CM
CM
CO
O
r->
O
ro

p^
ro
S



CM
CU

CO
cn
CM


CO







CO
o
cn




CM
in
- .
O '

CO
r~~




CM

«.


PN.
UD
CM
ro
cn

cn
ro
CM
cn



CM

CO
CM
CM
a


CM







ro





O
4> CM
U CM
•M C£
c a.
O Q
s:
                                                   237
-------



0
1—
1
o o
CTi O
1
O O
CO CT>
1
0 0
1-^ CO
o o
0 O
LT) VJO
t
0 0

^- IT)
O O
"'*'
0 O
CM ro
o o

t— CM
1
r-- o
O r—
o un
Ln r-.
o" o
1
in o
CM Ln
d d
O in
t — CM
O O
01
tJ O
s- o
3 .—
t/1 V
CU
z:
01
to tu
i. S-
3 a


CM
in

in
un

o



o

CM





CT>
CTi
IT)






CM
C
O
in

.a
o
CM
• i
co c£
CL

31
ro

UD







-
in
CO


01

£

en
r —

^
i —

r-.
CM

CM
ro

CM
ro


in







^>

CM






CM
„

CM
JT
U «
 CM
•r— 1
O  O
U.

CM
*
un

ro
CO

^
-—

o
ro

en
CM

^
in


CM
o






*3~
CM
ro












E in
•r- ro



-r- Q
CL
ro














in

en
ro


CO

O
ro

CO
ro

CM
ro

^
<3-


CO

i —





ro
ro
CM











-*
ro
>- "^
CO
01 1
c Cd
•r- d.
n a
s
1
00
o

r"~







CM


in

£

CM
O
^
^
^t


U3

|^
" —

ro
U3




CM





Ln
in
CM





U1
in
CO *


CM,
"CO
. — ro
i
cu wi
GJ -
c ex
O Cx.

o
238
-------
—I

1—
o
1—
oo
 O
00
oo a\
0 0
r-. 00
t
o o
>& f-x
oo
ID U3
(
o o
*r trj
0 0

1
o o
CM cn
o o
i — CM
i
ID
r-- 0
O r—
j
O to
ID (-«.
o o'
)
ID O
CM ID
o o'
1
O ID
i— CM
o'o'
CU

in
o




o
u
OJ
to

o in
JT t
u a:
c a_
/o o
CE:

LO
CO













r—



r-

cn



r-


in
CM



CO


CO
CO


^_
ro
CM




p«^.

*




j=
u
rO

in
C 1


-o o
UJ
O

P^



















ro


to



(S^



ro
CM


CsJ
CO


o
o





0

m






§
t_j CO
ID
. 1
o a:
Q_
• O
o
01
UD
0^

^

















o,






^VH,
1 —


CM
CM


*^"
(--.


r--
UD





^-

^





o

•M Oh


CO
C%J


CO
S

cr.
^

ro
CO


^.
CM



in


cn



CO
cn





r—

*°

-t-»
c

o
O-

01
^ ro
1
aj o;


z
239
-------
2

1—
o
1 —
0 0
O^ O
1
O O
CO d
1
O O
r-. co
i
o o
0 0
un ^o
i
o o
Win'
o o

m ^r
i
o o

CM CO
[
O O

r— CNJ
PS. O

O r-
o un
un P-*
o o
un o
CM un
o o
o un
•— CM
,
Ol

^
















CM



CM

un
CO

CO
CTi




O O
CD
s
rT3 O
1- O
ZJ < —
Irt V
*o
QJ
£
U
S
fO QJ
i_ s_
ZJ ZJ
(/> 1/1
m O
0) Q.
s: x
LU
O
2=



•o



 Q
U-


1 — .














CM


CO
ro




^
< —

ro
ro



in






ro







ro
CM






CM
*
r—

C


VI


QJ CM

•r- CC
(O CX
i- O
Q_


CNJ

















un


CM


ud


uo
1—


CO






un







ro
^j-
















ai
a» ro
c ^j-
3 i
« a:
S a_
^a
un
CM
CM








CM
r—

CTi
i —


CM

un
CM




«d-


^
f—


0
CM




O








O

















OJ
t/i in
i^ ^r
O 1
s- a;
C_J 0-
fT3 O
__J
^
CO
Q^













CM
CO
1,Q
-"












i
«3-


ro
CM

CM



LD





ro
CM

O


t-i?
OJ 1
a. a:
o tx
o o

CO


^.
Cxi


un






0







m
o

«













C

< g;
OJ 1
c a:

3O
Q
LD

VO
-"






| 	
^
CM

01
CM




O

r—
CO
m

^
u~>

CO
CO




r—



O
CO
ro







^f-
r-.







CNJ
A



C CM

O -
(X un
i
C tfl
(O -

-o a.
C Q

ro
r—




















tn



ro

CO
r-.

-K
O




-tt
O







*
o









-o
' 03




QJ


E 0
ai i
OJ OC
s- a.
-C O
h-
un
ro
"-O




















CO


un


cc










CO







CO
CO
















00
i/l LO
C 1
ra CE:
-ii CX
i- Q
<%.
                              •a
                              a
240
-------
Table 9-10.   Dose  summary  of  licensed  nuclear power facilities,
             1969-1975 (9.15)

Year
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975

1969
1970
1971
••972
1973
1974
1975

1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
a.
All light water reactors
Number of Average rated
reactors capacity [MW(e)J
7
10
13
18
26
32
44
b.
4
5
6
8
12
18
26
c.
3
5
7
10
14
14
18
267
362
401
472
546
581
640
Pressurized water reactors
381
403
459
500
575
625
650
Boiling water reactors
116
322
351
450
521
521
626

Yearly average
person-rem/
reactor-year
178
365
294
364
534
427
457

165
599
340
463
772
364
309

195
130
255
286
330
507
670
                              241
-------
Table 9-11.   Average occupational  radiation  exposure
        per individual  for licensed nuclear  power
        facilities,  1969-1975 (9.15)
             Average exposure         Average  number  of
Year       per individual  (rem)      personnel  per  reactor
1969               1.1                       141

1970               1.0                      305

1971               1.0                      302

1972               1.2                      344

1973               0.9                      584

1974               0.8                      515

1975               0.8                      578
                        242
-------
                           0)
     E  oo
    •r-  O
     X  CL
     (O  X
    s:  cu
                       CU
                   M-  >
                   O T-
                              rO
 00
 s-
 o
 •4->
 u
 to
 Ol
 o
 Q.
 O
 S-
 QJ
 O
 O
 ea

 oo
 O)
 s_
 3
 to
 o
 Q.
 X
 d)

 CU
CM


CTl

 QJ

JO
 
 O  X O  13
 Q.  CU •!-  E
 O)     4J
 5-  O fO  CU
    -(-> i-  >
 <+-     4-> •!-
 O  CU C +J
     S- CU  O
 S-  13 O  
        o  s-
    X  Q.	
 O  ro  X
-CEO)
                   a»
    O
    X3
    O)
    O
   -C

c •—
o  o
00  >
s-  c
O) -r-
                      3  CL
       0  0
       00  (O
   Oj- (U -r-
    O S- T3
       3  fO
    S- 00  S-
    O) o
   -Q Q-r—
    E X  (O
    3 CD  C
   s: s-  s-
       OJ  O)
       > 4->
       O  X
                         S-
                         fO
                         CU
                   E  -O
                   CU  -r-
                   s-  o
                      S-
                  CM  >,
                  LO  _C
                  O  4->
                                      I
                                     o
                                     Q-
o
o
o
CM
                                                                      i      E
                                                                     O     O) -—^
                                                                     Q-     i-  CD
                                                                     oo
                                                                     oo
                                                                            oo -
                                            CM
                                                      CM
                            r—     O

                            un     «3-
                     CO

                     OO
                         LT)
                                    CTl
                                                  Ol

                                                  LD
                                                         CM
                                                                    oo
                                           CTi
                                   CM
                                   r^
                                   cr>
                                   oo
                                   r~>.
                                   01
                                                                    O~>
                     i_n
                     i -x
                     en
                                                 243
-------
Table 9-13.  Number of personnel  and dose by work function
at licensed nuclear power facilities, 1975 (9.15)
a. Number of employees

Work
function
Reactor operations
Routine maintenance
Inservice inspection
Special maintenance
Waste processing
Refueling
Totals
b. Total
Reactor operations
Routine maintenance
Inservice inspection
Special maintenance
Waste processing
Refueling
Totals

Station
employees
1105
2118
250
752
520
306
5051
(>100 mrem/y)

Utility
employees
81
198
99
429
63
10
880

Contract
workers
and others
143
6330
251
1204
521
156
8605


Total
1329
8646
600
2385
1104
472
14536
dose (person-rem)
1136
2134
60
705
635
449
5119
13
267
63
423
19
127
912
60
3466
207
999
120
289
5141
1209
5867
330
2127
774
865
11172
                        244
-------
                         to
                        +->
                         o
                           CO
                           o
                                         to
                                         CM
                                         LO
                               o

                               OO
                               o
                               CTi
                      en
                      10
                                                                          o
                                                                          o
 to

 E
 O
•I—
4J
 O
 E
 3
              cu

              3
              00
              o
              Q.
              X
                         S_
                         o
                         o
                         (O
                    o
                    o
              un

              O
                 •—     CO

                 r—     i—•
                 OO
              cn     r—
              co     •—
                                                                      CM
                               CO

                               o
                                     LO


                                     CNJ
                               CM    i—     00

                               i—    O     LT>
                                                                              un
jo  LO
    r^
 0)  CTl
 O  00
 Q. QJ
 X  •!-
 O)  +->
 C -r-
 (O  (J
    (O
QJ
 OJ
 C
 E
 O
 (/)  O
 i-  Q.
 Ol
 Q. S-
    (O
<+-    0)
 C  00
 OJ  C
 O  O)
 S-  (J
 (!)  -i-
Q-  i —
 E
 o

 S-
 Ol
Q-
03

o
 i.
 o
 o
 tO
 S-
 E
 O
o
                               CM

                               CTl
                                     CTi
                                     LD
un
oo
                                             r—    OO

                                             •=3-    tO
                                                               to
                                                     OO

                                                     oo
                                                             o
                                                             o
                                             r^.    CM

                                             r-^    CO
                                              to
                                              oo
                                                                          en
                                                                          if)
                           CM

                           CO
                                             CM
                                      r—     O

                                      CO     ^
                                              OO

                                              CM
 I
en
   —^
                           CJ  00
                           (O
                           a)
                           o:
                                          cu
                                          o
                                          E
                                          tO
                                          E
                                          0)
                                          
-------

o
u
rJ oi
-5 0
H H
0 M
e-i z
CO
r-j
o^ S
v— XX
 £
CO Z M
•r— U
j= 3
S
i>
<" g
*~ .-^ v
3 8 y
S M "
0- S
X P
«" 0
C H
o g -

£ H
ra co
,r_ td
"O En ^
(O O
s- ~/ c
o£
>> I
-a s
0 z
jz a
OJ
o
-C
2


.
in
r-H
1
CT>

 CM CTs CO <7s
co in r^ oo i —
CM CO CO O O
r-l r-l rl rl I-l
r-l



r-l CM




O SO r-l
rH




v£) CM CM -3-
CM


r^ in \D r^l
CM i-l




O so  i— 1 v£> <
r-< CN CO r-l r- 1



1
1
in m r^ in m
r^ r-1 o m CM
m m in in <



co  r^ a
^£) vO vO \0 vf
a^ o> c.n a> o



x) t— * »n o r*««
— t v£) i— i vD Is"*
> vO CO *^ C\
•M ^o  i-t
O O^ O^ CO ^









i-H rH





i~4








CM




-3- CO CM r-l






XI D
0] CO rJ
l-i O O
3 CX IH
en X
CO 0) 0)
Q) -i
CU CU
C C co
 0 J3
•H 4J
3 >,
cr h MH
<1>  r-l
•HO rH
CU -u ^
O so
 a)
4J CU i-l
Vj
MH CX VI
o a)
§.c
4_J
C Vi •
CU M-I ,4 B
O O O
(U CU O U-l
CX M-I CO
M-I >J >>
in -H U r-i
SO 'O C 4J
0 J3
>sP-« U 60
I— 1 sO *rt
CD OS M rH
4J r-l O CO
CO "i-i
E T> CO |H
•n C B cu •
X CO M-I CD
O CU MH l-J
L> so c M a)
£XsO O -o 3
O- OS -rj
CO rH IH O ^1
O 4J >
" VJ tO *rl
in o co t3 TJ
l-» t-i -O C
a> h cu 1-1
rH CO O 00
4J CJ cu r~
C CO CU £ c-J
M O tJ H CM
* * *
* *
*
246
-------
                            0)

                         "3 O
                            C
                            O
 S-
 o
-p
 o
 ra
 o
 a
Q
a:
 c
 ro
      ra


        CU

     ,_  I

    ro  E
    -P  O
    O  co
 o
-p
 CO
 cu
 s-
 3
 CO ->»
 O ^O
 Q.t-1
 X  .
 CU o>


"O CO
 O O)
J3 CU
 I  >>
 CU O
p— r—
 O Q.
^= E
3 CU
CO


CTi

 CU

jQ
 rO
        CU
    E -O.
    ro  E
JE -C  3
-P -P  E
 CO  -P  CU
 CU  ro  S-
 a>  a>
 >, i- CM
 O  CT<
 E  c
 CU  CU
                     -P  3 CU
                     E  CTJ3
                     CU  CU E
                            3
                         a> E
 U
 s-
 ai
CL,  O
    a
       CU
                            $_
                            ro
                            at
IO
to
CTl

r^.
co
•st
in
•=d-
un
r*—
CO
co
r^

CO
cn


r-^
CO
CO
r^
tn
CO
LO
0
(.0
<-O
CTi

to
00
co
oo
o
un
i—
f^
OO
LO
5

CO
CM


CM
CM
<4D

co
r~.

CT>
<£>


oo
cr>
CM
•3-
r^.
<—
•*


cr>


10
to
to
cr>
r-~-
CO
P—
CD
00
r~-
r~-

•=J-
co


IO
h~.
«*
=*
OO
VO
•*

o
r->
o->

LO
!—~
oo
•=*
CTl
in
ai
oo
LO
LO
cn
CM

r^
oo


LO
(•»-,
VO
co
o
cn
co

r—
r^
CT>

0
i-Q
•*
CTi
CO
0
r^
f— .
to
CO
LO
CM

o
*d-


oo
CO
oo
CO
CO
r~>
CO

CM
l^s
CTl

r-^
r^
CTl
r—
CTl
CO
Csj
CO
LO
CM
CO
CTl

LO
0


iO
0
CTi
CM
IO
^-
00
CO
CO
r— -
CO
LO
00
CM
'
00
CM


<^"
r^.
CTi
CM
to
CO
CO

LO
r-v
CTi

"O E
CU -P-
-P
c -a
CU E
co CU
CU S-
S- -P
Q.
CU CU
S- -E
-P
CO
•t- >>
-E r—
-P E
o
LO -P -P
f-^
CTi
r—

C
1—1


•
•o
CU
"O
3
r— •
O
X
O)

C"
O)
CU
-Q
CU
>
ro
C"

E


p~

E
ro
-E
-f_>

CO
co
CU
r— •

If—
o

40
E
CU
p~-
rO
.^!
3
O
CD
P—
cj 	
O)
S-

ra
-p
ra
-a

0)
co
CU
^"
-f_>

#1
CU
5-
0
l^ 	
CU
s_
0)
-E
h-


E'
0)

1
E
O
CO
S-
cu
Q.

P.^
ro

O
-P

CU
J^*
4-)

O

E
CU
r—
n3
>
•r-
^3
cr

•1 —
-p
o
CU
•—
"o
o

p—
ra
-p
o
1 *>
^— *
CU
r"
-p

E
rtS
C"
-p

S-
cu
c"
-p
ro
$_

CO
-p
E
CU
ra
>
CT-P T-
CU

CU
co
O


C"
-f-5
•r—
5

CO
r—

•p™
"O
C
1 — 1
TO
C
CU
CJ
S-
cu
Q.

O
LO

>^
P—
a;
-p
rO
E
•p-
X
o
^.
ex
ex
ro

3
cr
cu

cu
CO
0
-o

CP-
O

CO
CU
CD
E
ro
S-

c"
CT-
•r—
_E

E
O
•p-
-P
ro
-a
ro
CU
-C
-p
E
•r*
s_
o
i.
cu

E
ra

CP-
o

^~
S-
cu
>>
o
o
CO
•p—
TH3

CU
.E
-P

O
1 \

O)
3
•^3

CO
-P
O
ex
cu
i-

co
3
O
• p-
>
cu
i.
cx

E
o
^.
Cf_

^.
cu
CP-
•r—
T3

p^.
to
CTi
P—

T3
E
ra

to
to
CT>
P—

S^
O
CP-

ra
4_)
ra
Q
_Q





































•
c
0
•P
(_)
ra

-l_>
E
O
a

^_
o
ra
E


•P«
-a
E
•P~

r^
CM
CM

S-
o


                                                            247
-------
        Table 9-17.  Occupational dose equivalent for 1974-1975
                     by ERDA Field Office (9.16)
Field office

Albuquerque
Chicago
Grand Junction
Idaho
Nevada
Oak Ridge
Pittsburgh Naval Reactors
Richland
San Francisco
Schenectady Naval Reactors
Savannah River
      TOTAL
Person-rem
1974
2405
1943
--
686
58
1178
587
2079
320
261
1484
1975
2324
1638
5
611
55
1284
1876
2257
283
1022
1268
Change
(percent)
-3
-17
--
-11
-5
+9
+220
+8
-12
+292
-15
11001
12622
+15
                                 248
-------
     A  breakdown of  the 1975 whole-body dose equivalents by type of
 facility  is given  in  table 9-18.  Employees working in reactor, fuel
 reprocessing, and  accelerator facilities continue to receive the highest
 average exposures.   General research and other facilities, which accounts
 for  50  percent of  the total dose equivalent, includes many employees who
 more appropriately should be reported under another facility type.  This
 category  should include only those who received their radiation exposures
 from a  variety of  sources.  Average exposure per individual by type of
 facility  is shown  in  table 9-19.

     Only one ERDA contractor employee received a  whole-body  exposure
greater than the limit of 5 rem during 1975.   The  exposure of 8-9  rem as
measured by the workers'  dosimeter occurred in a well-type gamma-ray
calibration facility.  ERDA contractors reported that 48  workers  in 1975
were determined to have radioactive material  deposited in their bodies
which produced 50 percent of the annual  dose equivalent standard  for a
critical organ (table 9-20)  (9.16).

     The ERDA also operates the U.S.  Transuranium  Registry lUSTR),  a
center collecting precise information about the occupational  effects of
transuranium elements on man.   Participation in this registry,  which was
established by the Atomic Energy Commission in 1968, is completely
voluntary on an individual basis and includes  release of  medical  and
health physics data.   Permission is also obtained  on a voluntary  basis
for post mortem analyses of tissues of interest.   The principal  criterion
used by USTR to determine the inclusion of an  individual  in the registry
is that the employer provides a routine surveillance program  because of
a reasonable likelihood that exposure could occur.

     Each of the major ERDA facilities participates  in the registry,
including Hanford, Savannah River Plant, Rocky Flats,  Los Alamos,  Mound
Laboratory, and Oak Ridge as well  as NRC licensees.

     As of October 1, 1976,  a total  of 13,943  United States transuranium
workers have been included in registry data.   Table  9-21  indicates the
number of workers identified,  health physics and medical  releases  obtained,
autopsy permissions obtained,  autopsies completed  and autopsy reports
completed.  For comparison,  table 9-22 shows the same data for the
previous year.  The large number of workers identified for the registry
in 1976 was due to the completion of a study to identify  workers  employed
before 1958 and terminating before January 1,  1976 (9.17).

     Most of the data on occupational  exposure to  plutonium comes  from
medical followup data on military personnel who worked with plutonium in
1944-45 at Los Alamos.  Hempelmann et al.  reported that "to date,  none
of the medical findings in the group can be attributed definitely to
internally deposited plutonium"  (9.18).   The selected cases shown in
table 9-23 represent systemic plutonium burdens ranging from  0.13  to
0.42 Ci, which correspond to annual  bone doses of  approximately 2  to 6
rad  (9.19).
                                 249
-------






to
1 1

Oi
s — .

t/i
CU
QJ
O
Q.
E
CU

i.
o
0
!_
4J
C
o
0

5—
Q
LU

~O
ro
^5-
f \
o;
UJ

^
fO
O
(/)
QJ
S_
^
to
o
Q.
X
cu

>}
"O
o
.a

cu

0
"i

r—
OJ
__
c
c
ro
if-
°

c:
0
*r—
3
(
il
t/1
.,_
r"t


.
00
T. 1

1
CTl

cu

r*»
 1
-• 1
) 1
J* 1

7» [
n i



TO 1
1 1
N 1

N 1
1 1
0 1

a i
,n l

n l
i l
 "-4 |

o in i
n "- l
• • I
0 0 1

vn o i
CM in |
• • 1
O O |
3 '.0 1
-i M i
• • i
0 O 1
0 1
-« 1
• 1
0 1
V 1
• 1
n l
^ l
V U 1
S 1
u: i
_J h*> 1
4 -. 1
t- 2 1
a u i
t- X 1


>- i
i- i
— \
_j i
•-» dj I
u a i
4 > 1
U. t- 1
O 10 i*) ro in 'J1 (^ l/l '"vj -^ —.
ONOB"! rnON'O-*f>g
TOtVSn^ Oi-.
3* "NJ ^* '3D D i~ I O OJ ^O

ini)*:\jnj -*rr)^. 00 O
-4 O
SOt^M-* "OOJO-f— •
'M^^'O^ '-D^NjOLOO
^•^.ry^jl ^J*D^ o
AJ f\J XJ
OJ ^ > 0 '/> CM -H in ^ O '7>
00^-4-00 ^Oioos-*
DiOOojfj r\i*HO^»f}^
in * j* — i) *n 'NJ
ro
'M'tfi/lf%*J» OnJOO'— O
CO N ^ O N ^O^^^O
o %M o m  I/) f\J ^ -^ fS.
^ «H '/) (J*
OJOt/1-^liJ ^^Jv^OO^
-"ijO'^N'^J -OON^^N
coo's*-* sro^>^n
rO-^- 'ON-^'O^N
•"•* "1 •"*!/) ^
w*
x H j x a c/i
^ U uS J ' J K -------
                 o
                 o
                 CO
                  I
                 o
                 o
                 CM
                 o
                 o
                 CM

                 o
                 o
§
(O
co
O)
                 o
                 o
                 1—I
                  I
                 o
                 m
 CO
 O
 Q.
 (U
"O
     OJ

     l_
     o
     +J
     o
     (O
 ^x   O
•o*   u
 O   cj-
•O   Q
     o:
n   uj
 c
     T3
      C
                 o
                 m
                  i
                 O
                 CO
                 O
                 CO
                 m
                 CM
                 in
                 CM
                  i
                 o
                 CM
     Q
     0£
     UJ
 en
                 O
                 CM
                  I
                 m
     If)
 3
 CO
 CO
 OJ

 3
 CO
 o
 Q-
 X
 
-------




























CX
.2

to
en
£
s_
4_)
to
CT1
CD
i-

E

.i —
c:
ro
3
tn
c~
rO

OO

— 1

.

CM
1
CTl

OJ
_O
(O
r—





































to
i.
O
a. oj
OJ 4->
S- OJ

=-. Q.
t/> E
0- 0
0 0
•*






in
OJ -O
•r- QJ
t/> C
O..I-
o a
4-1 4-^

} (/)
4-> Q.
•r- O
S- 4->
O 3
-C ro
40
13







to
O r—
O) ro
4- O to
4- T- Ol
OJ T3 t/)
QJ ro
-C £ Ql
i— -a oj
ro C S-
OJ ro







T3
C to -i-
ro S- t-
S- QJ -r-
3 -V +->
l/> S- C
C O QJ
ro 3 T3
S- •!-
1—




r-
+-i O •+-*
0 4-> ro
"O

i-
ro QJ
•a s- 4J

OJ QJ -O
r— >,
ro O
<_5 4J
• CX
O 0)
2 00
ro Oj
4-> •*->
O O ro
I— 4-> -a

t_
ra CU
"a i- 4->
C to ro
Q) QJ -a
i— >>
to O
C_> -M
• Q.
O OJ
s: oo

ro QJ
4-> O 4->
0 4J ro
r— -0
S-
ro QJ

C >
ta o
U 40

• a.
o a>
2: oo

ro OJ
4-> O 4->
0 4-> ro
1— T3


L.
ra OJ
"O t- 4-*
C ro ro
QJ OJ -0
ro O
O 4J

• CX
O 0)
21 OO

'ra OJ
4-3 O 4-'
O 4-> ro
H~ "O


^.
to QJ
•a s- 4->
C ro ro
cu oj -a
1— >!
ro O
• a.
0 0)
2: oo




to
i-
o

o
ro
i.
40
C
O
o

O O CM O •— r— 5t
r— OO ^t





CM O i— O O O OO





O O O O O O O


CM VO *3- O i — i — «3-
CM OO CO





r~. CM o o o o en





CM O O O O O CM



un r-~ r^ o en o oo
CM f^- CM OO
tn i— i— co



.— tn o o o o to






o o o o o o o


1JD O r-> O 00 O •—
^j- un uo to
r— f~. CM r—
CM i— «*





CM cn o o o o r—
I — OO LO
1— 1—



o cn o o o o cn
1 r~~
to oo ^a- to oo ^1- to
to ' — CM r^ oo i — CM
en cn o LO oo oo
to •— oo i— ••
00
' — '



co •— o cn o oo i—

to r— oo


^3- cn o cn o oo LO
oo i — i — r^.
to to
*± *d-
S-
01
^
to -r-
4J tO QC r—
ro O Oj to
•— E -C cn 4->
"O U. to ro "O O
S- I— C -r- 4->
O >> <. C T3 Q; J3
<*- ^i ro C 3
C O  3 -* OO
ro O O ro O ro
i a: _i oo 2: o

o o o o **•






co co co o oo





o o o o o


i— o o o in
to





•—0 0 O O





00 O O CM



CM OO CM i— i—

CO



r— r— CM r—i—






o o o o o


cn CM r— 1—^3-
oo to to
CM






f} r— i— r-— "vj-
^O r—
csi



o o o o cn
r
en CM .— r- OO

*™ cn

CO
r—



CO r— i— p— ^J"
to r^*-
co
•a-

o o o o to


*

i_ .
ro u
Ol i— c
ro i — OJ i — i
to ro O 3
OJ -o 	 1 3 08 Ll_ »
OJ C Z to
> .* S- Qj r—
C i — cn C OX fOO to
QJ .Cl- O OO OJ'r- 4->
O OOJ X O O r— > O
•r- -i-C X -Qi — OS- r—
_] QiLlJ UJ tO-r- 30J
cn 3 z oo
253
-------






























^_^
cv
oj
LO
r»^
CTi


"
S-

co
>r_
en
cu
i.

E
C
ra
S_
13
CO
c
ra
c.
+j

.
CO
ID



CM
CM
1
CTi

CU
^
ro
1—































CO
1 '
S-
o
o. cu
 4->
S- CU
r—
>> 0.
co E
a. o
o o
<






CO
cu -a
•r- CU
CO C
CL-I-
O ra
+-> -M
3 -Q
=c o







i.
0
-^
>, CO
-4_) Q_
•i- O
S- +->
O =3
-C ro

^



ra CU
-!-> O -P
O •(-> ro
I— "a


t-
ro CU
•a s- 4->
C ro ro
cu cu -o

ro O
O 4->
• Q.
o cu
21 CO
ro CU
4-) O -P
O 4-> ro
I— -a
S-
ro CU
-a s- +->
c~ m m
cu cu -a
f^ ^)
ro O
O 4->

• Q.
o ai
SI co

ro CU
-(-> O +-1
O 4-> ro
r— "O


s_
ro CU
•a t- -t->
C ra ra
cu cu -a

ra o
o +->

• a.
o cu
S CO
oo oo o o •— •—
CM






o o o o o o





o o o o o o



•=r ^}- ro o c — r—
i— ro




O ** CM O O O





O i — O O O O


co ro r^~ ro en to
ro r — CM
LO i — I —






00 LD O O ^ O





O O O O ro o








CO
u
•I— 1 —
>, U CO
.c -i- cu
O.T3 CO
CU ro
_c E CU
4_) [—
r— "O Qj
ro C t_
CU ra
n:






E
•r- CU
C CO -r-
ro S- <4-
i. OJ .r-
13 ^*; +J
m s- c
cocu
ro S "O
S- -I-
l—


i — ^j- i — r — o co o
ra cu
4J O 4J
O +-> ra
I— -a


s-
ro CU
-a s- +->
C ro ra
cu cu -o
r— ^)
ra O
C_5 -P


• Q.
o cu
S IY1

ra cu

O +•> ra



s- cu
ro 4J
"D S- ra
c ro -a
CU QJ
r— >, O
ra -P
o
• a.
o cu


CO
S-
0
-I-J
u

s_
+J
c
o
o
r^ i — LO
i — IO CM
CM i—





r-. o o o •* o
ro •*






CM o O o ro o

r^ CM > •=£ c "O a;
it- ^? ra C
C O CO > Z! -^
ra O O ro O ro
n: ct: _i to s: o
oo
ro






o





o



ro
LO




10





] 	


CM
^-
oo






oo





ro




o
LO
o






r—
CO






LO

CO
CD
CD
C3-.




O
ID
CO
CM


CM





t~~
> ro

O
t—




254
-------
Summary

     Occupational and industrial radiation protection programs are
concerned with the exposure of individuals to a radiation environment
during their occupations. There are approximately 3.7 radiation workers
per 1,000 people in the United States, and in 1970 the average annual
individual occupational dose was 0.8 mrem/y.

     The data indicate that the largest occupational exposures generally
are received by waste disposal workers and, to a lesser extent, by
industrial radiographers.

     The highest occupational personnel exposures from U.S. operating
nuclear power plants for the period 1969-1975 have resulted from inplant
maintenance activities.

     The yearly average person-rem per reactor year at pressurized water
reactors was 309 for 1975, a decrease from the previous year; for boiling
water reactors, the yearly average person-rem per reactor year had in-
creased in 1975 to 670 from 507 in 1974.
         Table 9-23.  Plutonium systemic body burden estimates
         for selected Manhattan project plutonium workers at
         three different times9 (9.19)
                                            i (nCi)

            CASE CODE
1953
30-60
80
80
80
60
60
40
1962
10
130
140
140
70
80
90
1972
210
420
260
180
140
150
130
                1


                3


                4

                5


                6


                7


               17
            aPERSONS WITH MORE THAN 120 nCi 239-240Pu SYSTEMIC
             BURDEN IN 1972.
                                 255
-------
References


 (9.1)  KLEMENT, A. W., C. R. MILLER, R. P. MINX, and B. SHLEIEN.
       Estimates of  ionizing radiation doses in the United States,
       1960-2000.  EPA, Office of Radiation Programs, Division of
       Criteria and  Standards, Washington, D.C.  20460 (August 1972).

 (9.2)  UNITED NATIONS SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON THE EFFECTS OF ATOMIC
       RADIATION.  Report to the General Assembly.  Ionizing Radiation:
       Levels and Effects.  Volume 1:Levels.  United Nations, New York
       (1972).

 (9.3)  FEDERAL RADIATION COUNCIL.  Radiation protection guidance for
       federal agencies.  Federal Register (May 18, I960).

 (9.4)  ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADI-
       ATION.  The effects on populations of exposures to low levels of
       ionizing radiation.  Division of Medical Sciences, National
       Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences, National
       Research Council, Washington, D.C.  20006 (November 1972).

 (9.5)  ATHERTON, N.  S.  An investigation of the radiation doses
       received by industrial radiographers.  British Journal of
       Non-destructive Testing (July 1973).

 (9.6)  HOLADAY, D. A.  Evaluation and  control of radon daughter
       hazards in uranium mines, NIOSH 75-117.  Department of
       Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
       Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupa-
       tional Safety and Health, Rockville, Md.  20852 (November 1974).

 (9.7)  ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY.  Radiological and Environmental
       Research Division Annual Report, ANL-76-88, Part II.  Center
       for  Human Radiobiology, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700
       South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois  60439 (1976).

 (9.8)  ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY.  Fact Sheet on Studies of the
       Health of Former Thorium Workers.  Center for Human Radio-
       biology, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne,  Illinois
       60439  (November 1, 1976).

 (9.9)  ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY.  Fact Sheet on Radium Project
       Registry.  Center for Human Radiobiology, Argonne National
       Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois   60439 (November  1, 1976).

(9.20)  MOGHISSI, A.  A. and M. W. CARTER.  Public health implications of
       radioluminous materials, FDA  76-8001.  DHEW, PHS, FDA, Bureau of
       Radiological  Health, Rockville, Md.  20852  (July 1975).
                                  256
-------
(9.11)   TSE,  A.  N.   Measurement of radiation  exposure  received  by
        flight attendants  from shipments  of radioactive  material,
        NR-DES-0001.   Division of Engineering Standards,  Office
        of Standards  Development, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
        Washington,  D.C.   20555 (November 1976).

(9.12)   BROOKS,  B.  G.   Eighth annual  occupational  radiation  exposure
        report 1975,  NUREG-0119.   Operating Data Branch,  Operations
        Evaluation  Division,  Office of Management  Information and
        Program Control, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,  Washington,
        D.C.   20555 (October  1976).

(9.13)   FEDERAL REGISTER.   Performance testing of  personnel  dosimetry.
        Federal  Register,  Vol.  41, No.  198 (Tuesday, October 12,  1976).

(9.14)   NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.   Discussion paper on  performance
        testing of  personnel  dosimetry.   Office of Standards Develop-
        ment, Nuclear Regulatory Commission,  Washington, D.C.  (1976).

(9.IS)   MURPHY,  T.  D., N.  J.  DAYEM, J.  S.  BLAND, and W.  J.  PASCIAK.
        Occupational  radiation exposure at light-water-cooled power
        reactors, 1969-1975,  NUREG-0109.   Radiological  Assessment
        Branch,  Environmental Evaluation  Branch, Nuclear Regulatory
        Commission,  Washington, D.C.   20555  (August 1976).

(9.16)   ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION.   Eighth annual
        report of radiation exposures for ERDA and ERDA  contractor
        employees,  1975, ERDA 77-22.   Division of  Safety, Standards,
        and Compliance, Energy Research and Development  Administration,
        Washington,  D.C.  (1977).

(9.17)   BREITENSTEIN,  B. D.,  JR., M.D., W. D.  NORWOOD, M.D., and C. E.
        NEWTON,  JR.   United States Transuranium Registry Annual Report,
        Act 1, 1975  to October 1, 1976, HEHF-24.   Hanford Environmental
        Health Foundation, Richland,  Washington 99352  (December 1976).

(9.18)   HEMPELMANN,  L.  H., W. H.  LANGHAM  and  others.   Manhattan project
        plutonium workers: a twenty-seven year follow-up study of
        selected cases. Health Physics,  Vol.  25,  pp.  461-479  (Novem-
        ber 1973).

(9.19)   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.   Proceedings  of public hearing:
        plutonium and the  other transuranium  elements, Vol.  1,
        December 10-11, 1974.  Criteria and Standards  Division, Office
        of Radiation Programs, Environmental  Protection  Agency,
        Washington,  D.C.   20460.
                                 257
-------
        Chapter  10 -  Radioactivity in Consumer  Products
     Smoke detectors for homes and digital  wristwatches  are  recent
arrivals on the market of consumer products containing radioactive
materials, whereas, artificial teeth and  dinnerware  containing  these
materials have been in use for some time.   However,  information has
recently become available as to the amount  of  radiation  exposure these
products contribute to the members of the general  population.

     In addition to the consumer products containing or  producing radi-
ation discussed in this report, it is recommended  that the reader refer
to the previous Radiological Quality of the Environment  report  for
additional sources of radiation exposure  (10.1).   Sources discussed in
the last report included television sets  and timepieces  containing
radioactive material.
Radioactivity in digital wristwatohes

     Electronic digital  watches are a  viable consumer  product offering
many advantages over the traditional mechanical  timepieces.  The  two
technologies used in the digital  electronic  watch  market  are LED's  (for
light emitting diodes)  which give a readout  on  demand  and LCD's  (for
liquid crystal display)  which give a continuous  readout.

     The LCD is a passive display meaning that  it  does not emit  light
but instead attenuates  existing light.   This is  accomplished by  util-
izing a thin film of specifically oriented liquid  crystal  material  whose
interaction with polarized light and an electric field is the basis for
the display operation.   The advantage  of the LCD is  that  it requires
very little power to operate but its usefulness  is limited by its  lack
of visibility under low level lighting conditions.

     In February of 1976, the first LCD watch utilizing sealed tritium
luminous sources appeared on the market.   This  display results in  a
truly legible display under all lighting conditions.   It  consist  of a
hollow glass tube whose inside walls are coated  with an inorganic
phosphor and then evacuated and back filled  with tritium  gas and  laser-
sealed.  The radioactive decay of the  tritium gas  releases a low  energy
beta which in turn transfers its energy to the  phosphor which then
releases this excess energy in the form of light.   These  tubes,  placed
behind a liquid crystal  display, result in a self-contained lighting
system completely independent of external power.   The  total tritium
content of these tubes  is 200 mCi or less per watch  (10.2).

                                  259
-------
     Although the tubes have a diffusion rate of less  than 0.1  yCi/24
hours, tests have shown that in general  the watches exhibit a diffusion
rate of less than 0.01 nCi/24 hours which is equal  to  less than 0.5 mrem
per year.  However, the watches are constructed to  make tube breakage
unlikely and to prevent the curious consumer from reaching the tubes
themselves.
Radioactive materials in ceramio glazes

     Uranium has been used as a coloring agent in glazes and glass since
the 18th century.  In the 19th century, these materials were discovered
to be radioactive as a result of their fogging of photographic film.
However, various combinations of uranium salts and oxides were utilized
to render a variety of colors and fluorescences to a wide variety of
glassware early in the 20th century.

     In 1961, the Atomic Energy Commission permitted the use of "exempt"
quantities of uranium not to exceed 20 percent in the glaze of ceramic
tableware and no more than 10 percent in glassware.   The AEC did not
consider these levels of uranium to be a significant radiation hazard.

     In 1971, the Bureau of Food in the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) conducted radiation measurements and 24-60 hour "soak" experiments
using 4 percent acetic acid solutions to duplicate storage of certain
"acid foods" such as sauerkraut, etc.  They found a concentration of 55
ppm uranium and 66 ppm lead in the 60-hour leach solution.

     The Bureau of Radiological Health, FDA concluded that the radiation
levels, although low, constituted an unnecessary and avoidable exposure
to the public.  Based on the leach data, such dishware is also subject
to the food additives clause of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and
subject to its regulations.

     In 1974, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission used a "CONDOS" model
(10.3) and a computer code to estimate the population exposure to the
distribution, use and disposal of a variety of consumer products con-
taining radioactive material (20.4).  Tableware that was assumed to
contain 20 percent natural uranium in the glaze was included in the
study.  With all the parameters considered, dishwashers, waiters and
patrons were the only subjects receiving measurable doses.  In terms of
whole body doses, dishwashers received 34.4 mrem/y, waiters 7.93 mrem/y
and patrons 0.18 mrem/y.

     As a result of adverse publicity and the threat of regulatory
controls, manufacturers no longer use uranium as a color additive.
However, tableware containing uranium in its glaze is still available in
antique shops as collectors' items.
                                  260
-------
Smoke detectors containing radioactive mater>-ial

     Modern smoke detectors give early warnings of incipient fire condi-
tions and this is an effective means of reducing the loss of lives and
property from fires.  The ionization chamber smoke detector uses radio-
active material to ionize the air in its sensing chamber, permitting the
flow of electrical current.  Visible and invisible smoke particles
produced by initial thermal decomposition,  upon entering the sensing
chamber, change the electrical characteristics of the ion flow,  resulting
in the sounding of an alarm.

     Although radium-226 was originally used and is still used by a few
small manufacturers, americium-241  is now the most widely used source
material for ionizing radiation in  smoke detectors.  2U1Am, in the form
of americium oxide, is mixed with gold and  contained in a thin metal
foil with silver and gold backing and cover.  The foil, in the form of
small strips or discs, is fixed mechanically to source holders which are
then mounted in the smoke detectors.

     Smoke detectors for use in commercial  and industrial properties
typically contain 15 microcuries (yCi) of 2ttlAm.  Whereas the single
units used in homes contain 1 pCi or less of 241Am or, in the few cases
where used, 0.1 pCi of radium-226 (10.5).

     The U.S.  population is expected to be  287,000,000 in the year 2000.
Assuming that 50 percent of the living units will have 2 ionization
chamber smoke detectors per unit and that there will be 2.75 persons per
unit, the calculated average individual dose rate will be 7.4 prad/y and
the calculated average population dose rate will be 1.4 yrad/y.

     The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) estimates that a home ioni-
zation smoke detector held within 10 inches of the body for eight hours
a day, every day for a year, will expose a  person to only 1/10 of the
radiation received in a roundtrip flight across the United States.

     All U.S.  manufacturers of smoke detectors containing 241Am  operate
under license from the NRC and comply with  its requirements and  regu-
lations for manufacturing and distribution  of their products.   Thus, the
benefits to be gained from the use  of ionization chamber smoke detectors
outweigh the risks that might be involved.
Uranium in dental porcelain

     For over half a century,  the manufacturers  of artificial  teeth  have
added uranium salts to porcelain in an attempt to match  coloring  and
fluorescence of natural  teeth  under all  lighting conditions.   While  the
resulting porcelain tooth matches the function,  durability,  and appearance
of the natural  tooth, its accompanying risks  are not  known.
                                  261
-------
     The Bureau of Radiological  Health (BRH)  of the Food and Drug
Administration conducted a study on the radiation hazards of porcelain
in dental prostheses.  The data  from that study were published as a
technical report in September 1976 (10.6).   Eighteen sets of artificial
teeth and 23 powders submitted by domestic  and foreign manufacturers
were analyzed for alpha emissions, beta emissions, and uranium concen-
trations (Table 10-1).

     'Uranium concentrations in the porcelain  teeth ranged from less than
0.001 to 0.044 percent.  According to NRC,  sources containing less than
0.050 percent uranium do not require a license to possess or use.  The
alpha dose rate for the set of teeth with highest uranium concentration
was calculated to be 137 mrem per year.  However, this dose was based on
the assumption of intimate and continuous contact between teeth and oral
tissues.  This assumption is not valid because saliva and other absorbers
are always present and many prostheses are not worn continuously.  It
was also observed that alpha doses are absorbed entirely in the super-
ficial layer of the tissue and do not penetrate to the basal layer;
thus, the possibility of producing a malignancy is minimized.

     The dose rate for the more penetrating beta particles was calcu-
lated by determining the fraction of the measured flux resulting from
uranium and the fraction resulting from potassium-40, which is a natur-
ally occurring component of porcelain.  This  resulted in a beta dose
rate ranging from 0.00 to 1.19 rem per year for uranium and from 0.08 to
0.2 rem/year for potassium-40 (table 10-2). Although these values may be
considered overestimates because of the assumption of continuous contact
between teeth and tissues, the dose reduction would not be as great as
with the alphas because of the deeper penetration of the high energy
beta particles.

     Although the radiation dose from the amount of uranium presently
used in artificial teeth does not create a significant health hazard,
the dental industry has been urged by BRH to find a nonradioactive
substitute within a reasonable period. Until  a practical substitute for
uranium becomes available, BRH has recommended a maxiumum permissible
concentration of uranium in dental porcelain  of 0.037 percent.  This
would reduce the probability that the dose from artificial teeth might
exceed the 1.5 rem per year limit set by the  International Commission on
Radiation Protection.
References

(W.I)' OFFICE OF RADIATION PROGRAMS.  Radiological quality of the
        environment, EPA-520/1-76-010, K. L. Feldmann, editor, Office
        of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C.  20460 (May 1976).

        RISTAGNO, C. V.  The use of luminous sources for lighting
        digital wrist watches.  Symposium, Public Health Aspects of
        Radioactivity in Consumer Products, Radisson Inn, Atlanta,
        Georgia (February 2-4, 1977).

                                  262
-------
          Table  10-1.   Uranium concentration  in  dental
                       porcelain  (10.6)
Porcelain
Sample no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18





teeth
Percent uranium
0.030
0.037
0.017
0.019
0.037
0.001
0.044
<0.001
0.007
0.037
0.003
0.020
0.044
0.028
0.008
0.025
0.037
0.003






Sample
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
w
Porcelain powders
no. Percent Uranium
0.040
(a)
0.019
0.099
0.013
0.023
0.006
0.003
0.017
0.027
0.025
0.053
0.027
0.002
0.035
0.019
0.028
0.007
0.038
(a)
(a)
0.022
0.017
JSample  too  small  to yield  significant  count  rate  over  background.
                                263
-------
Table 10-2.  Annual dose from beta particle fluxes of
             porcelain teeth (10.6)
Dose
(rem/y)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
238u
0.81
1.00
0.46
0.51
1.00
0.03
1.19
0.00
0.19
1.00
0.08
0.54
1.19
0.76
0.22
0.68
1.00
0.08
4°K
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.16
0.17
0.13
0.17
0.14
0.08
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.19
0.14
Total
0.99
1.19
0.64
0.67
1.17
0.16
1.36
0.14
0.27
1.17
0.24
0.70
1.39
0.94
0.38
0.84
1.19
0.22
                         264
-------
(10.3)   O'DONNELL,  F.  R.,  L.  R.  MCKAY,  0.  W.  BURKE,  and  F.  H.  CLARK.
        CONDOS -  a  model program,  ORNL-TM-4663,  Publication No.  638
        Environmental  Sciences  Division, Oak  Ridge National  Laboratory,
        Oak Ridge,  Tenn.

(10.4)   SIMPSON,  R.  E.  A  review of  the use of  radioactive  material
        in ceramic  glazes.   Symposium,  Public Health Aspects of  Radio-
        activity  in Consumer Products,  Radisson  Inn, Atlanta,  Georgia
        (February 2-4,  1977).

(10.5)   JOHNSON,  J.  E.  Smoke detectors containing radioactive materials,
        Symposium,  Public  Health Aspects of Radioactivity in Consumer
        Products, Radisson Inn,  Atlanta, Georgia (February  2-4,  1977).

(10.6)   THOMPSON, D.  L.  Uranium in  dental  procelain, (FDA)  76-8061,
        Bureau of Radiological  Health,  Rockville, Md. 20857 (September
        1976).
                                  265
-------
 Chapter  11 -  Health Effects of Ionizing  Radiation Exposure
     Potential  health effects from exposures  to  ionizing radiation are
evaluated in this section.   In order to  make  the interpretation of these
estimated health effects more meaningful,  the various health effect risk
factors that can be applied will  be presented.

     No attempt has been made to  assign  individual exposure values to
the various health effects  for the following  reasons.  First, then, is a
degree of uncertainty for the doses from different radiation sources.
Although reported doses are based on actual data whenever possible, many
of the values represent estimates having a large degree of variability.
A second constraint on estimating potential health effects is the lack
of definitive information on population  parameters, especially where
exposures are reported for  specific facilities.   This is important as
there are differences in sensitivity;  for  example, children are more
radiosensitive than adults.   Therefore,  while one might apply such risk-
conversion factors to large population groups where some generalizations
as to population parameters are applicable, it is invalid to apply such
generalizations when the population under  consideration becomes smaller
and more specific.  Besides these two  prime reasons, others, such as the
lack of information on the  pathway of  exposure in many cases, have led
to the decision to handle health  effects in this general manner.

     EPA has adapted the policy of assuming a linear relationship
between the population exposure to ionizing radiation and its biological
effect.  This policy was issued on March 3, 1975, and is included here
in its entirety.

                       "EPA Policy Statement  on
            Relationship Between  Radiation Dose  and Effect
                              41  FR 28409
     "The actions taken  by the  Environmental  Protection Agency to protect
public health and the environment require  that  the  impacts of contam-
inants in the environment or released  into the  environment be prudently
                                 267
-------
examined.  When these contaminants are radioactive materials and ion-
izing radiation, the most important impacts are those ultimately af-
fecting human health.  Therefore, the Agency believes that the public
interest is best served by the Agency providing its best scientific
estimates 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 radio-
active 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 generally 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 biological 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 uncertainties in
the relationships between dose received and effect produced are recog-
nized to relate, among many factors, to differences in quality and type
of radiation, total dose, dose distribution, dose rate, and radiosen-
sitivity, 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 systems, the study of
which is part of the continuing endeavor to acquire new scientific
knowledge.

     "Because of these many uncertainties, it is necessary to rely upon
the considered judgments of experts on the biological effects of ion-
izing radiation.  These findings are well-documented in publications by
the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radi-
ation (UNSCEAR), the National Academy of Sciences  (NAS), the Inter-
national 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
                                 268
-------
health produced as a means to estimate the potential  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 recognizes the in-
herent uncertainties that exist  in estimating health  impact at the low
levels of exposure and exposure  rates expected to be  present in  the
environment due to human activities, and that at these levels, the
actual health impact will not be distinguishable from natural occur-
rences of ill health, either statistically or in the  forms of ill  health
present.  Also, at these very low levels, meaningful  epidemiological
studies to prove or disprove this relationship are difficult, if not
practically impossible, to conduct.  However, whenever new information
is forthcoming, 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 potential human health  impact of Agency
actions regarding radiation protection, and that such estimates  do not
necessarily constitute identifiable health consequences.  Further, the
Agency implementation of this policy to estimate potential human health
effects presupposes 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 rec-
ognize 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 240 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, unless 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,
                                 269
-------
conditions of exposure, and recipients of the exposure.   In  such situ-
ations, estimates may or may not be based on the assumptions of line-
arity 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.  There-
fore, 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."
     Within the context of the overall  policy statement reprinted above,
EPA uses primarily the recommendations  of the National  Academy of
Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR)
(11.1) as expressed in their November 1972 report to arrive at dose-to-
health risk conversion factors.  Besides the concept of linearity
expressed in the policy statement, it is further assumed that health
effects that have been observed at dose rates much greater than those
represented in this report are indicative of radiation  effects at lower
dose rates.  Any difference in biological recovery from precarcinogenic
radiation damage due to low dose rates  is neglected in  the BEIR health
risk estimates.  On the other hand, in  some cases, the  BEIR risk esti-
mates are based on relatively large doses where cell killing may have
reduced the probability of delayed effects being observed and hence,
underestimate the effects at low doses.  The dose-risk  conversion
factors that EPA has adopted from the BEIR report are neither upper nor
lower estimates of risk, but are computed on the same basis as the risk
characterized as "the most likely estimate" in the BEIR report, that is
they are averages of the two risk models considered in  the BEIR report;
relative and absolute risk.

     One must caution against interpreting the product  of dose and risk
conversion factor as a prediction of actual number of effects to be
sought out in the real world.  The dose conversion factors (from concen-
tration to dose) and the risk conversion factors (dose  to effects) yield
estimates of the actual dose and effects which have a considerable
range.  For example, the BEIR Committee has made a determination, based
on their evaluation of the increase of the ambient cancer mortality per
rem, that ranges from 100 to 450 deaths per million persons per rem
during a 30-year followup period.  EPA has chosen average values to be
used for various dose to health effect conversion factors.  When new
information becomes available these factors will be revised.
                      Dose-risk Conversion Factors


 1.  Total body dose-risk



                                  270
-------
     The BEIR Report calculates the excess cancer mortality risk  (in-
cluding leukemia mortality)  from whole body radiation  by two quite
different models.  The absolute risk model1 predicts about 100  cancer
deaths per 106 person-rem while the relative risk model2 predicts
between 160 and 450.  An average cancer mortality of 300 annually per
106 person-rem would seem to be an appropriate mean for  the relative
risk model.  The average of  the absolute and relative  risk models is
about 200 per 106 person-rem.   Cancer mortality is not a measure of the
total cancer risk, which the committee states is about twice the risk  of
fatal cancer.
Estimated cancer risk from total body irradiation

     Cancer mortality = 200 deaths per year for 106  person-rem annual
exposure.  Total cancers = 400 cancers per year for  106  person-rem
annual exposure to the total body.
2.  Gonadal dose-risk

     The range of the risk estimates for genetic effects set forth  in
the BEIR report is so large that such risks are better considered on a
relative basis for different exposure situations than.in terms  of
absolute numbers.  The range of uncertainty for the  "doubling dose"  (the
dose required to double the natural  mutation rate)  is  10-fold (from  20
to 200 rad); and because of the additional  uncertainties in  (1)  the
fraction of presently observed genetic effects  due  to  background radi-
ation, and (2) the fraction of deleterious  mutations eliminated  per
generation, the overall uncertainty is about a  factor  of 25.  The total
number of individuals showing genetic effects such  as  congenital anom-
alies, constitutional and degenerative diseases, etc., is estimated  at
somewhere between 1,800 and 45,000 per generation per  rad of continuous
exposure at equilibrium; i.e., 60-1,500 per year if  a  30-year generation
time is assumed.  This equilibrium level of effect will  not  be  reached
until many generations of exposure have past; the risk to the first
generation postexposure is about a factor of 5  less  than the equilibrium
level.

     The authors of the BEIR report reject the  notion  of "genetic death"
as a measure of radiation risk.  Their risk analysis is  in terms of
early and delayed effects observed post partum  and  not early abortion,
still births or reduced fecundity.  Because of  the  seriousness  of some
     Absolute risk estimates are based on the reported number of excess
cancer deaths per rad that had been observed in exposed population
groups, e.g., Hiroshima,  Nagasaki, etc.

     2Relative risk estimates are based on the percentage increase per
rem in the ambient cancer mortality.

                                  271
-------
of the genetic effects considered here,  e.g.,  mongolism,  the  emotional
and financial stress would be somewhat similar to  death  impact.   Indeed,
10 percent of the effects described are  those  which  lead  directly to
infant or childhood mortality (fetal  mortality is  excluded).   For some
purposes, this class of genetic effects  is  considered  on  the  same basis
as mortality.
Estimated serious genetic risk from continuous gonadal  irradiation

     Total risk = 200 effects per year for 106 person-rem annual  exposure
in the U.S. population with a 50-year generation time.
3.  Lung dose-risk

     Due to the insufficient data for the younger age groups,  estimates
of lung cancer mortality in the BEIR report are only for that  fraction
of the population of age 10 or more.  For the risk estimate made below,
it is assumed that the fractional abundance for lung tumors is the same
for those irradiated at less than 10 years of age as it is for those
over 10.  On an absolute risk basis, lung cancer mortality in  a popu-
lation would be about 18 deaths per annum per 106 persons irradiated
continuously at a dose rate of 1  rem per year.   This is a minimum value.
The BEIR report states that the absolute risk estimates may be too low
because observation times for exposed persons are still relatively short
compared to the long latency period for lung cancer and indeed the NAS
committee report on "Health Effects of Alpha-Emitting Particles in the
Respiratory Tract" (21.2) indicates that the current (1976) estimate is
twice that made in 1972.  Furthermore, lung cancer risks calculated on
the basis of the geometric mean of the relative risk is 3.4 times
larger than the estimated absolute risk.  Therefore, an average of mean
relative and absolute risk estimates is given in the following dose-risk
estimate.
Estimated lung cancer risk from continuous tung irradiation

     Excess lung cancer mortality = 40 deaths per year for 10G person-
rem annual exposure.
4.  Thyroid dose-risk

     The insult from radioiodines is important only for the thyroid.
The dose to other organs is over an order of magnitude less.   Two health
effects follow high level exposures of thyroid tissue to ionizing radi-
ation:  benign neoplasms and thyroid cancer.  Though the former is a
more common radiation effect, only the risk from cancer is considered
here.
                                  272
-------
     While children are particularly sensitive to radiation damage to
their thyroid glands, thyroid cancer is a serious but usually not a
deadly disease particularly for persons in younger age groups.   Mortality
may approach 20 percent in persons well past middle age.   It is not
presently known if the radiation-induced cancers which are more frequent
for persons irradiated early in life will follow the same patterns of
late mortality.

     The BEIR report provides risk estimates only for morbidity (not
mortality) and only for persons under 9 years of age, i.e., 1.6-9.3
cancers per 106 person-rem years.   Additional follow-up on external
irradiation cases, suggests a thyroid malignancy rate of 4/y/106
person-rem (range 1.5-16) and perhaps age at irradiation is not as
important as originally thought (11. S).

     Since information in the BEIR report is not sufficient in itself to
estimate the cancer incidence from continuous exposure, tentative risk
estimates for this study are also based on information in other refer-
ences (11.4-11.7) as well as the mean of the BEIR Committee's various
estimates of incidence per rem.  Infants and fetuses are probably the
most sensitive group.  By weighting the age group sensitivity and using
population percentages for the age groups, a population age-weighted
value was obtained.  This estimate will be changed to reflect new
followup data when it is reported in the published literature.


Estimated thyroid aanoer risk

     Thyroid cancer risk = 60 excess thyroid cancers per 106 thyroid-
rems.

     It is unlikely that the mortality from thyroid cancer would be more
than 5-20 percent of its rate of incidence.  As for other radiation
effects, a true measure of the risk from thyroid cancers could be life
shortening, but insufficient mortality data prevents such an approach.
References

(11.1) NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES - NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL.   The
       effects on populations of exposure to low levels of ionizing
       radiation, Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological
       Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR), U.S.  Government Printing
       Office, Washington, D.C. (1972).

    2) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OFFICE OF RADIATION
       PROGRAMS.  Health Effects of Alpha-Emitting Particles in
       the Respiratory Tract.  Report of Ad Hoc Committee on "Hot
       Particles" of the Advisory Committee on the Biological  Effects
       of Ionizing Radiations.  National Academy of Sciences-National
       Research Council.  EPA 520/4-76-013, Washington, D.C.  20460
       (October 1976).

                                 273
-------
(11.3)  NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE.   Conference on Radiation-Associated
       Thyroid Carcinoma.   Chicago,  111.  (1977)  in  press.

(11.4)  INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE ON  RADIOLOGICAL  PROTECTION.   The  evalu-
       ation of risks from radiation,  ICRP publication  no.  8,  Pergamon
       Press, New York 11101  (1966).

(11. S)  UNITED NATIONS SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON THE EFFECTS  OF ATOMIC
       RADIATION.  "Ionizing  Radiation:   Levels  and Effects,"  Vol.  II,
       United Nations Publication  E.72.IX.18, New York  (1972).

(11.6)  U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY.   Environmental  Radi-
       ation Protection for Nuclear Power Operations,  Proposed
       Standards [40 CFR 190], Supplementary  Information.   Environ-
       mental Protection Agency, Washington,  D.C.  20460 (October  1976)

(11.7)  U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY.   Environmental  Analysis
       of the Uranium Fuel Cycle,  Part III -  Nuclear Fuel  Repro-
       cessing, EPA-520/9-73-003-D,  Office of Radiation Programs,
       Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington, D.C. 20460
       (October 1973).
                                   274
-------
      Chapter  12 - Nonionizing  Electromagnetic  Radiation
     As its name implies, nonionizing electromagnetic  radiation  does not
produce ionized particles when it is  absorbed  by  the material  of interest.
Absorbed energy is converted to electronic excitation  and  to molecular
vibration and rotation.   The ionization  potentials  of  the  principal
components of living tissue (water,  and  atomic oxygen,  hydrogen,  nitrogen,
and carbon) are between  11 and 15 electron volts  (eV).   Michaelson
(12.1) considers 12 eV to be the lower limit for   onization  in biological
systems, while noting that some weak  hydrogen  bonds in  macromolecules
may have lower ionization potentials.  As  a point of reference,  an
ultraviolet wavelength of 180 nanometers corresponds to an energy of
about 7 eV.  Thus, for practical purposes, the nonionizing part  of  the
electromagnetic spectrum includes the ultraviolet,  visible,  infrared,
radiofrequency and lower frequency regions.  The  electromagnetic fields
from electric power distribution at  50 and 60  Hz  are included,  although
these fields are not radiative in nature.

     Because of the increase in the  number and power of sources  in  the
radiofrequency range since 1940, recent  interest  has focused on  nonion-
izing electromagnetic radiation at frequencies below 300 GHz or  photon
energies less than 1.24  x 10"3 eV.   The  voluntary American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) (12.2) exposure standard and the OSHA (12.3)
occupational exposure standard cover  the frequency  range from  10 MHz to
100 GHz; the Bureau of Radiological  Health (BRH)  (12.4)  microwave oven
performance standard and the proposed BRH  (12.5)  diathermy performance
standard are for frequencies from 890 MHz  to 6 GHz  and  890 MHz  to 22.25
GHz, respectively.   Though there may  be  limited exposure problems
associated with the use  of lasers and some noncoherent  light sources, at
the present time we are  not aware of  manmade sources of nonionizing
electromagnetic radiation operating  above  300  GHz which would  produce
significant environmental levels. Therefore,  this  discussion  is  re-
stricted to frequencies  below 300 GHz.
Sources of data

     There are two types of data base which  are  pertinent  to  analyzing
environmental levels of nonionizing electromagnetic  radiation  at  fre-
quencies below 300 GHz.   The first of these  consists of  computer  files
                                 275
-------
of source location and characteristics that permit the  calculation  of
expected exposure levels if an appropriate model  and  sufficient  source
parameters are available.   The second type of data base consists of
reports on studies of specific sources and the ambient  environment.
Until recently, only limited data have been available on the  ambient
environment.

     The Office of Telecommunications Policy (DTP) assigns  operating
frequencies to government users of the electromagnetic  spectrum  and the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assigns frequencies to non-
government users.  The most extensive inventory of sources  of nonion-
izing radiation in the United States is maintained at the Electromag-
netic Compatibility Analysis Center (ECAC), Department  of Defense,
Annapolis, Md.  The ECAC Environmental File contains  records  of  govern-
ment and nongovernment communications-electronics equipment.   Infor-
mation in the records includes the operational characteristics of the
equipment, its location, and administrative information, such as who is
operating it.  There are four subfiles of the Environmental File.  These
are the E-file, the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee  (IRAC)
File, including frequency authorizations of all U.S.  government  agencies,
the AT&T File, containing the common carrier records, and the FCC File,
with all the FCC-licensed equipment records.

     These equipment records are fairly complete with regard  to  location,
identification, and major characteristics.  However,  characteristics
which are necessary for sophisticated models are often  incomplete or
lacking, so that only simple, approximate models can  be used. This type
of information is probably most useful in providing a method  for sorting
and ranking potential problem areas which can be studied later in more
detail.

     EPA has measured the radiation levels from a number of specific
source types.  These include satellite communications systems, acqui-
sition and tracking radars, air traffic control radars, weather  radars,
FM radio transmitters, police radar units, and microwave ovens.   An
analytical model for predicting levels from sources having parabolic
antennas has been developed and compared to other methods and measured
data.  Electric field profiles for 345-, 500-, and 765-kV overhead power
transmission lines have been determined, and a magnetic field profile
has been measured for a 500 kV line.

     Techniques and instrumentation are available for the analysis of
fields from most high-power sources.  Methods for calculating power
densities have been given by Mumford  (12.6) and Tell  (12.7).   Analysis
of broadcast radiation sources has been given by Tell and Nelson (12.8),
and Tell and Janes (12.9).  Satellite communications  earth terminals
have been analyzed by Hankin (12.10).  Air traffic control  radar's
radiation levels have been measured by Tell and Nelson   (22.11),  and
airborne radars, by Tell and Nelson  (12.12) and Tell, Hankin, and Janes
(12.IS).  The overall impact of high-power sources based upon measurements
                                 276
-------
and theoretical analyses has been discussed by Hankin, et al.  (12.14,
12.15),  The radiation levels on and near a high-power FM radio trans-
mitter tower have been reported by Tell (12.16L   Hankin (12.17) has
described the radiation characteristics of police traffic radars.   Field
strength measurements of microwave oven leakage at 915 MHz has been
described by Tell (12.18).

     The highest power sources are satellite communications stations and
large radars.  Both of these source classes use very directive antennas
to achieve extremely high effective radiated powers.  Thus, the proba-
bility of being illuminated at any given time by the primary beam of one
of these sources is quite small.  Many of these sources are remotely
located and almost all are surrounded by an exclusion area which further
limits the probability of exposure.  Site surveys are done for many
sources to delineate operational procedures which will prevent the
inadvertent exposure of occupied areas.  Some sources are mechanically
or electrically equipped to limit the pointing directions of antennas or
to reduce or shut off power when occupied areas are scanned.  The rota-
tional feature of many radars further reduces the exposure levels.
Nevertheless, a careful examination of the siting and operation of high-
powered sources is required to assure they are installed and operated
safely.  When factors such as number of sources, number of persons
potentially exposed, and general operating characteristics and procedures
are considered, broadcast transmitters are the most environmentally
significant category.


High voltage transmission lines

     Private citizens, public interest groups, and State agencies have
expressed concern about the potential adverse effects of electric power
at extra-high voltages (EHV), i.e., voltages at or above 345 kilovolts.
Because of these concerns, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register
in 1975, requesting data and information on health and environmental
effects of EHV power transmission (12.19).  Over 50 replies totaling
over 6,000 pages were received (12.20).  In 1976, a request for proposals
to evaluate and summarize the information received was prepared and made
public.  The proposals received in response have been evaluated in
preparation for the award of a contract.  Contractual arrangements will
be made in 1977, and the desired evaluation and summary should be available
by the end of the year.

     The Agency is represented on the Interagency Advisory Committee on
Electric Field Effects from High Voltage Lines, chaired by ERDA.  The
committee's objective is to coordinate federally sponsored efforts
relating to the environmental effects of electric fields from high
voltage transmission lines.
                                  277
-------
     The Environmental Protection Agency will decide on the need for
guidance or standards relative to discharge currents (electric shock
potential), based on the contracted review of the material submitted to
EPA and the results of the activities of the Interagency Advisory Committee
on Electric Field Effects from High Voltage Lines.
Ambient environmental levels

     For the purposes of this discussion, we will broadly define the
general ambient electromagnetic environment to be the electromagnetic
field in the frequency band from 0 to 300 GHz.  It results from the
superposition of the field from all sources contributing to the field
at the point of interest.  In practice this means all sources which
produce fields greater than the noise level of the detection system
will contribute to the measured level.  The actual level may be high
or low depending on the distribution of contributing sources, but in
most cases, should be relatively low when compared to levels in the
main beam of powerful sources.  Actual measurements will, for the most
part, cover more restricted frequency ranges than those considered
in the definition.  Two types of instruments are used, those which
preserve frequency information and those which integrate across a band
of frequencies.  Only a limited amount of data is available on general
ambient environments.  A great deal of data has been collected in so-
called noise studies such as that of Toler (12.22).  However, these
studies ignore intentional signals and are not useful in estimating
total exposure although they help determine signal amplitude require-
ments for communication and serve as an indicator of the increase in
the use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

     In 1969, White Electromagnetics and the Public Health Service
measured peak power densities in the Washington, D.C. area (12.11,12,. 23).
Radiation levels were monitored over the frequency range from 20 Hz  to
10 GHz at 10 sites within a 25-mile radius of the city.  The highest
levels measured (approximately 10 pW/cm2) originated primarily from AM
broadcast towers and airport radar installations.  The accuracy of the
measurements was estimated to be within 15 decibels (dB) in the first
paper and at j^ 10 dB in the second (dB is a logarithmic unit of power
and 10 dB corresponds to one order of magnitude, i.e., a factor of 10).
A similar study over a more restricted frequency range was conducted in
Las Vegas in 1970 by Envall, Peterson, and Stewart (12.24).  The maximum
observed power density over the frequency range from 54 to 220 MHz was
0.8 yW/cm2.  Ruggera (12.25) studied the changes in electric field
strengths within a hospital before and after the installation of a new
transmitting tower 3,200 feet from the hospital.  Measurements were made
in the frequency range from 54 MHz to 656 MHz and the maximum total  root
mean square (rms) field strength was about 2 V/m which corresponds to a
far-field power density of about 1 uW/cm2.
                                 278
-------
     As part of a program to determine the need for standards to control
environmental radiofrequency exposure, the U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) began measuring levels of radiofrequency radiation in urban
areas in October 1975.   Measurements are made principally in urban areas
because sources are concentrated in and around regions of high popu-
lation density (12.26,12.27).  Measurements have shown that the principal
sources of environmental radiofrequency radiation are in the broadcast
bands (12.28) with other bands making only minor contributions to the
general environmental levels.  Therefore, data are collected in the
seven frequency bands shown in table 12-1.

     The measurement system consists of seven antennas, listed in table
12-1, a scanning spectrum analyzer, and a minicomputer.  The equipment
is installed in a van equipped with gasoline-powered electrical gener-
ators.  Antennas are mounted sequentially on a pneumatically operated,
telescoping mast and elevated 6.4 meters above ground level.  After a
predetermined number of scans through the desired frequency range, the
data are corrected for antenna response and both the average root-mean-
square values of the electric field strength and the power density
obtained by integration of the squared field strength values are computed.
The calculated values are displayed on the computer's cathode ray tube,
copied onto thermally sensitive paper, and stored in the computer's
memory.  The measurement system, antenna calibration, and the analysis
of system error are described in detail in reference 12.29.  Examples of
typical spectra can be found in references 12.9,12.29, and 12.30.

     Measurements of environmental radiofrequency field strengths have
been made at 72 sites located in Atlanta, Boston, Miami, or Philadelphia.
The percent of sites having values equal to or less than a given total
power density in the frequency range from 54- to 900-MHz are plotted
against the logarithm of the power density on probability paper in
figure 12-1.  Distributions for the land mobile bands, the low VHF-TV
band, and the FM band are also shown.  The power density values from
the 0-2 MHz  band are not  included  in  this analysis.   The FM  band  con-
tributes the most to environmental radiofrequency exposure between 54-
and 900-MHz.  Within this range of frequencies each of the three TV
bands contributes about equally.  The land mobile bands make an almost
negligible contribution to the total power density and less active bands
would make even smaller contributions.  The maximum power density at any
site summed over all bands was 2.5 yW/cm2.  Four sites or about 6 percent
fell in the range of 1  to 2.5 yW/cm2 so that some of the population is
potentially exposed to values in excess of 1 yW/cm2.
Population exposure

     An estimator of population exposure'must combine information on the
distribution of radiofrequency levels with the distribution of popu-
lation to provide numbers of people exposed at various levels.  The
population data base which was used here has been described elsewhere
(12.31), but briefly, it consists of the population count for each of


                                 279
-------
                 Table 12-1.   Antennas used for environmental
                          radiofrequency measurements
Frequency
  (MHz)
             Use
           Antenna
   0-2
VLF communications and AM
standard broadcast
Active vertical monopole
  54-88


  88-108


 150-162


 174-216
Low VHP television broadcast
FM broadcast
VHF land mobile
High VHF television broadcast
Two horizontal orthogonal
dipoles

Three orthogonal dipoles
Vertical coaxial dipole
Two horizontal orthogonal
dipoles
 450-470


 470-806
UHF land mobile
UHF television broadcast
Vertical coaxial dipole
Horizontal polarized
directional log periodic
                                     280
-------



80
to
LJJ
^ 70
CO
LL. 60
O
50
(—
z ..
uj 40
U
UJ
a.
20
10


u •
<• «
1 •
LAND ' .> j. •
MOBILE ' / .* • *
\ i«4 ••' •''
\ 1 •' *
\ 4*
\ • f • •'
• ./ *' *
/ .• *
* • .
LOW ' ;* ;
VHF-TV / . /*
\ 1* ' •'
V / :\
/ :" / \
1 FM ." V \
: ,/ V r \
f .* ./ TOTAL
• i . •
* - ' .'
• •
»• .• ;
i •
• •
4
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0












                         LOG  S;  S= POWER DENSITY in  uW/cm2

Figure 12-1.   Percent of sites having values  equal  to or less than a given total
power density in the frequency range  from 54  to 900 MHz
    250,000 census enumeration districts  (CED)  in  the  United States  along
    with the geographic coordinates of the approximate population  centroid
    for the CED.   The population of an area is  considered to be concentrated
    at a set of discrete points.  The total power  density from all  sources
    at each of these discrete points is determined and the population exposed
    at the various levels is summed.
         The model
    data collected
    data from each
    plotted as log
    shape of this
    regardless of
    ily by an addi
    field strength
    distance in mi
 for determining the radiofrequency fields  is  based on
 with the measurement system described above.   The measured
 source were observed to generally fall  on  a parabola when
 (power density) versus log (distance).   Furthermore, the
parabola was approximately the same for all  sources,
source parameters, differing from source to source primar-
tive constant.  Therefore, an empirical  expression for  the
  E, in dB above 1 yV/m, as a function of log D (D =
ies), was chosen:

      E = -10 (log D)2 - 20 log D + C
    where C is a source specific constant.  To determine the field strength
    at any point (e.g., at a CED centroid) the three measurement sites
    nearest the point of interest are determined, and from the measured data
    at these  three points, a value of the constant C for each source is
    determined.  Substitution of the distance from the source to the point
                                       281
-------
into the expression for E yields the required field  strength  estimate
for that source.  The individual source contributions  can  be  appropri-
ately summed to get the total exposure.

      This approach was applied to each CED centroid in  the four metro-
politan areas where measurements had been made  (12.32).  The  population
for each CED was assigned the exposure determined for  its  centroid
location.  This information was sorted according to  exposure  ranges, and
the results are presented in figure 12-2 which  shows the fraction of the
population in the four metropolitan areas (total population = 8.3 million)
exposed to various levels.  The median power density is  0.014 yW/cm2.
Less than one percent of the population is exposed to  values  greater
than 1 yW/cm2.

     This model for population exposure does not account for  compli-
cations such as daily movements of the population within an area, exposures
at heights greater than 6 meters where exposures can be  higher due to
nonuniform antenna radiation patterns, for any  attenuation effects of
typical buildings, or for times when sources are not transmitting. The
results are simply the population residing in areas  where  an  unobstructed
measurement 6 meters above ground would result  in the  indicated values.

     In addition to the general environmental measurements, data were
collected at a few selected sites in tall buildings  which  were located
      .99
      .95
       .9
   VI
   O
   °-
   x
   §
 .4






 .1

.05



01
          CITIES: BOSTON
                ATLANTA
                MIAMI
                PHILADELPHIA
               -5      -4      -3      -2      -1       0

                          LOG S (S = POWER DENSITY IN (J.W/CM2)
Figure 12-2.  Fraction of population exposed as a function of power  density

                                   282
-------
near transmitters in Chicago,  Miami,  and New York.   The upper floors  of
some buildings may be higher than a transmitter on  a neighboring  building,
and thereby be exposed to the main beam of the transmitter.

     These building measurements were performed using a tuned half-wave
dipole connected to a portable spectrum analyzer.   Signal  amplitudes
displayed on the spectrum analyzer were photographed and the values
obtained were corrected for antenna factors.  The  tuned di poles were
previously calibrated against a set of National Bureau of  Standards
calibrated dipoles (12.29).   The resulting field strength,  E (volts per
meter), may be converted to equivalent far- field power density, S
(yW/cm2), through the relation


                                        EW")32

     The measurements show that power density levels in some areas of
the upper floors of tall buildings can be much higher than measurements
made at ground level.  At windows facing transmitters,  with blinds
raised, the maximum levels observed in selected buildings in New York,
Miami, and Chicago were 32, 97, and 66 yW/cm2 respectively, and consisted
primarily of radiation from FM radio and UHF-TV transmitters.   These
levels should not be regarded as typical of tall  buildings, or even
typical of these selected buildings.  Structural  materials and window
blinds can significantly reduce actual levels inside the buildings.
These preliminary results will be further characterized in future studies,
Discussion

     There is a large difference in the exposure standards of the United
States and the U.S.S.R., those of the latter being much more restrictive.
The level for unlimited occupational  exposure in the Soviet Union is 10
yW/cm2, and the proposed environmental  level is 1  yV!/cm2.   Controversy
continues over the validity of the Soviet standard.   The Soviet standard
was adopted in Poland in 1961, pending  an independent evaluation.  In
1972, the Polish standard was revised and the occupational level  was set
at 200 yW/cm2, and the environmental  limit was set at 10 yW/cm2 (12.33).

     Research is now underway in this country and elsewhere to determine
and assess any possible biological effect of long-term exposure to low
levels of nonionizing radiation and to  examine the validity of the
present occupational exposure standard  of 10 mW/cm2.  Also of concern
are the effects of high peak power, low average power, pulsed radiation
and the questions of the need for and how to develop standards for the
frequency range below 10 MHz where there is currently no exposure
standard.  Four types of overlapping  exposure can be distinguished:   (1)
exposure in the general environment to  intentional signals from the
broadcast services, radars, leakage radiation, and other sources, (2)
occupational exposures, (3) exposure  to leakage radiation  from consumer
devices such as microwave ovens, and  (4) intentional medical  exposures.
Occupational exposure is subject to control by OSHA.  Intentional
                                 283
-------
medical exposure is given at the discretion of a physician,  but a
performance standard is now being developed by the Food and  Drug Admin-
istration for leakage and scatter from microwave diathermy units.   There
is no direct control of environmental  exposure from microwave diathermy
apparatus.  Indirect controls of environmental exposures are the limi-
tation put on effective radiated power by the FCC, their requirement for
posting areas about domestic satellite stations where levels exceed 10
mW/cm2, and the operational procedures employed in using both government
and nongovernment sources.   Also, any telecommunications system planned
for purchase by the government, as a condition for spectrum  approval, is
reviewed by IRAC-OTP to assess among other factors whether levels in
excess of 10 mW/cm2 will occur and whether operational  measures have
been provided to insure that people are not exposed above this level.

     Two types of environmental exposure can be distinguished.  One is
the relatively high radiation level from high power sources  such as some
radars and satellite communications stations where the power density in
the useful beam can exceed that thought to be safe for human occupancy
even outside the boundary of the facility (12.15).  The problems assoc-
iated with such sources are recognized and instrumentation and techniques
for analyzing exposure from them are available.  The other type of
environmental exposure arises from the superposition of the  fields from
many sources at different frequencies.  This exposure may be high or low
depending on the location and types of sources contributing  to the
exposure and includes the specific source problem as a special case.
Nonionizing environmental radiation data are needed to interpret the
results of current biological effects research and establish the pre-
dominant frequencies in the environment so that future research for the
validation of standards can be appropriately directed.
Summary

     General environmental surveys have been completed in seven cities
in the Eastern United States.  The data and population exposure impli-
cations for the first four of these are presented here and analysis is
continuing on the other three.  The measurement program will  now continue
in several cities in the Western United States.

     The results to date suggest that probably 99 percent of the urban
population is exposed at levels which would be permitted even under the
restrictive proposed Soviet standard of 1 yM/cm2.  The general  environ-
mental data cannot be used to estimate the levels to which the remaining
1 percent of the population is exposed.  Further information will  require
a detailed analysis of specific sources and a detailed knowledge of the
locations of the persons exposed to such sources.
                                  284
-------
 References

 (12.1)   MICHAELSON,  S. M.   Human  exposure  to nonionizing  radiant energy-
         potential  hazards  and  safety  standards,  Proc _IEEE,  60:389-421
         (1972).

 (12.2)   AMERICAN NATIONAL  STANDARDS INSTITUTE.   Safety  level of electro-
         magnetic radiation with respect  to personnel, Institute of
         Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, N.Y. (1974).

 (12.3)   OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION.  Nonionizing
         radiation, Title 29 Code  of Federal Regulations,  Part  1910.97
         (1974).

 (12.4)   BUREAU OF  RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH.   Regulations for the administra-
         tion and enforcement of the radiation control for health and
         safety act of 1968, (FDA) 73-8015, Food  and Drug  Administration,
         Rockville, Md.  20857  (1972).

 (12.5)   BUREAU OF  RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH.   Draft performance standard for
         microwave  diathermy products, USDHEW, Food and  Drug Adminis-
         tration, Rockville, Md.   20857 (1975).

 (12.6)   MUMFORD, W.  W.  Some technical aspects of microwave radiation
         hazards, Proc I.R.E..  49:427-477 (1961).

 (12.7)   TELL,  R. A.   Reference data for  radiofrequency  emission hazard
         analysis,  EPA/ORP, SID 72-3 Office of Radiation Programs, EPA,
         Washington,  D.C.   20460 (1972).

 (12.8)   TELL,  R. A.   Broadcast radiation:   How safe is  safe?  IEEE
         Spectrum 9:43-51 (1972).

 (12.9)   TELL,  R. A.  and D. E.  JANES.  Broadcast  radiation - a  second
         look,  published in Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Waves,
         selected papers of the U.S. National Committee  of the  Inter-
         national Radio Science Union, 1975.  Annual Meeting, Vol. 2,
         pp.  363-388  (FDA)  77-8010.  C. C.  Johnson and M.  L.  Shore,
         editors.   Food and Drug Administration,  Rockville,  Md.  20857
         (December  1976).

(12.20)   HANKIN, N. N.  An  evaluation  of  selected satellite communication
         systems as sources of  environmental microwave radiation, USEPA
         Rep. EPA-520/2-74-008.  Office of  Radiation Programs,  EPA,
         Washington,  D.C.   20460 (1974).

(12.11)   TELL,  R. A.  and J. C.  NELSON.  RF  pulse  spectral  measurements
         in  the vicinity of several ATC radars, EPA-520/1-74-005,
         Office of  Radiation Programs, EPA, Washington,  D.C.  20460.

(12.12)   TELL,  R. A.  and J. C.  NELSON.  Microwave hazard measurements
         near various airborne  radars, Radiat. Data Rep. 15:161-179
         (April 1974).

                                  285
-------
(12.13)   TELL,  R.  A.,  N.  N.  HANKIN,  and  D.  E.  JANES.   Aircraft  radar
         measurements  in  the near field, Proceedings  of  the  Ninth  Mid-
         year Topical  Symposium of the Health  Physics  Society,  in  Oper-
         ational  Health Physics compiled by P.  L.  Carson,  W.  R.  Hendee,
         and D.  C.  Hunt.   Central Rocky  Mountain  Chapter,  Boulder, Colo.
         pp. 239-246 (Feb.  1976).

(12.14)   HANKIN,  N.  N., R.  A.  TELL,  and  D.  E.  JANES.   Assessing the
         potential  for exposure to hazardous levels of microwave radi-
         ation from high  power sources,  (abstract) Health  Physics
         27:633 (1974).

(12.15)   HANKIN,  N.  N., R.  A.  TELL,  T. W. ATHEY,  and  D.  E. JANES.   High
         power radiofrequency and microwave sources:   A study  of relative
         environmental significance, Proceedings  of the  Ninth Midyear
         Topical  Symposium of the Health Physics  Society in  Operational
         Health Physics compiled by P. L. Carson,  W.  R.  Hardee, and D.
         C.  Hunt.   Central  Rocky Mountain Chapter, Boulder,  Colo.  pp.
         231-238 (Feb. 1976).

(12.16)   TELL,  R.  A.  A measurement of RF field intensities  in  the
         immediate vicinity of an FM broadcast station antenna, Technical
         note,  ORP/EAD-76-2, Office of Radiation  Programs, EPA, Washington,
         D.C.  20460 (January 1976).

(12.17)   HANKIN,  N.  N.  Radiation characteristics of  traffic radar
         systems,  Technical note, ORP/EAD-76-1, Office of Radiation
         Programs, EPA, Washington,  D.C. 20460 (March 1976).

(12.18)   TELL,  R.  A.  Field strength measurements of  microwave  oven
         leakage at 915 MHz, Technical note ORP-EAD-76-7,  Office of
         Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C.   20460  (in press).

(12.19)   STRELOW,  R.  Extremely high voltage transmission lines, health
         and environmental  effects,  Federal Register  40(53):12312,
         (1975).

(12.20)   JANES, D.  E.   Background information on  extra-high-voltage
         overhead electric transmission  lines, Office of Radiation
         Programs, Washington, D.C.   20460  (April  1976).

(12.21)   TOLER, J.  C.   Electromagnetic environments  in urban areas,
         Session Proceedings:  Environmental Exposure to Nonionizing
         Radiation, EPA/ORP 73-2, pp. 19-45, Office of Radiation Programs,
         EPA, Washington, D.C.  20460 (May  1973).

(12.22)   SMITH, S.  W.  and D. G. BROWN.  Radiofrequency and microwave
         radiation levels resulting from man-made sources in the
         Washington, D.C. area, (FDA) 72-8015, BRH DEP 72-5, Food and
         Drug Administration, Rockville, Md.  20857  (1971).

(12.23)   SMITH, S. W.  and D. G. BROWN.  Nonionizing  radiation levels
         in the Washington, D.C. area, IEEE Trans.  EMC-15, 2-6  (1973).

                                  286
-------
(12.24)
(12.25)
(12.26)
(12.27)
(12.28)
(12.29)
(12.30)
(12.31)
(12.32)
ENVALL, K. R., R.  W.  PETERSON, and H.  F,  STEWART.   Measurement
of electromagnetic radiation levels from selected transmitters
operating between 54 and 220 MHz in the Las Vegas, Nevada,
area, (FDA) 72-8012,  BRH/DEP 72-4, Food and Drug Administration,
Rockville, Md.  20857 (1971).

RUGGERA, P. S.  Changes in radiofrequency E-field strengths
within a hospital  during a 16-month period, (FDA) 75-8032,
Food and Drug Administration, Rockville,  Md.   20857 (1975).

MILLS, W. A., R.  A.  TELL, D. E.  JANES and D.  M.  HODGE.
Nonionizing radiation in the environment, pp.  200-211,  New
Horizons, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Radi-
ation Control, U.S.  DHEW Publication (FDA) 72-8021,
Rockville, Md.  20857 (1971).

TELL, R. A.  Environmental nonionizing radiation exposure:
a preliminary analyses of the problem and continuing work
within EPA, pp. 48-68, Environmental Exposure to Nonionizing
Radiation, EPA/ORP 73-2, Office of Radiation Programs,  EPA,
Washington, D.C.   20460 (1973).
TELL, R. A., J. C. NELSON and N.
activity in the Washington, D.C.
15:549 (1974).
N. HANKIN.   HF spectral
area, Radia. Data Rep.
TELL, R. A., N. N. HANKIN, J. C. NELSON, T.  W. ATHEY and
D. E. JANES.  An automated measurement system for determining
environmental radiofrequency field intensities, II, pp.
203-213, Measurements for the Safe Use of Radiation (FIVOZINSKY,
S.P,, Ed.), National Bureau of Standards Special Publication
456, Washington, D.C.  20234 (1976).
JANES, D. E., R. A. TELL, T.  W. ATHEY and N.  N.
Radiofrequency radiation levels in urban areas,
Supplement in biology to Radio Science (GUY,  A.
D. R. , Eds.) SS^  (1977) (in press).
               HAMKIN.
               Special
               W., JUSTESEN,
ATHEY, T. W., R. A. TELL, and D. E. JANES.  The use of an
automated population data base in population exposure
calculations, in Proceedings of the Health Physics Society
Eighth Midyear Topical Symposium, pp. 24-36, USAEC Technical
Information Center (CONF-741018), Oak Ridge, Tenn. (1974).

JANES, D. E., R. A. TELL, i. W. ATHEY, and N. N. HANKIN.
Nonionizing Radiation Exposure in Urban Areas of the
United States, Communication 304, Session No. S.07, Non-
ionizing Radiation, IVth International Congress of the
International Radiation Protection Association, G. Bresson,
Editor. Vol. 2, pp. 329-332, Paris, France (April 1977).
                                  287
-------
(12.33)   CZERSKI,  P.   Comparison of the USA,  USSR,  and Polish Micro-
         wave Permissible Exposure Standards.   Proceedings of the
         Ninth Midyear Topical  Symposium of the Health Physics Society
         in Operational  Health  Physics compiled by  P.  L.  Carson,  W.  R.
         Hendee,  and  D.  C.  Hunt.  Central  Rocky Mountain  Chapter,
         Boulder,  Colo.  pp.  15-21  (Feb. 1976).
                                  288
-------
                                Glossary
Absorbed dose (D) - The energy imparted to a unit mass  of matter by
   ionizing radiation.   The unit of absorbed dose is  the rad.   One  rad
   equals 100 ergs per gram (See rad).

Accelerator - A device for increasing the kinetic energy of charged
   elementary particles, for example, electrons or protons, through
   the application of electrical and/or magnetic forces.

AEC - U.S.  Atomic Energy Commission - In 1975,  the Atomic Energy
   Commission was divided into two new agencies.  The regulatory portion
   became the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the  reactor development
   portion became part of the Energy Research and Development Adminis-
   tration.

Agreement States - Those States which,  pursuant to Section 274 of the
   Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, have entered  into an
   agreement with the NRC for assumption of regulatory  control of
   byproduct, source, and small quantities of special nuclear materials.
   Before approving an agreement State, NRC must determine that the
   State's radiation control program is compatible with NRC's regulatory
   program and is adequate to protect public health and safety.

Body burden - The amount of radioactive material present in the body
   of a man or an animal.

Boiling water reactor (BWR) - A reactor in which water, used as both
   coolant and moderator, is allowed to boil in the core.  The resulting
   steam can be used directly to drive a turbine.

By-product material - Any radioactive material  (except  source material
   or fissionable material) obtained during the production or use of
   source material or fissionable material.  It includes fission
   products and many other radioisotopes produced in  nuclear reactors.

Cosmic radiation - Radiation of many sorts but mostly atomic nuclei
   (protons) with very high energies, originating outside the earth's
   atmosphere.  Cosmic radiation is part of the natural background
   radiation.  Some cosmic rays are more energetic than any manmade
   forms of radiation.

Curie (Ci)  - The special unit of activity.  One curie equals 3.7 x  1010
   nuclear transformations per second.

Daughter - A nuclide formed by the radioactive decay  of another nuclide,
   which in this context is called the parent.
                                 289
-------
Decommissioning - The process of removing a facility or area from oper-
   ation and decontaminating and/or disposing of it or placing it in a
   condition of standby with appropriate controls and safeguards.

Decontamination - The selective removal  of radioactive material from a
   surface or from within another material.

Diathermy - The generation of heat in tissues for medical  or surgical
   purposes by electric currents.

Disposal - The planned release or placement of waste in a manner that
   precludes recovery.

Dose - A general term denoting the quantity of radiation or energy
   absorbed.  For special purposes it must be appropriately qualified.
   If unqualified, it refers to absorbed dose.

Dose equivalent (#) - A quantity used in radiation protection.  It
   expresses all radiations on a common scale for calculating the
   effective absorbed dose.  It is defined as the product of the absorbed
   dose in rads and certain modifying factors  (The unit of dose equi-
   valent is the rem).

Dose rate - Absorbed dose delivered per unit time.

$8.00 reserves - Ore that can be mined and processed for $8.00 a pound.

Electron volt (eV) - A unit of energy equivalent to the energy gained by
   an electron in passing through a potential difference of one volt.
   Larger multiples of the electron volt are frequently used:  KeV
   for thousand or kilo electron volts:  MeV for million or mega electron
   volts (1 eV - 1.6 x 10"12 erg).

Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) - In 1975, the
   Atomic Energy Commission was divided into two new agencies.  The
   regulatory portion became the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the
   reactor development portion became part of the Energy Research and
   Development Administration.

Exposure - A measure of the ionization produced in air by x or gamma
   radiation.  It is the sum of the electrical charges on all ions of
   one sign produced in air when all electrons liberated by photons in
   a volume element of air are completely  stopped in air, divided by the
   mass of the air in the volume element.  The special unit of exposure
   is the roentgen.

External radiation - Radiation from a source outside the body.

Flux density (neutron) - A term used to express the number of neutrons
   entering a sphere of unit cross-sectional area in unit time.  For
   neutrons of given energy, the product of neutron density and speed.
                                  290
-------
Frequency - Number of cycles, revolutions, or vibrations completed in
   a unit of time  (See Hertz).

Fuel cycle - The complete series of steps involved in supplying fuel
   for nuclear power reactors.   It includes mining,  refining,  the
   original fabrication of fuel  elements, their use  in a reactor,
   chemical processing to recover the fissionable material  remaining
   in the spent fuel, reenrichment of the fuel  material, refabrication
   into new fuel elements, and management of radioactive waste.

Genetically significant dose (GSD) - The gonadal  dose which,  if received
   by every member of the population, would be expected to  produce the
   same total genetic effect on the population as the sum of  the indiv-
   idual doses that are actually received.  It is not a forecast of
   predictable adverse effects on any individual  person or  his/her
   unborn children.

Gonad - A gamete-producing organ in animals; testis  or ovary.

Half-life - Time required for a radioactive substance to lose  50 percent
   of its activity by decay.  Each radionuclide has  a unique  half-life.

Hertz - Unit of frequency equal  to one cycle per second, generally
   applied to nonionizing radiation.

High-level liquid waste - The aqueous waste resulting from  the operation
   of the first-cycle extraction system, equivalent  concentrated wastes
   from a process not using solvent extraction, in a facility  for pro-
   cessing irradiated reactor fuels.  This is the legal definition used
   by ERDA; another definition used at the ERDA Hanford Reservation for
   its waste, is:  fluid materials, disposed of by storage  in  underground
   tanks that are contaminated by greater than 100 microcuries per mini-
   liter of mixed fission products or more than 2 microcuries  per milli-
   liter of cesium-137, strontium-90, or long-lived  alpha emitters.

High temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) - A reactor in which the
   temperature is great enough to permit generation  of mechanical power
   at good efficiency using gas as the coolant.

ICRP - International Commission on Radiological Protection.

Intermediate-level liquid waste - Fluid materials, disposed as a result
   of Hanford operations, which contain from 5 x 105 microcuries per
   milliliter to 100 microcuries per milliliter of mixed fission products,
   including less than 2 microcuries per milliliter  of cesium-137,
   strontium-90, or long-lived alpha emitters.

Internal radiation - Radiation from a source within  the body  as a
   result of deposition of radionuclides in body tissues by ingestion,
   inhalation, or implantation.
                                  291
-------
lonization - The process by which a  neutral  atom or  molecule  acquires  a
   positive or negative charge.

Isotopes - Nuclides having the same  number of protons  in  their nuclei,
   and hence the same atomic number, but differing  in  the number of
   neutrons, and therefore, in the mass  number.   Almost identical
   chemical properties exist between isotopes of a  particular element.

Licensed material - Source material, special  nuclear material, or by-
   product material received, possessed, used, or transferred under  a
   general or special license issued by  the U.S.  Energy Research and
   Development Administration or a State.

Linear accelerators - A device for accelerating charged particles.   It
   employs alternate electrodes  and  gaps arranged in a straight line,
   so proportioned that when potentials  are varied  in  the proper
   amplitude and frequency, particles passing through  the waveguide
   receive successive increments of  energy.

Low-level liquid waste - Fluid materials that are contaminated by less
   than 5 x 10 5 microcuries per milliliter of mixed fission  products.

Man-rem - The product of the average individual  dose in a population
   times the number of individuals in the population.   Syn:   Person-
   rem.

Maximum permissible dose equivalent  (MPD) - The greatest dose equivalent
   that a person or specified part of the body shall be allowed to
   receive in a given period of time.

Millfeed - The ore and other material introduced into  the milling
   process.

Millirem (mrem) - One-thousandth of  a rem (See rem).

Muon - An elementary particle classed as a lepton,  with 207  times the
   mass of an electron.  It may have a single positive or negative
   charge.

NRC - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:  In 1975,  the Atomic Energy
   Commission was divided into two new agencies.  The  regulatory portion
   became the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the reactor  development
   portion became part of the Energy Research and Development Adminis-
   tration.
                                  292
-------
Nuclide - A species of atom characterized by the constitution of its
   nucleus.  The nuclear constitution is specified by the number of
   protons (Z), number of neutrons (N) and energy content; or alterna-
   tively, by the atomic number (Z), mass number A = (N + Z), and atomic
   mass.  To be regarded as a distinct nuclide, the atom must be capable
   of existing for a measurable time.  Thus, nuclear isomers are separate
   nuclides, whereas promptly decaying excited nuclear states and
   unstable intermediates in nuclear reactions are not so considered.

Permissible dose - The dose of radiation which may be received by an
   individual within a specified period with expectation of no signif-
   icantly harmful result.

Person-rem - The product of the average individual dose in a population
   times the number of individuals in the population.  Syn:  man-rem.

Polarization - In electromagnetic waves, refers to the direction of the
   electric field vector.

Population dose - The sum of radiation doses of individuals and is
   expressed in units of person-rem (e.g. if 1,000 people each received
   a radiation dose of 1 rem, their population dose would be 1,000
   person-rem).

Power density - The intensity of electromagnetic radiation power per
   unit area expressed as watts/cm2.

Pressurized water reactor (PWR) - A power reactor in which heat is
   transferred from the core to a heat exchanger by water kept under
   high pressure to achieve high temperature without boiling in the
   primary system.  Steam is generated in a secondary circuit.  Many
   reactors producing electric power are pressurized water reactors.

Quality factor (Q) - The linear-energy-transfer-dependent factor by
   which absorbed doses are multiplied to obtain (for radiation
   protection purposes) a quantity that expresses-on a common scale for
   all ionizing radiations-the effectiveness of the absorbed dose.

Rad (Acronyn for radiation absorbed dose) - The special unit of absorbed
   dose of ionizing radiation.  A dose of one rad equals the absorption
   of 100 ergs of radiation energy per gram of absorbing material  (See
   absorbed dose).

Radioactive decay - Disintegration of the nucleus of an unstable nuclide
   by spontaneous emission of charged particles and/or photons.

Radioisotope - A radioactive isotope.  An unstable isotope of an element
   that decays or disintegrates spontaneously, emitting radiation.

Radwaste - Waste materials that are contaminated with radioactive materials,
                                  293
-------
Rem - The special  unit of dose equivalent.   The dose equivalent in  rems
   is numerically  equal  to the absorbed dose in rads multiplied by  the
   quality factor  (Q), and the product of any other modifying  factors
   (N) at the point of interest in tissue.   ICRP has presently assigned
   a value of 1  for irradiations by external sources.

Roentgen (R) - The special unit of exposure.  One roentgen  equals  2.58 x
   10 "* coulomb per kilogram of air  (See exposure).

Skin dose (Radiology)  -  Absorbed dose at center of irradiation field on
   skin.  It is the sum of the dose in air and scatter from body parts.

Skyshine - Radiation emitted through the roof of the shield (or unshielded
   roof) that scatters back to ground level  due to its deviation by the
   atmosphere.

Solid wastes (Radioactive) - Either solid radioactive material or  solid
   objects that contain  radioactive material or bear radioactive surface
   contamination.

Source material -  In the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), any material
   except special  nuclear material, which contains 0.05 percent or more
   of uranium, thorium,  or any combination of the two.

Special nuclear material - In the Code of Federal Regulations  (CFR),
   this term refers to plutonium-239, uranium-233, uranium  containing
   more than the natural abundance of uranium-235, or any material
   artificially enriched in any of these substances.

SWU - Standard work units.

Transuranium - Nuclides  having an atomic number greater than that  of
   uranium (i.e.,  greater than 92).

Technologically enhanced natural radioactivity (TENR) - Naturally  radio-
   active nuclides whose relationship to the location of persons has
   been altered through man's activities such as by the activities of
   mining, tunneling, development of underground caverns, development  of
   wells, and travel in  space or at high altitudes.

Terrestrial radiation -  Radiation emitted by naturally occurring radio-
   nuclides such as potassium-40; the natural decay chains  uranium-238,
   uranium-235, or thorium-232; or from cosmic-ray induced  radionuclides
   in the soil.

Type A and Type B  quantities - Legally established maximum  amounts of
   radioactive materials which can be contained in Type A and  Type B
   packages, respectively.  Precise definitions are listed  in  49 CFR
   173.389(1), however,  basically the radionuclides are divided into
   seven groups according to their radiotoxicity and relative  potential
   hazard in transportation.  Each of these groups then has a  maximum
   amount assigned depending on the type of package to be used to  ship it.

                                  294
-------
Type A packaging - Containers designed to maintain their  integrity,
   i.e., not allow any radioactive material to be released  and  to  keep
   the shielding properties intact, under normal transportation  condi
   tions.  The test conditions which must be met are defined  in  49 CFR
   173.398b and include heat, cold, reduced air pressure, vibration,
   water spray endurance, free drop, penetration, and compression
   standards.

Type B packaging - Containers designed to meet the standards  established
   for hypothetical transportation accident conditions, as  well  as
   meeting the Type A packaging standards, without reducing the  effectiveness
   of the shielding or allowing releases in excess of those enumerated
   in 49 CFR 173.398c(l).  The standards to be met by Type  B  packages,
   in addition to the Type A standards, are defined in 49 CFR 173.398c(2)
   and include puncture, thermal, water immersion, and higher free
   drop tests.

UNSCEAR - United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects  of  Atomic
   Radiation.

Volt (V) - The unit of electromotive force (1 volt = 1 watt/1 ampere).

Whole body dose - The radiation dose to the entire body.
      International numerical multiple and submultiple prefixes
        Multiples
          and
      submultiples
Prefixes
Symbols
1018
1015
1012
109
106
103
102
101
10"1
10"2
10"3
10"6
10"9
10"12
10~15
10'18
exa
peta
tera
giga
mega
kilo
hecto
deka
deci
centi
mi 1 1 i
micro
nano
pi co
femto
atto
E
P
T
6
M
k
h
da
d
c
m
y
n
P
f
a
                                  295
                                           *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICC . 1977 0-720-335/6004
--------------
05



LO
         't J  TL


         IUT
         *>-«  JJ
         3 >  -J
         Jl~  B
         3Q  <
           i  <
           J  JJ
         <    3
               'JJ
               'ft
f\
CO
(U
QV
>}
O
Q.

O)
O
-P
O
fC
s-
c
o
0
Q
01
UJ

T3
c
to
u
•t -1
w <

X **
3 >
0 *-*
JO
1 Z
JJ
UJ UJ
J 1
<
or
'JJ
>



j

J
<
K
o
^*
o
.n
a.
ijj

-i
<
2
^j
3
'-ij
'-O
<
u




tt
3E
O
«
Q*




N 'M **! O N
^ C\J ^ 0 0










m *) n in
O OJ J1 D "O
CO N N r
-P

>>
/) LJ
J J
< co
D <
(J IE JJ
•^ -J It
> •" -5
M < ^0
3 il 3
Z Z 1
- X
r u




n P- o -o *
r* ^ ^n •£> o
:\i — in r»


 ,—      Z *
o
(O
q-
S-
OJ
Q.
O)

o
Q

,
cn
i
CTi
O)
rtJ
1 —







• _l 3
J < U
zoo;
a 3
j - i-
< > M
1- - Z
0 3 O
1- Z X
"^






^
h-
-• u
_l Q.
<
U.

-^ Jl 0 ^*
O O B •*
•0 -i — N







I
U U
a o a
tr < at z
o u. a. 'U
t3 j -i z
Ul D 3 a
Q£ U» U. O

^J O ID
•^ f1* n
Jl "1 |S.
- ro







K J I X
-
a. < o: <
u. f> a.
Z |J UJ
3 Q « J
a < uj
'jj a LU u
Tfc •"« (J <

r^ ^ rv
— in







i/)
>,j
in u.
a: u.
o o
a; h-
UJ — <
i- - a
O > 'IJ
                                                               251