NERC-LV-539-6
    NRDS NUCLEAR ROCKET EFFLUENT PROGRAM
                 1959-1970
                     by
D. E. Bernhardt, R. B. Evans, R. F. Grossman,
        F. N. Buck, and M. W. Carter
   National Environmental Research Center

   U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             Las Vegas, Nevada
                    June 1974
    This report was written under a Memorandum
        of Understanding No. AT(26-l)-539
                     for the
          U.  S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

-------
     This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the
United States Government.  Neither the United States nor the United
States Atomic Energy Commission, nor any of their employees, nor any
of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any
warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any
information, apparatus, product or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights.
     Available from the National Technical Information Service,
                  U.  S.  Department of Commerce,
                     Springfield, VA. 22151
              Price:   Paper copy $5.45  Microfiche $1.45

-------
                                                 NERC-LV-539-6
    NRDS NUCLEAR ROCKET EFFLUENT PROGRAM
                 1959-1970
                     by
D. E. Bernhardt, R. B. Evans, R. F. Grossman,
        F. N. Buck, and M. W. Carter
   National Environmental Research Center

   U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             Las Vegas, Nevada
                    June 1974
    This report was written under a Memorandum
        of Understanding No. AT(26-1)-539
                     for the
          U.  S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

-------
                                ABSTRACT

This report reviews the health implications of radioactive effluent released
during nuclear rocket engine tests at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station
(NRDS), Jackass Flats, Nevada, prior to 1970.

During this period, nuclear rocket engine concepts incorporated an open-cycle
hydrogen-cooled, reactor with core operating temperatures of approximately
4,000°F, which cause small quantities of fission products to migrate from the
fuel and to be released in the rocket engine exhaust as gases or micrometer-
sized particulates; radioactivity released in this manner is called the
"aerosol effluent."  Core operating conditions caused minor fuel element
erosion and corrosion, releasing  particles with high radioactivity content
(roughly 1011 fissions per particle) and diameters of tens of micrometers;
these particles are referred to as the "particulate effluent."

NRDS adjoins the Nevada Test Site and the Nellis Air Force Range and is located
about 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, in an area of low population
density and limited agricultural usage.  Lathrop Wells  (population less than
100), the nearest town, is about 15 miles from the testing locations.

Estimates of doses, both potential and actual, resulting from exposure of the
off-site population to aerosol effluent from past tests have been 15% or less
of the appropriate Federal Radiation Council  (FRC) guides and Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) standards.

Possible modes of interaction of the particulate effluent with humans which
have been investigated include deposition of particles on skin, in or near
the eye, in the respiratory system, and in the GI tract.  The most limiting
mode of interaction, considering biological consequences and probability of
occurrence, appears to be deposition on skin.  There are no AEC or FRC guides
or standards applicable to this type exposure, but the testing organization
with the assistance of consultants has established an operational guide.  The
guide stipulates that the probability of a deleterious interaction  (defined

-------
                                                     -4
as a certain dose to the skin) should be less than 10  .   Several tests have
resulted in potential probabilities of interaction near or above this guide
in off-site unpopulated areas.  However, there are no known instances of
interaction of the particulate effluent with individuals  in the off-site
population.
                                   11

-------
                                PREFACE

This report is a compendium of information about the Project Rover ground
testing at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station, Jackass Flats, Nevada,
prior to 1970.  The testing program was directed by the Space Nuclear Systems
Office (SNSO), formerly the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office, a joint admin-
istration of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.

Quantities and characteristics of effluent for future tests cannot be directly
inferred from the material presented here because of continued efforts to im-
prove reactor fuel element operating integrity and to reduce the quantity of
radioactive effluent.  The effluent from the nuclear furnace test conducted in
June 1972, the first test since 1969, was passed through a liquid scrubber
which significantly reduced the quantity of radioactive effluent released to
the environment.  In addition, the nuclear furnace was fueled with a new type
fuel with fission product release characteristics varying from those dis-
cussed in this report.

This report refers to a number of Federal Agencies, several of which have
been reorganized in the last several years.  The report was written at the
request of SNSO, under the auspices of a Memorandum of Understanding between
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the AEC.  Per this Memorandum
the National Environmental Research Center-Las Vegas  (NERC-LV) is responsible
for conducting an off-site radiological safety program for Nevada Test Site
and NRDS activities.  This Memorandum was originated between the AEC and the
Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but,
with the formation of the EPA, was subsequently transferred to the NERC-LV.
Similarly, the Air Resources Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada,  (ARL-LV), which
provides meteorological services for the testing program, is under the
administration of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, but was formerly
under the Environmental Sciences and Services Administration.
                                  111

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

Subject

ABSTRACT                                                       i
PREFACE                                                      iii
LIST OF FIGURES                                               vi
LIST OF TABLES                                               vii
I.    INTRODUCTION                                  '           1
II.   REACTOR DESCRIPTION AND EFFLUENT DEFINITION              4
      A.   Reactor                                             4
      B.   Reactor Effluent                                    7
           1.   Effluent Release -- Normal Operation           8
                (a)  Aerosol Effluent                          8
                (b)  Particulate Effluent                     11
           2.   Effluent Release — Accident Condition        14
      C.   Source Term Measurements                           16
           1.   Aerosol Effluent                              16
           2.   Particulate Effluent                          19
III.  EFFLUENT TRANSPORT AND DISTRIBUTION                     23
      A.   Effluent Transport                                 23
           1,   Test Location and Site Geography              23
           2.   Factors Affecting Transport and Deposition    25
           3.   Plume Rise                                    26
           4.   Aerosol Effluent Transport                    28
           5.   Particulate Effluent Transport                34
      B.   Effluent Distribution                              38
IV.   DOSE MODELS                                             40
      A.   Aerosol or Gas-Cloud Model                         42
           1.   External Gamma Exposure                       43
           2.   Other Approaches to External Gamma Exposure   45
                Predictions
           3.   Evaluation                                    46
                                   IV

-------
Subject                                                       Page
           4.   Thyroid Dose via Inhalation Pathway            47
           5.   Thyroid Dose via Ingestion -- Milk-Food Chain  52
      B.   Particle Dose Prediction Models                     53
           1.   Particle Skin Dose Model                       57
V.    RADIATION PROTECTION GUIDES                              61
      A.   Guides for Total Body and Internal Organ Doses      62
           1.   Normal Operation                               62
           2.   -Accident Conditions                            63
      B.   Guides for Exposure to Discrete Particles           64
VI.   ENVIRONMENTAL LEVELS AND DOSES                           68
      A.   Aerosol Effluent                                    69
           1.   Off-Site                                       69
           2.   On-Site                                        75
      B.   Deposition of Particulate Effluent                  79
VII.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                                  88
REFERENCES                                                     92
APPENDICES                                                    102
DISTRIBUTION

-------
                            LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
Number
Title                       Page
   1.   Conceptual Reactor Schematic.                          5

   2.   Fraction of Isotope Chain Assumed Released During
        Full Power Run.                                       12

   3.   Population Centers Near NRDS.                         24

   4.   XE Prime, EP-IXA,  Normal Run Centerline Dose
        Estimates.                                            33

   5.   XE Prime, EP-IXA,  Particle Prediction.                 37

   6.   Locations Where Fresh Fission Products  Were Detected
        (Phoebus-IB,  EP-IV).                                   39

   7.   Dose Models.                                           41

   8.   Off-Site Whole-Body Gamma Exposures  and Infant
        Thyroid Doses Resulting from Reactor Engine Tests
        from CY 1959  to 1969.                                  72

   9.   Pre-Event Dose Predictions and Dose  Estimates from
        Surveillance  Results.                                  76

  10.   Relative Quantity  of    I On Natural Vegetation.       78

  11.   Cloud Centerlines  for  Selected Reactor  Tests.          80

  12.   Estimated Hypothetical Whole-Body External Gamma
        Exposures from Activity Deposited by Selected
        Tests Indicated on Figure. 11.                          81

  13.    Cloud Centerlines  for  Reactor Engine Tests for which
        Particle Deposition was  Documented in Detail.          83

  14.    Three Dimensional  Representation  of  Particle Deposi-
        tion for Pewee I,  EP-III.                              85

  15.    Probability of Receiving Critical Dose  at  Kreb's
        Depth for Four Tests.                                  86

  16.    Normalized Maximum Particle  Concentration.             89
                                 VI

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES


Table
Number
Title                       Page
   1.   Summary of NERVA Reactor  Development.                    3

   2.   Estimated Migration Releases.                           20

   3.   Estimated Corrosion Releases.                           22

   4.   Effluent Parameters.                                    27

   5.   Parameters for  Radioiodine.                             48

   6.   Biological Parameters  for Radioiodine  Isotopes.         50

   7.   Occupational  Dose Standards.                            62

   8.   Comparison of Maximum  Hypothetical  Whole-Body  Gamma
       Exposures and Infant Thyroid Doses  with  Radiation
       Protection Standards.                                   73

   9.   Summary of NRDS Nuclear Rocket  Testing Results.         74

  10.   Typical Effluent Prediction Parameters.                 77
                                   vn

-------
                            I.  INTRODUCTION

From the conception in 1958 of Project Rover, the program to develop a
nuclear powered rocket engine, through June 1970, nineteen nuclear reactors
or engines were tested at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station (NRDS).
About 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, NRDS is part of a large
complex of government-controlled testing reservations known as the Test
Range Complex and including the Nevada Test Site, the Nellis Air Force
Range, and the Tonopah Test Range.  The distance between testing facilities
at NRDS and the outer boundaries of the access-controlled Test Range Com-
plex varies between ten and 80 miles.  The closest populated area beyond
the Test Range Complex is Lathrop Wells, about 15 miles to the south.

This report summarizes information concerning the public health implica-
tions of the radioactive effluent released from past Project Rover Reactor
tests.  The report includes descriptions of the mechanisms of production
and release of the radioactive effluent, the mechanisms of environmental
transport of the effluent and its potential interaction with man, and the
implications of this interaction with man.  Emphasis has been placed on
the public health versus occupational health aspects of the program.

Engines tested recently have utilized a single-pass open-cycle hydrogen-
cooled reactor.  During rocket engine tests, airborne radioactive gases
and particles have been transported to and detected in areas beyond the
Test Range Complex.  As part of this testing program, considerable effort
has been devoted to determining the physical, chemical, and radiological
characteristics of the radioactivity releases, evaluating the potential
biological effects of the releases, and maintaining a radiological safety
program to insure the safety of on-site workers and off-site residents.

Table 1 contains the highlights of the development of the nuclear rocket
engine. *•»»•' The development of the nuclear rocket began in early 1955
                                                                           C2")
under joint sponsorship of the Air Force and the Atomic Energy Commission.

-------
The development of nuclear rocket engine technology was the responsibility
of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory  (LASL), Los Alamos, New Mexico.
The Air Force was responsible for the non-nuclear portion of the project.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration  (NASA) was formed by
executive order in 1958.  In 1960 a joint AEC-NASA agency, the Space Nu-
clear Propulsion Office  (now known as the Space Nuclear Systems Office),
was created to administer development of an operational nuclear rocket.

The first reactors of the program were called KIWI's after the flightless
Kiwi bird of New Zealand.  Initially the KIWI reactor was intended as a
low-power ground test engine of roughly 1,000 Mw; it was proposed that a
larger version, the Phoebus class of reactors with a power of 5,000 Mw,
would be developed for flight engines.  The Phoebus program was cancelled
after several tests, and the present concept is based on development of a
rocket engine of lower power and thrust than the Phoebus or Kiwi designs.

The success of the first nuclear reactor test, KIWI-A, on July 1, 1959,
encouraged SNSO to initiate industrial participation in the program.  In
July 1961, Aerojet General Corporation was chosen to develop a Nuclear
Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) with Westinghouse Astronuclear
Laboratory (WANL) as the subcontractor to provide the nuclear reactors.  The
NRX or NERVA experiments were aimed at developing the basic KIWI reactor
into a nuclear rocket engine.  The NERVA program includes reactor develop-
ment and development of equipment for and testing of a breadboard system.

The NERVA program progressed to the "Experimental Engine" (XE) phase with
the test of the XE Prime in the winter and spring of 1968-69.  The engine
was tested in the down-firing configuration (as opposed to the up-firing
attitude of previous tests), with auxiliary components in a semi-flight con-
figuration and in a partial vacuum to simulate the environment to be encoun-
tered in space. The Pewee Reactor tested in 1968 and the Nuclear Furnace
Reactors are scaled-down models for testing changes in technology in a
nuclear environment.

-------
Table 1.  Summary of NERVA Reactor Development.
  Year
Reactor Test Series
           Configuration
1957

July 1959
KIWI-A
Sept. 1962     KIWI-BIB
Aug. 1964




Sept. 1964



Jan. 1965


June 1965
KIWI-B4E
NRX-A2
KIWI-TRANSIENT NU-
CLEAR TEST

PHOEBUS-1A
Feb.-Mar.
  1966
NRX-A4/EST
Jan. 1967


June 1968


Nov.-Dec.
  1968
Feb.-Sept.
  1969
NRX-A6


PHOEBUS-2A


PEWEE-I



XE PRIME
                        Program started.
                           Gaseous
First power reactor test.
H_ coolant, 5 min. test, 70 Mw power
used micrometer-sized U0? particles,,,,
in a carbon matrix--plate geometry.
First liquid H? cooled reactor, 800 Mw.
Internal core structure failed.(2)

First all bead (UC-) fueled reactor which
contained a redesigned core support
structure.  900 Mw, run of 5 x 105Mw-sec.
(Ref.2)
First NERVA reactor test, 1100 Mw,
3.5 x 105 Mw-sec. Demonstrated flow
control characteristics.

Reactor nuclear safety test experiment.
First Phoebus reactor test. 1100 Mw,
7 x 105 Mw-sec. Ran out of run tank hy-
drogen and had loss of coolant incident.
(Ref.3) Some of the fuel elements had
exterior cladding.(Ref.4)
                                       *
First experiment with breadboard design
and first bootstrap startup to power.
Maximum power 1140 Mw, peak integral
power during a test 1.1 x 106 Mw-sec.
Demonstrated that a nuclear rocket system
could start and operate on its own power
and operate over a wide range of condi-
tions.  The total series nominal full
power operating time was 30 min.(Ref.2)

Operated at full power (1100-1200 Mw) for
60 min., 4.5 x 10* Mw-sec.(Ref.2)

Nominal full power 4200 Mw. Several short
runs, 15 min. run.

Scaled down KIWI type reactor for fuel
development, 500 Mw, 20 min. run time.
Exterior surface of all elements coated.
First test of a NERVA reactor in a flight
type configuration. Reactor in down-firing
position with components clustered in a
semi-flight configuration.
*A breadboard engine contains the principal components of a flight-test system
 with the components arranged for test convenience rather than flight.

-------
             II.  REACTOR DESCRIPTION AND EFFLUENT DEFINITION

 A.   Reactor

 The  Kiwi/NERVA reactor design uses highly enriched uranium in a graphite-base
 core cooled  by hydrogen (the propellant of the rocket engine) which is ex-
 pelled  to  the atmosphere.  The reactor operates at high power densities
 (Megawatts per litre) with core and coolant exit temperatures of about 4,000°F,
 well above the melting point of most metals.  The core structure is largely
                                        (2)
 composed of  graphite and metal carbides.     By its design, the reactor is
 under-moderated and consequently operates on an intermediate energy neutron
 spectrum.

 Figure  1 is  a general schematic of a conceptual design for the NERVA engine.
 The hydrogen coolant flowrate is roughly 90 Ib/sec at 1,500 Mw.  For ground
 testing the hydrogen is ignited as it exits the nozzle to minimize explosion
 hazards.

 The  reactor  can be controlled either by the control drums in the periphery
 of the  core or by changes in the coolant flowrate.  Power is measured by
 neutronics measurements and by temperature, pressure, and flowrate measure-
 ments at power.

 Three different cryogenic systems are used in the ground test program. Hydro-
 gen is used as the coolant and propellant.  The specific impulse of a pro-
 pellant is inversely proportional to the square root of the molecular weight
 of the exhaust gases, making non-oxidized hydrogen the most preferable pro-
pellant.  (In actual rocket operation in space the hydrogen would not be
oxidized.)  Nitrogen is used in various phases of reactor cooldown and for
providing an inert atmosphere for some of the test areas.  Helium is used
 to purge the coolant system of nitrogen prior to the use of hydrogen.

The pressure vessel is the only containment for the reactor.  The only housing
is a three-sided shed set up around the reactor during non-testing periods.

-------
                       THE HOT BLEED CYCLE
                              LIQUID
                          _.HYDROGENN
                          X_JANK  /
                                         100%
                                              •3%
                                         97%
             TURBINE POWER
             CONTROL VALVE
                              D
                                       OVERALL HYDROGEN
                                         FLOW PATTERN
                               Q»— GIMBAL
                                 PUMP
                  3%
         OF REACTOR-]
              EFFLUX |(

BORON CONTROL DRUMS
 IN PERIPHERY OF CORE
                                    XTURBOPUMP
                                       TURBOPUMP
                                       EXHAUST
                                          BERYLLIUM REFLECTOR
                                          NOZZLE COOLANT PIPE
                                          (CARRIES ENTIRE
                                          HYDROGEN FLOW)  (100%)
                               97%
Figure 1
               Conceptual Reactor  Schematic1

-------
 The  core  of recent  reactors,  about  4  feet  long  and  4  feet  in  diameter, has
 been composed of clusters  of  fuel elements,  hexagonal rods composed  of UC?
                                                    235
 beads  (containing oralloy  uranium—93%  enriched in     U) in a graphite
 matrix.   The core structure design  limits  the core  coolant flow  to the
 coolant channels in the  fuel  rods;  coolant does not flow between the rods
 or rod clusters.

 High reactor operating temperatures cause  fission products to migrate from
 the  fuel  beads through the graphite matrix into the coolant.   To reduce
 fission product  release, coating or cladding materials (not cladding in
 the  sense of metallic claddings for other  types of  reactor fuels) are used
 on the beads and the elements to protect the elements and  to  reduce  the
 migration of fission products from  the  fuel.

 There  have  been  continual  changes in  the design of  the reactor core  support
 structure,  the means of  incorporating the  uranium into the fuel,  and the
 coating materials for the  fuel beads  and elements.  Additional changes are
 contemplated for the future.  The changes  are made  to improve core integrity
 and  thus  increase the design  operating  power and potential run time.  These
 changes have resulted in significant  decreases  in the fraction of the fission
 inventory released  by present day reactors as compared to  the early  Kiwi
 reactors.

 The  reactor engines  are tested at test  stands or test cells,  which contain
 coolant storage  and  distribution systems and auxiliary equipment needed for
 testing the reactors.  The reactors are, so  to  speak,  plugged into the test
 stands or cells.

 The  initial  tests were conducted at Test Cell A.  When the reactor power and
 run  time  were  increased, Test Cell  C, with its  increased coolant storage
 capacity,  was  used.   Reactors were  tested  at Cells  A  and C in an "upside
 down" configuration, with the exhaust expelled  vertically  upward rather than
 downward.   Structural support for the test vehicle  was  easier to construct
with the  engine in this position.

-------
The XE Prime test was the first of the Engine Test Stand Experiments (ETS-1).
The ETS-1 tests positioned the reactor "normally," with the gases exhausting
vertically downward and being ducted out at an angle above the horizontal.
The component clustering for the ETS-1 tests approached flight configuration,
and the engine was operated in a partial vacuum to simulate a space environ-
ment.

Reactor engine tests are termed Experimental Plans (EP's).  The first EP is
normally a criticality checkout of the general neutronics of the reactor
and its control systems and instrumentation.  Other tests prior to the full
power tests include intermediate power tests.  Subsequent tests include the
full power tests, operating systems tests, restarts, etc.  As discussed
later, the amount of effluent released is a function of the operating tem-
perature as well as core design and total operating time.  Significant
effluent release is largely limited to the full power tests, the primary
subject of this paper.  (Radioactive effluent has been released not only
during the actual tests but also during reactor cooldown after full power
tests.)  Coolant must be passed through the core to remove the fission pro-
duct decay heat.  The required cooldown period depends on the experimental
plan operating power and time integral.  A general rule-of-thumb for the
basic reactor is one day of cooling per 106 Mw-sec power integral.

After the Phoebus-IB test in February 1967, LASL developed a filtration
system to be placed over the reactor nozzle during reactor cooldown.  Called
the "FROG" (Filter Reactor Outlet Gas), this filter is part of a rail-
mounted shed which can be placed around the reactor during non-testing periods,
This system has not been used on the test stands.

B.  Reactor Effluent

The full power operating parameters for reactors  (temperature, flowrate, etc.)
result in the release of a small fraction of the fission products.  This
fraction has varied from test to test from about 10% to less than 1% of most
of the fission products (50% for    Cd).  '    The releases have occurred
through two modes:  migration of fission products from the fuel elements into

-------
 the  coolant  stream,  and  actual  release  of  fuel  fragments  through erosion
 and  corrosion  of  the fuel.   '  '      Since  some  of the  fuel fragments have
 disintegrated  into aerosol-sized  particles,  field measurements have not
 been able  to fully distinguish  between  the two  modes.

 Fission  products  released by migration  tend to  condense or agglomerate on
 to atmospheric dust  particles or  small  particulate matter released from
 the  reactor, and  on  surface  dust  entrained by the reactor plume forming a
 composite  gaseous and small  particulate (micrometer  size  or  less) effluent.   '
 This  composite will  be called an  aerosol since  it acts as suspended material
 and  essentially follows  the  air stream.                                 ,

 The  core fragments are generally  in  the size range of  tens of micrometers.
 (Ref. 13,14,15,16,17,18)  Because of their size and  density  they act as
 particles  and  fallout along  the effluent track.   Some  of  the material re-
 leased as  UC_  may be  oxidized to  U02> an
-------
Prediction of migration releases is based on two empirically
supported assumptions:  (1) the rate of loss of any fission
product, dN/dt, is proportional to the amount of that fission
product (N) in the portion of the element or core being con-
sidered; and (2) the migration coefficient (K) for the
fission product of interest is a function of temperature (T).
                                 (9 10  1Q)
Based on the previous assumptions  '  '  "J
          dN/dt  = -KN                                  II-l
and  •
          K      =  K  exp(-F/RT)                       I1-2
WHERE:
          N    -    amount of fission product in the fuel.
          t    -    time
          K    -    rate constant or migration coefficient;
                    K , migration coefficient at reference
                         temperature
          F    -    activation energy based on laboratory data
          R    -    gas-constant
          T    -    absolute temperature of the fuel being considered
          K,K , and F are empirical constants that are established
                    from data from past reactor tests and labora-
                    tory experiments.

WANL has noted that the release of some of the radionuclides can
be described better by two release constants.  They relate this to
a ''slow migration" for the coating material and a "fast migration
parameter" for the graphite matrix.     This interpretation
results in equation II-3.
          dN/dt =  -(K^ + K2N2) where N = 1^ + N2    II-3
The parameters for these equations vary according to the design
and are empirically determined.

In estimating the releases of various fission products, the
yield and decay sequence of the complete chain must be con-
sidered.  For example, the    I chain may be represented as:(20,21)

-------
                                131
                                   mTe(30 hr)
 i ?i             -I-?-!          X       --
    Sn(1.32m)  + 10-LSb(23m) *         4-  0.20
                                               *<%>
                            v.       •*•            sr
                           **      '
                           ° ' J  Thus   the important mechanism for
           131                                           !31
release of    I from the reactor is not the migration of    I from
beaded fuel, but rather the migration of Sn and Sb.  This  brings
about two additional considerations:
     1.   If a reactor with beaded fuel is re-started several days
     after a previous test, the primary source of    I release is
     the Sn and Sb iodine precursors from the second test.  The
     actual iodine release fraction is less than its precursors.
     2.   The release fraction has not been the same for all of
     the iodine isotopes because of differences in their produc-
     tion chains.
                              10

-------
Figure 2 indicates release fractions predicted for various isotope
chains for the Phoebus-2A reactor test.    The curve was determined
from measurements on the Phoebus-1A.  The curve was utilized for
subsequent tests by estimating the release for several mass chains
(based on changes in design) and then transposing the curve to fit
             f4 7)
those points.  '   In general the mass chains with the highest
fractional releases are those of relatively low fission yield.

b.  Particulate Effluent

Release of core material through corrosion and/or erosion is more
difficult to describe and measure than the migration of fission
products from the core.  The hydrogen coolant reacts with graphite
at operating temperatures to produce methane and other hydro-
        (22)
carbons.      The release mechanism has been described as chemical
corrosion which in its later stages is accompanied by physical
erosion of the fuel.  '     The release mechanism has been related
to both minor breakage of fuel elements and reaction of hydrogen
with the fuel as a result of defects or failure of the fuel element
cladding, in some cases absence of cladding on sections of the fuel.
(Ref. 4,9,22,23).  The fuel element losses have been related to
thermal and/or mechanical stresses.      The quantity of material
released by corrosion has been found to increase approximately expo-
nentially with fuel core operating time   '    and has been related
to the number of operating cycles.

The primary purpose of the cladding material is to protect the graph-
ite core matrix material.  Graphite loss has been the predominant
factor in the loss of core reactivity from corrosion.  It has been
estimated that roughly 10 grams of graphite per element could be  lost
K £       .   ....          «.  ,.         .  ,  . (10,22)
before a significant amount of uranium is lost.   '
Mode? of corrosion can be separated into three categories:
     1.  Bore corrosion—from the coolant channel.  This can be
     further subdivided into mid-band  (horizontal plane centered
     on the vertical axis) or hot-end  (exit end of core) corrosion.

                              11

-------
                                            140
                                     150
                        MASS  NUMBER
Figure 2
Fraction of Isotope Chain Assumed
Released During Full Power Run
(Phoebus 2A)7
                              12

-------
     2.  External corrosion of elements (external surface,  not
     coolant channel).  The reactor design minimizes,  but does
     not completely prevent, the flow of hydrogen around the
     exterior of the fuel elements.

     3.  Corrosion and erosion of broken fuel elements.

The relative significance and extent of these mechanisms has varied
from reactor to reactor according to the design and type of fuel.

Corrosion can also create a feedback effect.  Reactivity loss and
possibly gain as a result of corrosion is compensated for by ad-
justing the control drums.  Adding reactivity by withdrawing the
control drums from their optimum position results in greater power
peaking in the periphery of the core, thus accentuating not only
corrosion, but also diffusion losses.  The normal variation of
fission density (fission/gram of U) with physical position in the
core has been as high as a factor of 15.

Bore corrosion takes place as a result of flaking and/or cracking
and possibly imperfections of the bore coating.  Hydrogen attacks
the graphite fuel matrix through these breaks in the fuel surface
protection causing either pinholes or holes in the bore surface.  '
If the breach in coating is small, a cavity may be produced within
the matrix leaving only a pinhole at the surface.  However, the
cavity wall may also collapse, resulting in a hole.
    (22)
Lyon     indicates that uranium release from the Pewee-I reactor
was primarily from broken and massively corroded fuel.  The type
of corrosion was not identified, but it was probably extensive
bore corrosion.  Lyon concluded that about  170 grams of U from
broken or massively corroded fuel elements was released, but
that about 100 grams from exterior and pinhole corrosion was
                                  f221
probably retained in the reactor.^  3

Quantitative projections for releases have been based  on releases
from past reactors, releases from laboratory tests if  there has

                              13

-------
 been  a significant  change  in  fuel  design,  and  scaling  factors  for
 variations  in reactor  operating  parameters and fuel  changes.

 The following outlines the WANL  prediction technique.
      1.   Postulate  reactivity loss for  the proposed  reactor tests
      (considering temperature, time,  fuel  channel  coating, pro-
      posed  number of operating cycles).
      2.   Estimate the  uranium loss associated  with the reac-
      tivity loss.   This  estimate is evidently  based  on
      inspection  and analysis  of  the NRX-A5 reactor.  It
      assumes  analogous modes  of  fuel  loss  and  similar  axial
      fuel loss distribution.
      3.   Estimate the  fission product loss associated with the
      uranium  loss.  There  is  a significant variation in fission
      product  production  per gram of uranium in the core because
      of the axial and  radial  variation  of  power density.  Also,
      fuel may be lost  prior to the end  of  the  reactor  test.
      For  the  NRX-A5 reactor,  it  was estimated  that 1.2% of the
      fission  product inventory was released per percent of
      uranium  lost from the core.

From  this information, the uranium release for the NRX-A6 was  estimated
to be  650 grams.  This was three times  the amount  that Pan American
Airways (PAA) accounted  for by an  integration  of ground deposition.

LASL estimates have been based on  a similar approach where past
results were  extrapolated  to  future tests.  The pertinent factors
included operating temperatures, number of temperature cycles, and
 .       .    _  .  ,   .   (22)
changes in  fuel  design.

2.   Effluent  Release—Accident Condition

The parameters for evaluating accident  releases for  nuclear rocket
engine reactors have varied with time.  The changes  have been  largely
due to availability of information  and  changes  in  reactor design.

                              14

-------
The maximum design accident, related to uncontrolled drum roll-out,
is assumed to occur without coolant flow.

The following criteria have been used to evaluate the control-drum
roll-out accident:
     a.   LASL - For Kiwi and Pewee reactors:
          2 x 1019 fissions have been postulated to occur as
         •a result of a drum rotation rate of 45° per second.
          (Ref. 3,4,13,24)  The associated energy release is
          near the threshold of dynamic destruction, but little
                                                       (25)
          if any dynamic destruction has been expected.
                                              (*? f\~\
          The release assumptions of TID-14844     have been
          used:  1% solids, 50% halogens, and 100% of the
          volatile fission products, the cumulative total of
          which is equivalent to 15% fission product release.
          (Ref. 3,13,27)  An excursion of 2 x 1020 fissions
          was estimated to be possible for the Phoebus-2A.
     b.   WANL - For NERVA or NRX type reactors:
          7,000 Mw-sec, which is equivalent to about 2 x 1020
          fissions, has been postulated to occur as a result
          of a drum rotation rate of 55° per second.  WANL
          has applied a general release assumption of 50%
          for all of the fission products.  The release
          assumption is based on results from  Kiwi-TNT, la-
          boratory experiments, and predicted reactor core
          temperatures.
The difference in the energy release assumptions appears to be due
to the different rates of control drum rotation.  The estimates have
been based on the reactor criticality neutronic calculation com-
puter codes of LASL and WANL, respectively.  The difference in re-
lease assumptions is minor.
                              15

-------
     The loss-of-coolant accident is limiting for a reactor with a
     significant fission product inventory remaining from a power
     test.  For conservatism the loss of coolant was assumed to occur
     at the end of the power run, the time when the reactor would
     have a substantial fission product inventory.  An analogous
     accident would be a control drum roll-out (to provide the
     energy to melt the core) subsequent to a power test.

     The following assumptions have been used to predict the conse-
     quences of such an accident:
                                                    C *) f\\
          LASL - The previously referenced TID-14844    assumptions.
                 (Ref.3,13,24)
          WANL - 50% of the fission products. ('8'10-)

     Experience to date has indicated that fuel bead material should not
     be encountered in effluent under accident conditions.  Material of
     this nature was not noted for the KIwi-TNT test or the Phoebus-lA
     test (partial destruction of core due to loss of coolant and over-
     ,   ..  ,  (3,13)
     heating).  '  J

C.   Source Term Measurements
     1.  Aerosol Effluent
     Three methods have been used to document reactor releases:
          Aircraft sampling
          Elephant Gun sampler
          Post mortem analysis of the reactor.
     The results from these documentation techniques have been compared
     to the pre-event predictions and used to improve the estimates for
     future reactor tests.   The first two techniques are based on:
          a.   Evidence that approximately 50% of the    Cd produced has
          been released.   The fraction released was due to migration.
          This fraction has been fairly constant for the normal oper-
          ating limits.  Thus, the quantity of    Cd in a sample has
          been compared to  the estimated total  produced and from this

                                   16

-------
     ratio the fraction of the total effluent sampled has been
                                             ely
                                             (4)
estimated.  The release of    Cd is  largely due  to  the
     rapid migration of its silver precursor.
         99
     b.    Mo has not been released by diffusion.   Thus,  the
                                 99
     quantity of fission product   Mo present in effluent has
     been taken to be an indication of the amount  of corrosion.

The techniques of post mortem analysis have not been adaptable to
quantitating the small fractions of release of most of the fission
products.  Also the time increment between the reactor test and
analysis has been such that quantities of most of the fission pro-
ducts have been significantly decreased by radioactive decay.  The
primary objective of post mortem analysis has been to obtain reactor
design information, but it has also been possible to quantitate the
   Cd release by analysis of the core for     Cd.   Thus,  the    Cd
release fraction has been refined and used to scale the quantities
of other radioisotopes to the total quantity released.

Both LASL and NERC-LV have used aircraft sampling to estimate efflu-
ent releases.  The LASL technique, used on NRX/EST and subsequent
tests prior to XE Prime, involved aerial sampling of the plume at
numerous heights and transects within about six miles of the reactor.
Particulate samples taken during the plume transects were analyzed
for specific radionuclides and the quantities related to total
effluent based on the    Cd results.  Analysis of the samples was
performed by LASL and/or WANL.  The results of this technique have
served as the official source term for most of the reactor tests
prior to XE Prime.  The LASL aircraft sampling program has been
largely discontinued since 1967.

The NERC-LV aircraft sampling technique is based on sampling on a
pre-fixed coordinate system to obtain an estimate of the cloud size
and concentration profile within the cloud.  The sampling equip-
ment aboard the aircraft includes a mass particulate sampler and

                              17

-------
 charcoal  bed (to  obtain continuous  samples),  sequential sampler
 (for obtaining profile),  cryogenic  sampler or a "Grab Sampler"
 to obtain samples of gases  in  the cloud, electrostatic precipi-
 tator,  Anderson impactor (particle  size), and instruments for
 measuring external radiation exposure  to obtain real-time posi-
 tion relative  to  the cloud.  The LASL  sampling has taken place
 at about  one to five miles  from the test location prior to
 significant  depletion of the cloud  due to fallout.  The NERC-LV
 sampling  is  done  at tens  of miles from the test stand by which
 time depletion may have occurred.   Reports have been written
 concerning the results  for  each event.  Additional information
 concerning the sampling procedure and  examples of results are
 given in  references  11,  12, and 28.

 The  initial  source term estimates based on radiochemistry and
 inspection of  the core  material suffered from lack of sensitivity
 and  from  inability to resolve  the effluent release into compo-
 nents for specific experiments within  a test  series.  Aircraft
 sampling  improved the quantitation  of  effluent releases.  However,
 variations of  the effluent  composition with time and difficulties
 in accurately  locating  the  cloud (caused by wind shear with
 height  and variations in  wind  speed and direction with time) have
 made  accurate  measurement difficult.   Also, the LASL program was
 based on particulate  sampling  and thus obtained no samples of the
 noble gases  and probably  only  a fraction of the sub-micron size
 particles.

 In 1967, LASL  developed a new sampling apparatus known as the
 Elephant Gun.  The device is composed  of a probe which can be
 extended into  the  effluent, directly over the  nozzle, to obtain
samples which  can be  stored in sampling tanks.  Samples equiv-
 alent to several moles of hydrogen  effluent may be taken at
selected times throughout a reactor test.  The sampling mechan-
ism is sealed when it is  removed from  the effluent, thus

                              18

-------
retaining any of the gases.  The fission products are removed from
the sampling tanks by acid leaching and the solution is then ana-
lyzed for appropriate radionuclides.  Problems concerning sampling
with the Elephant Gun relate to the concentration gradient across
the plume and insuring proper and unbiased sampler operation at the
effluent temperature and pressure.

Table 2 gives the pre-event predictions and post-test estimates of
the    I and gross gamma releases for selected reactor tests.  The
data indicate a definite decrease in the fractional release from
recent tests versus tests such as NRX/EST.

WANL and LASL have provided estimated source terms for such fission
    ,  .      89C   91V  91C   95 and 977   111,   115r.  132_
products as   Sr,   Y,   Sr,          Zr,    Ag,    Cd,    Te,
131"135I, 235U, 99Mo, and 144Ce.(6>8>9)  The NERC-LV reports present
values for most of the isotopes indicated above  (normally excluding
   Cd and    U) in addition to results for the noble gases.   '  '  '

2.   Particulate Effluent
The presence of particulate matter in the effluent in the size range
of tens of micrometers was observed prior to the early NRX tests.  '
However, there was only limited evaluation of the released material
until the NRX/EST test in March of 1966.^  Not until the Phoebus-IB
reactor in February 1967 was emphasis placed on before-the-fact pre-
diction and after-the-fact quantitation of particulate effluent
         (14,15)
releases.

There are several ways of quantitatively estimating the amount of
material lost as large particles:
     a.   Relate reactivity losses, as measured by relative
     control drum position, to the uranium loss.
     b.   Relate the quantity of uranium or number of particles
     collected by aerial sampling to the total release.
                              19

-------
                                      TABLE 2.   ESTIMATED MIGRATION RELEASES
                                                                            (5)
ro
o
Reactor Test
Date Full Power
Mw
Power Integral
(106 Mw-sec)
Max . Chamber
Temp. (°R)
Percent Release*
Pre-Event
Predictions
Post-Event
Estimates
I Gamma I
NRX/EST-A4, EP-IVA
Phoebus-IB, EP-IV
NRX-A6, EP-III
Phoebus-2A, EP-IV
Phoebus-2A, EP-V
Pewee-I, EP-III
03/25/66
02/23/67
12/15/67
06/26/68
07/18/68
12/11/68
1200
1340
1140
4010
3430
503
1.1
2.6
4.5
4.5
2.5
1.53
4150
4000
4150
4000
4000
N/A
3.9
4.0
2.7
4.2
5.7
10.0
2.3
N/A
2.1
4.0
4.0
7.0
5.0
1.0
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.8
Gamma
3.0
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.5
        *This includes only releases due to migration Cc°rrosion fraction subtracted from total).(5)

        N/A = Not Available

-------
     c.   Data from Elephant Gun:  Although the Elephant Gun was
     originally intended only for aerosol sampling, it has been
     noted that the number of beads or large particles impacting
     on the probe can be estimated from autoradiographing the
     probe.   '    This estimate can be summed with time and
     integrated for the total nozzle cross-section to indicate
     the total release.  The total release can also be estimated
     from the amount of uranium in the Elephant Gun samples.
     d.   Survey the fallout pattern to obtain the number of
     particles per unit area.  Based on the particle size dis-
     tribution and area distribution, the results can be integrated
     to obtain the total mass deposited.
     e.   Corrosion losses have also been estimated from post
     mortem data, but difficulties exist in distinguishing the
     quantity of material lost in the effluent from the quantity
     disturbed in reactor disassembly.  This procedure does not
     allow losses to be related to specific tests.

In essence, a combination of the previously indicated techniques has
been used.  Not all of the techniques have been used for each of the
tests; i.e., neither the Elephant Gun nor aerial sampling by LASL,
(NERC-LV sampled) were used for the XE Prime reactor test series. The
Elephant Gun has only been used at the test cells, not at the test
stand.  Table 3 indicates the release estimates for previous reactor
tests.  Both pre-test and post-test estimates are given.
                              21

-------
                               TABLE 3.  ESTIMATED CORROSION RELEASES
                                                                      C5)
NJ
K)
Reactor Test
Phoebus-IB, EP-IV
NRX-A6, EP-III
Phoebus-2A, EP-IV
Phoebus-2A, EP-V
Pewee-1, EP-III
Date
02/23/67
12/15/67
06/26/68
07/18/68
12/11/68
Full Power
Mw
1340
1140
4010
3430
503
Power Integra]
(106 Mw-sec)
2.6
4.5
4.53
2.5
1.53
L Grams of
Pre-Event
Estimate
500
Not made
125
N/A
150C
Uranium
Post -Event
Estimate
200
210a
60
55b
140d
        The reactivity  loss  corresponded to  650 grams  of uranium.   The PAA integration of the
        ground deposition  indicated the  value of 210 grams.   WANL  concluded that this indicated
        that only  0.3 of the uranium loss was related  to particulate effluent.(10)

        Van Vleck*-  •* indicates  450 grams for Phoebus-IB, and 70 grams for Phoebus-2A, EP-IV.

       C SNPO Operations Plan for Pewee-I.

       d 170 grams/22)  139  grams, (-3°-)   and  100 grams. (-16')

-------
               III.  EFFLUENT TRANSPORT AND DISTRIBUTION

A.   Effluent Transport

     1.   Test Location and Site Geography
     The NRDS test cells and stand are located southwest of the Nevada
     Test Site, approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada.
     Test Range Complex boundaries are approximately 10 miles to the south
     and west of the test cells and over 80 miles to the north.  Lathrop
     Wells, Nevada, about 15 miles SSW of the test cell, population less
     than 100, is the nearest community.  Beatty, Nevada, population
     about 500, lies about 30 miles to the west.  The terrain surrounding
     the test cells is largely mountainous except for a long, flat valley
     extending for about 40 miles to the southwest.

     The Nevada Test Site and the Nuclear Rocket Development Station
     encompass an approximately rectangular area 50 miles north to south
     and 30 miles east to west within a region of generally north-to-south
     trending ridges and valleys.  The Nellis Air Force Range provides an
     additional buffer zone.  The terrain is extremely irregular, with
     elevations ranging from a high of 7700 feet on Rainier Mesa in the
     north to lows of 3100 feet in Frenchman Flat in the southeast and
     2700 feet in the extreme southwest corner on the edge of the Amargosa
     Desert.  The test locations are at about 3800 feet MSL.  There is a
     general but frequently interrupted downward slope from north to south.

     The areas adjoining NRDS are sparsely populated and the desert envi-
     ronment limits agriculture.  Locations and populations of communities
     near NTS and NRDS are shown on Figure 3.  The Figures in Appendix A
     give a more detailed description of populated areas and the distri-
     bution of milk cows in the off-site area.
                                   23

-------
                                                   LAS VEGAS
                                               300,000
                    16,000«-BARSTOW
                               500 OR MORE PEOPLE
Figure 3
Population  Centers Near NRDS
                                24

-------
2.   Factors Affecting Transport and Deposition
Quiring     has summarized the climatological data for the NTS and
                    (321
the NRDS.  Van Vleck     presented a summary of diffusion param-
eters related to the NRDS testing program.   Observations of meteor-
ological variables have been recorded in certain locations at the
NTS and NRDS since 1956, when the U. S. Weather Bureau began its
observation program.  Upper-air soundings have been made at the
Yucca weather station since October 1956.  Since that time more
than 100 sites have been instrumented for various periods to meas-
ure wind, temperature, relative humidity, precipitation, or com-
binations of these parameters.  Observations of winds aloft have
been generally made at intervals of five or six hours, except during
test support, when the interval has been shortened to one hour and
occasionally to 15 minutes.  Around-the-clock surface observations
were started at the Yucca station in December 1961 and have continued
with a few minor interruptions since that time.  In addition to the
continuous record at the Yucca station, observations of the winds
aloft are made at various points around the NTS and NRDS for specific
operations.

What is generally referred to as "good weather" is usually experienced
at the NTS.  Cloudy days are rare in summer and winter, and precipi-
tation is even more rare.  During late winter and spring, severe
winds sometimes create dust storms.  Operations can usually be sched-
uled months in advance with delays for weather conditions resulting
                                              (331
only from undesirable wind directions.  Fultyn     reported atmos-
pheric temperature profiles taken very near to test times for ten
reactor tests.  All profiles were nearly equal to the dry adiabatic
lapse rate through much of the atmospheric layer containing the plumes.

The Air Resources Laboratory, Las Vegas  (ARL-LV), National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce, is responsible
for meteorological support (measurements and data evaluation) and
effluent radiation dose predictions.

                              25

-------
 3.   Plume Rise
 The coolant gas in most tests has been expelled vertically upward
 (XE Prime is an exception) at speeds of about Mach 3 and discharge
 temperatures of about 4,000°F.  The total thermal energy of the
 plume has been about four times as great as the nuclear energy of
 the reactor, because of the chemical energy generated in burning
 the hydrogen.  The total thermal energy release rate for the
 Phoebus-IB, EP-IV plume while operating at a power of 1,500 mega-
 watts was about 1.5 x 109 calories/second, of which about 3.6 x 108
 calories/second were contributed by the nuclear energy of the
 reactor.  Vertical momentum of the jet is believed to contribute
 negligibly to the height of rise of the plume; the controlling factor
 is thought to be the thermal energy of the plume.   '    For purposes
                     (34)
 of comparison, Briggs     indicates that thermal energy release rates
 for stack gases from the largest commercial power plants are on the
 order of  10  calories/second.

 The effective plume rise has been important from several standpoints.
 The higher the plume rise, the lower the maximum ground level concen-
 tration will be and the further out from the point of release it will
 occur.  Thus, underestimation of plume rise leads to conservative
 dose predictions.  If the atmospheric wind velocity varies both in
 speed and direction with altitude, the plume rise determines the winds
 that provide the effective transport medium.  Under atmospheric con-
 ditions with a large amount of shear, an incorrect estimate of the
 plume rise can result in gross errors in the predicted trajectory
 and transport speed.  Estimates of average wind speeds and plume
                                                 (^f\*\
heights from several tests are given in Table 4.     The average
 altitude for the peak concentration with hydrogen coolant flow rates
 of about one hundred pounds per second has been about 10,000 feet MSL
or above.

A variety of techniques for estimating plume rise have been proposed
                 (34)
and used.  Briggs     critically reviewed many of these models and

                              26

-------
                                  TABLE  4.   EFFLUENT  PARAMETERS
 Reactor Test
  Average Hydrogen
Flow at Full Power(5)
     (Ibs/sec)
Power Integral(5)
   (106 Mw-sec)
Wind Velocity(36)c
      (m/sec)
Mean layer wind speed within the  transport  layer.
   Effective
Plume Height(36)
    (meters)
Kiwi-B4D, EP-IV
Kiwi-B4E, EP-V
Kiwi-B4E, EP-VI
NRX-A2, EP-IV
NRX-A3, EP-IV
NRX-A3, EP-V
Phoebus-lA, EP-IV
NRX-A4, EP-IV
NRX-A4, EP-IVA
NRX-A5, EP-III
NRX-A5, EP-IV
Phoebus-IB, EP-IV
NRX-A6, EP-III
Phoebus-2A, EP-IV
Phoebus-2A, EP-V
Pewee-1, EP-III
Kiwi -TNT
69
68
70
75
74
72
69
78
80
72
71
94
72
261
244
42
0
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.0
2.6
4.5
4.5
2.5
1.5
0.009
10.8
8.2
4.1
6.7
4.1
3.6
4.1
5.1
4.6
2.6
2.1
3.6
12.4
4.1
5.1
4.1

1000
850
2050
1200
900
1350
1500
1500
2250
1350
1800
1650
725
3475
2550
1200


-------
 concluded that transitional plume rise could best be described
 by the "2/3 law":

           h(x) =    1.6 F1/V1x2/3                      III-l

      Where

      h(x)  = plume  rise  or height  of the cloud above  the  terrain
           •  as a function of downwind distance (feet).
      F    = flux of buoyancy force from stack,  divided by the
             mean atmospheric density - 4.3  x 10~  Q..
                                    43
             0  = cal/sec and F  =  ft /sec
              rl
      U    = mean wind speed (ft/sec)
      x    = distance downwind from the point of release  (in  feet)
      1.6   = empirical constant  chosen by fit of data.

 The plume  rise is  not a single  value (equation III-l) but rather is a
 function of the  distance downwind.*  Measurements  of plume rise should
 be associated with the  distance from the test point  at which the
 measurements  were  made.

 In the past,  plume rise predictions for NRDS tests have been based on
 a combination of plume  rise  equations  (Briggs1  and others),  information
 from past  reactor  tests,  and atmospheric lapse  rate  measurements.  The
 occasional  existence of a subsidence  inversion  at  8,000 to 10,000 feet
MSL and the uncertainties  of predicting penetration  of the layer by the
plume present  additional  difficulties  in making accurate predictions.

4.   Aerosol  Effluent Transport
During the course of nuclear  rocket testing,  radioactive  gases and
small particulates that behave  aerodynamically  essentially like gases
^Equation III-l becomes indeterminate for zero wind speed, and is
 thus inappropriate for such conditions.

                              28

-------
have been released into the atmosphere.  Initial concentrations of
these materials are diluted by atmospheric turbulence as they are
transported downwind.  For each reactor test, the potential for
downwind doses must be assessed based on the expected exposure to
concentrations of ionizing radiation.  Predictions of effluent
release, transport, and human interaction have been presented to
a review panel prior to each reactor test.

Radiation exposure levels downwind can be estimated by knowing the
nature of the contaminating source and the parameters of the at-
mosphere that determine the dilution of the contaminant cloud as
it moves away from the reactor.  The initial properties of the
source that need to be determined are:  (1) the source strength
and cloud composition, usually expressed in curies of activity;
(2) the duration of the release; (3) the initial geometry of the
source [i.e., whether it is a vertical line source, an elevated
volume source, or an elevated point source] and (4) the available
energy, both kinetic and thermal, for producing plume rise.  The
source strength and the duration of the run have been estimated
by the laboratory conducting the test.  The initial geometry of
the source is difficult to determine because the cloud is invis-
ible, but an elevated point source has been assumed because of the
nature of the rising plume.

Dilution of atmospheric contaminants is a function of atmospheric
turbulence related in part to seasonal and diurnal effects (e.g.,
solar heating), the influence of large scale weather regimes,
and the ground surface roughness.  All of these have superimposed
effects that result in a wide spectrum of turbulent eddies which
are quite random in their formation, individual behavior, and
description.  It is the random nature of turbulent eddies that
makes statistical techniques essential in any practical dilution
equation.
                              29

-------
 The  dilution  equations  that have been used at the NRDS are special
 forms  of the  Gaussian distribution formulation adapted by Sutton
 and  Pasquill  and Gifford.    '   '   '     Since the first reactor test
 at NRDS,  the  Sutton  diffusion  equation has been used as the basic
 dilution model       by  ARL to  predict air concentrations of gaseous
 and  fine particulate matter released during full power tests.

 Sutton1 s diffusion equation integrated with respect  to time for a
 continuous  elevated  point  source with anisotropic eddy diffusion
 downstream  can be written  as follows:

          xr  1 =    2QR    exp -
                  iir  r   2~n       r  2  2~n
                 irUC  C  x          C  x
                    y z            z
     Where  (any  compatable  set  of units)
     X(x) = Air  concentration  (Ci-sec/m3)  as  a function of distance
            downwind
     QD   = Source strength (Ci)
      K
     U    = Mean wind speed (m/sec)
     C    = Lateral diffusion coefficient  (meters    )
     C    = Vertical  diffusion  coefficient (meters    )
      it
     x    = Downwind  distance  (meters)
     h    = Effective stack height (meters) at a selected downwind
            distance; e.g., 1 mile.
     n    = Stability parameter (dimensionless)

This equation yields  ground level  values of the air  concentration
with the x-axis  along the centerline.   If  isotropic  eddy diffusion
is assumed then  C  =  C   = C, and  the equation becomes:
                                     2
          X(x) =      2QR   exp  -   h
                   IIf,2 2-n       _2 2-n
                  irUC x          C x
                              30

-------
The source strength, QR, has been estimated by the laboratory con-
ducting the test.  The mean wind speed, U, has been determined from
the predicted wind structure of the atmosphere.  C  and n have been
assumed to be 0.10 (m ) and 0.25 (dimensionless), respectively, for
normal daytime cases.  For normal reactor runs, the effective stack
height, h, has usually been estimated to be between 1,000 and 1,500
meters above the ground depending on the atmospheric temperature
profile (see Table 4).

Equation III-3 is based on several assumptions:

     1.   The cloud diffuses over a flat homogeneous surface
     which acts as a perfect reflector to the effluent.
     2.   The cloud is formed of gases or particles which
     do not fall out.
     3.   The meteorological situation is steady state, i.e.,
     there are no variations in the various parameters in the
     diffusion equation in space or time.
     4.   The diffusion is isotropic.
     5.   The release can be described as an elevated point source.

None of these assumptions is strictly valid for reactor tests at the
NRDS.  The steady state assumption has been perhaps the most serious
disparity as far as NRDS operations are concerned.  It has been
observed that the wind speed and direction both change, often quite
drastically, in both space and time.  Effluent clouds from reactor
tests quickly mix through several thousand feet of atmosphere and,
through this depth, there is often a considerable amount of wind
shear.  Wind shear is not quantitatively taken into account in the
diffusion equation although it may be compensated for in the choice
of eddy diffusion parameters.  The effect of shear is to spread the
cloud laterally and thus reduce the centerline concentrations.

                              31

-------
 Evaluations  of past  results have indicated that the effluent release
 cannot be described  as a point source  at the effective stack height.
       f33)
 Fultyn     proposed  describing the process as being equivalent to
 release of 1%  of  the effluent at ground level with the other 99%
 released at  the effective  stack height.  ARL used this technique for
 a number of  years, but more recently has adopted the practice of
 reshaping the  near-in diffusion curve  (out to 5-10 miles) to approx-
 imate past results.   *    Both of these techniques are methods of
 taking into  account  the fact that part of the plume "peels off" as
 it ascends;  i.e., the entire effluent does not rise to the same
 altitude.

 Figure 4 presents examples of pre-event dose predictions for the
 normal run accident  dose estimates and for one of the XE Prime tests.
 Meteorological and trajectory information were also presented to the
 safety panel prior to tests.  Dose prediction models are discussed
 in Section III.

 Although the Sutton  equation has been the basis for the dilution
 prediction model used by ARL, a generalized Gaussian equation with
 Pasquill/Gifford values for the diffusion parameters has proven
                                                     f35 37)
 valuable under unusual stability conditions.  Gifford   '  J gives
 values for the diffusion parameters as a function of the distance
 downwind for various atmospheric stability conditions.

 Numerous attempts have been made to develop diffusion models to
 improve effluent prediction capabilities for NRDS operations.
                                                        /"ro~i
 Several of these models were reviewed by Wilson in 1968.
 Wilson concluded that, from the standpoint of availability of
meteorological parameters and ease of calculation, the previously
 described Sutton model was preferable.  Models reviewed by Wilson
 included:
     1.    Stigall and Galley   '  ^ presented an empirical
     model based on effluent data for tests between May 1964

                              32

-------
LU

gioo

:Q
cc
o
~o
i CO
   10
5
<
O
x
LU

CC
O
LL

OC
  0.01
                               T.I.P. = 6.O  X 10   Mw SECS

                                    PLUS INVENTORY

                               RELEASE FRACTIONS

                                tr   -0.9% • SUTTON MODEL.
                               131  I =1.6%

                               132 I =O.9%

                               133 I =O.3%

                               134 I =O.2%

                               135 1 =0.2%
                                                                     Cy=Cz=O.316

                                                                         n=0.2S

                                                                        h=1OOOm
               OJ

               O



               CO
               LU
                                  LU
           CO
           O
           r
           co
                                 7    10        20



                                   DISTANCE (MILES)
                              30
50   70
100
200
       BRIEF 0900 PDT

       VALID  1100PDT  8/28/69

       (ARL-LV)
   Figure  4
XE  Prime,  EP-IXA, Normal  Run  Centerline

Dose Estimates  (from ARL-LV)
                                       33

-------
      and 1967.   They determined empirical parameters  analo-
      gous to the Gaussian model.
                 (7 13 33)
      2.   Fultynv '  '     developed an empirical  model  for
      predicting downwind concentrations and doses from  tests
      at NRDS.   Results  from past  tests were normalized  to
      yield an  "average" diffusion curve of relative concen-
      tration as a function of distance which could be
      scaled to  future tests.  The dilution factor at  a
      particular distance was assumed to be a log  normally
      distributed statistical variable.  The model not only
      predicts the geometric mean  concentration at a particular
      point,  but also yields an estimate of probable deviations
      from the mean.   Predictions  using this model were  pre-
      sented in  several  of LASL Safety Analysis Reports   '
      although as of 1970,  LASL adopted the Sutton approach for
      the sake of standardizing prediction techniques  within
      the NRDS program.

 5.    Particulate Effluent Transport
 Experience to date indicates that large particles have  been  encountered
 only  as a result of operating a beaded fuel reactor in  a normal-run,
 full-power mode for several minutes.   Particles were  not encountered as
 a result of  the Kiwi-TNT Test (a  planned reactivity insertion  experi-
 ment  of a modified reactor that resulted in violent disruptive dis-
 assembly of  the reactor)  or as a  result of the Phoebus-1A incident
 (loss-of-coolant due  to  depletion of  primary coolant  supply—destructive
 overheating  of  the  core  with subsequent ejection  of 5%  of the  fuel
 material  from the nozzle).   It has  been considered appropriate,
 therefore, to estimate the  probability of particles interacting with
 man only  for the full-power normal-run tests  and  not  for the accident
 case.

Henderson     reviewed several  proposed particle  prediction schemes
 contained in the  literature.   These include  diffusion models such as

                               34

-------
those used to predict exposures expected from gaseous or aerosol-
type effluent; e.g., Sutton, Pasquill, Gifford^  J as well as the
                                  (41)
scaling model of Cluff and Palmer.      Several of these models
have received limited use for NRDS evaluations, but none has been
used as extensively as the Cluff-Palmer scaling equation.

The Cluff-Palmer equation uses data from one experiment to predict
environmental concentrations expected from another event, taking
into account differences in wind parameters and source terms.  For
prediction of ground deposition of particles, the appropriate form
of the equation is

                            r a    Q<  /h \2/u  2
          N'(x')   =   N(x) [^   -

     and
                           u1   h'
          x'       =   x   —   jj-                        III-4(b)

     where

     N(x) =  number of particles per unit ground surface area as a
             function of the distance x, downwind;
     x    =  the distance downwind;
     a    =  the total wind direction shear in the fallout hodograph;
     Q    =  the amount of the reactor core released as particulate,
             generally stated in terms of mass of uranium;
     h    =  the height of the plume top above the ground; and
     —    =  the mean wind speed of the atmospheric layer containing
             the plume.

In each case, the primed symbol refers to a variable for the event for
which deposition is to be predicted, and the unprimed symbols refer to
data from past experiments.  Techniques for the use of the Cluff-Palmer
                                            (42)
equation are more fully described by Hughes,     although Hughes' dis-
cussion is related to estimates of external gamma exposure expected

                              35

-------
                                                       C131
 from nuclear explosive cratering applications.   Fultyn      observed that
 the predictions  of the Cluff-Palmer model  depend strongly on  the particu-
 lar reference event used for scaling.   The meteorological data required
 to use this  model  for prediction are routinely  recorded by  ARL.  Some
 input parameters required by other models  are not well-documented, such
 as atmospheric turbulence parameters,  initial physical dimensions of the
 plume, and the distribution  of particles along  the vertical extent of the
 cloud or plume..

 The particle concentration N(x)  used in the Cluff-Palmer model to predict
 N'(x') may be taken from a set of results  from  a single test, from the
 mean of all  tests,  or some other composite of past experience.

 Figure 5 presents  the pre-event prediction for  one of the XE  Prime tests as
 an example of results from this technique.
                     (431
 Altomare and Coleman     developed another model  for prediction of par-
 ticle deposition on the  basis  of Van de Hoven's  tilted plume  formulation.
 This  formulation is based on the assumption that  particles  diffuse cross-
 wind  and vertically according  to Button's  equation and simultaneously
 settle with  a constant fall  velocity.   For the  case of an elevated plume
 such  as  the  reactor effluent,  the effect is  to  tilt the plume downward.
 This  can be  expressed by replacing the  constant height of the plume cen-
 terline  in the Sutton equation with a variable  expression.  Altomare and
        (43")
 Coleman      adapted the  modified Van der Hoven  formulation  for a computer
 model, DIFOUT, to predict  particle deposition for reactor plumes.  This
 technique approximates the distributed  volume of  the plume  as a series of
 stacked  cylinders,   each  containing several  size ranges of particles with
 different fall velocities.   The  program accounts  for the different volumes
 and size ranges  to  predict diffusion and deposition downwind.  This model
 received some use in  evaluating  the  Phoebus-IB EP-IV data and providing
preliminary predictions  for  the  NRX-A6  tests.  Because of difficulties
 in adapting  it to computers used by  NRDS and a lack of the  necessary
meteorological parameters, the model has not received extensive use.

                                    36

-------
  TO3
  10
  1.0
CO
111
_J
o
(-
IT

0-10*'
  10"
  10'
                               10
                                       20
                        30
                                                  50
                                 _J	L_
                                  70   100
                                                                  200
                             DISTANCE  (MILES)
    BRIEF 0900 PDT

    VALID 1100 PDT  8/28/69

    (ARL-LV)
 Figure 5
XE Prime,  EP-IXA,  Particle  Prediction

(from  ARL-LV)
                                    37

-------
 B.    Effluent Distribution

 This  section briefly indicates  the geographic distribution  of  the  efflu-
 ent.   The effluent program and  environmental  concentrations are  described
 in  Section IV.

 NRDS  effluent releases  have taken place  over  a period of  minutes to hours.
 The actual power tests,  fifteen minutes  to  one hour  in duration, are  re-
 sponsible for the  most  important effluent releases,  but reactor  cooldown
 has also  produced  effluent releases.   The Filter  Reactor  Outlet  Gas  (FROG)
 was installed on up-firing reactors subsequent to the Phoebus-IB to elim-
 inate cooldown releases,  though it was not  used for  the down-firing XE  Prime
 test.

 Effluent  from a given test can  be distributed in  several  directions,  as
 illustrated in Figure 6.   Several factors contribute to such widespread
 distributions.   Changes  in wind direction,  in addition to differences
 due to wind shear  with  height,  can occur during the  period  of  effluent
 release.   The plume  rise  associated with reactor  cooldown is usually  less
 than  that of effluent from power tests,  and the wind velocities  at these
 altitudes may be different.  Also,  as  discussed earlier,  a  portion of the
 power test plume "peels off" as the plume ascends, and wind shear  can act
 on  this portion.    '      The samples containing effluent, Figure 6, north
 of  the test site were primarily a result of effluent from the  power test;
 whereas those to the south were primarily a result of effluent from
 reactor cooldown which was transported by the low-level valley flow
 (drainage)  winds during the evening following the  test. ^45-*

 The prevailing winds at NRDS cause most  of  the effluent trajectories  to
 be  either to  the northeast or southwest.  At  distances of a hundred to
 several hundred  miles, these trajectories tend to veer easterly  or westerly,
 respectively.

 Particulate effluent (relative  values  of particles per square  meter)  has
                                    (141
been detected out to about  80 miles,   J ground level  aerosol  effluent to

                                   38

-------
        NEVADA
                                   WELLS
                           ELKO
                                            POSITIVE MILK SAMPLES
                                              ALSO FOUND AT
                                             gBUHL, IDAHO
                                             O BOISE, IDAHO
                                             ®BLACKFOOT, IDAHO
                                             CCOEUR d'ALENE, IDAHO
                                             C BILLINGS, MONTANA
                         *
                        e*
                        •EUREKA
                   0
                   Q*
              ROUND MTN.
                             *LUND
                           'CURRANT
     MANHATTAN®     B B|_UE JAY

        WARM SPRINGS^   • NYALA


    TONOPAH™ STA"  " 'I"™'* SPR1NGS
                        DIABLO
 \
GOLDFIELD" I  NELLIS

         |   AIR FORCE

          \   r-^^ RANGE
       BEATTY
          \
                             .
                              * ALAMO
                                                 UTAH
                                          O GARRISON
                                                     RICHFIELD
                                               CEDAR CITY
                    * TEST CELL "C"  WARM SPRINGS RANCH
                           WELLS

                   ^ DEATH VALLEY JCT.
         SHOSHONE
                                                VEGETATION

                                                MILK 	Q

                                                AIR	•
Figure 6
              Locations Where  Fresh Fission Products
              were Detected  (Phoebus-IB, EPIV)
                                39

-------
                                                     (45 46 47)
 hundreds of miles (doses  of mrads or less normally.)    *  *   J   The effluent
 cloud has been tracked to several thousand miles by aircraft utilizing sen-
 sitive sampling and monitoring instruments.   The effluent transport altitude
 has ranged from the ground to better than 3  km above the ground.

                             IV.   DOSE MODELS

 Several models have been  used to predict doses prior to reactor tests  and to
 calculate postulated doses from surveillance results  after tests.   The models
 have included transport models for estimation of environmental  concentra-
 tions,  and factors  and techniques for converting these  concentrations  to
 potential doses to  man.

 Figure 7 shows the  major  steps involved in each of the  models.   Since  the
 arid environment of the NRDS includes very few bodies of water,  the models
 are limited to atmospheric transport phenomena.  Models for  estimation or
 prediction of internal  doses to  man have been primarily concerned  with ra-
 dioiodine isotopes   >»»»•'  anc[ to some extent with the inhalation of
 i      j-          _-  ,      c -A      f       «. *  * (15,39,45,47,48,49,50,51,52)
 large discrete particles.   Evidence from past tests,  »»»»»»>»•'
 fission production  ratios,     release rates,    '    factors of environmental
         . (35,  39,55)    ,  , .  ,   .   ,    .  ,     , ,     _   .    (56,57,58,59)
 transport,            and  biological uptake and dose factors
 have led to the conclusion that  the radioiodines  have been the  most im-
 portant components  of aerosol  effluents from reactor tests.   For fission
 product releases  of the nature of past NRDS  tests potential  bone doses
 from strontium-89 and -90,  as  well as doses  to other organs  from other
 radionuclides,  are  lower  than  potential thyroid and/or  external  gamma
 doses.   Techniques  used to control the potential  thyroid and external  gam-
 ma  dose also  tend to  control other potential  doses.

 The  Aerosol or Gas-Cloud Model consists of steps,  i, ii,  iv,  v,  vi,  vii,  viii,
 ix,  and x  in  Figure  7.  The  particulate model includes  steps i,  ii,  iii,  ix,
 and  x.   These  two models will  be  treated separately; the gas-cloud model
 in Section A  and the  particulate  model  in  Section B.

Steps i  and ii  in Figure 7,  the estimation of source terms and  transport,
were discussed  in Sections  II  and III.   These steps yield environmental

                                     40

-------
 •fl
 H-
OQ
 c
 i-S
 CD
                                                             C
                                                    SOURCE
(
               PARTICULATE MODEL
                  DEPOSITION OF    \
               DISCRETE PARTICLES )'

                                                   """ -H^TMOSPHERIC TRANSPORT^
     /AEROSOL OR\
—V   \GAS CLOUD MODEUJ
/
/
\
iv T
(INHALATION OF
EFFLUENT BY MA


>
N^

                                                               VII
                                                       /GAMMA EXPOSURE^
                                                       V  FROM CLOUD  J
                                                         INTERACTION WITH  MAN
v T
^DEPOSITION ON^N
V COW'S FEED J
)
1
VI
f
                                                      C
                                             POSTULATED DOSE
                                                   TO MAN
                                                                                                  VIII
                                                                                                   RADIOIODINE
                                                                                                  IN  COW'S
                                                                                                        INHALATION
                                                                                                          BY COW
                                                              Dose  Models

-------
concentrations in Ci-sec/m3 for the aerosol and particles/m2 for the par-
ticulate effluent.  The only difference between the normal run and acci-
dent predictions is in the source term.

     A.    Aerosol or Gas-Cloud Model
                                              (35 39 521
     The basic model that has been used by ARL   '   '   ' considers three
     pathways of exposure:
          - External gamma exposure from the radioactivity in the
            cloud during cloud passage (steps i, ii, vii, ix, and
            x in Figure 7),
          - Thyroid dose via inhalation of radioiodine isotopes
            (steps ij  ii, iv, ix, and x);  and
          - Thyroid dose via ingestion of radioiodine in cow's
            milk (i, ii, v, vi, viii,  ix,  and x).

     Although this model does not consider external gamma exposure from
     fallout or ingestion of radioiodine  via the vegetation pathway, these
     sources of exposure have been considered by agencies within the test-
     ing program.   '     Off-site surveillance results have indicated
     limited detectable external gamma exposure off-site (measurement
     made 3 feet above the ground) from deposition  of the reactor efflu-
     ent.  (Ref.  40,46-49,61,62,63)   Calculations by LASL*-7-1 have indicated
     that the infinite exposure from residual fallout  may have been similar
     to  that from cloud passage.

     Thompson     noted that the    I  intake from non-milk food items
     may be significant compared to that  from milk.  For adults this
     is  true,  but  for  infants (the critical receptor for    I via in-
     gestion),  the intake path by milk is  controlling (about 90% or
     more  of total).  Therefore, only  the  milk-food chain has been con-
     sidered.

                                    42

-------
1.    External Gamma Exposure
Steps i, ii, vii, ix, and x are included in the  external gamma

exposure model.  The parameters for these steps  are determined

as follows:

     i.   The source term has been estimated to  be the
          product of the gross fission product activity
          in the reactor and the gross fission product
          release fraction.  Either the reactor  inven-
          tory at the appropriate time after fission or
          the initial inventory decayed by the Way-
          Wigner relationship has been used.  The fission
          product yield for instantaneous fission may
          also be used (100 Ci/Mw-sec at H+l hour). This
          simplification produces a conservative esti-
          mate.  Decay time has been assumed to  be equal
          to transport time, (x/U), so the Way-Wigner
          decay factor may be presented as:
                            x/U
                            1 hr
                                  -1.2
    ii.   The diffusion coefficient, X/Q, may be cal-
          culated according to one of the variations
          of Sutton's equation, as outlined in Sec-
          tion II.
          The product of steps i and ii yields
          (release fraction) (Power integral,
             Mw-sec)  (100 Ci/Mw-sec)
x/U(hr)
1 hr
                                                        -1.2
(X sec\
Um3;
   vii.    An infinite semispherical cloud model has been used to
          predict external gamma dose.(ref.35,51). The model
          includes the following assumptions:

          a.  The effluent cloud has been assumed to have dimen-
          sions large enough and concentrations uniform enough to
          approximate the dose to an individual on the surface
          from a cloud of uniform concentration and infinite
          dimensions, (dimensions large compared to the range of
          gamma photons).  Several references outline techniques
          which might be used to consider finite clouds and/or
          the dose from a cloud passing aloft.(ref.37,65,66).
                          43

-------
               b.   Since the receptor is at ground level, the
               dose has been assumed to be half that from a spher-
               ical infinite cloud.(ref.37,59).
               c.   It has been assumed that the individual does
               not perturb the gamma flux, so that the dose to the
               individual is the same as that to a similar volume
               of air except for differences in electron densities
               between tissue and air.(ref.37,59).

          Imai and lijima     note that the maximum external gamma
          dose does not occur at the point of maximum ground level
          air concentration.  The distance at which the maximum
          ground-level gamma dose occurs is related to the effective
          stack height or plume rise, as is the distance of maximum
          air concentration.  However, the maximum gamma dose occurs
          at a point nearer the release point than the point of max-
          imum air concentration because of the contribution from
          the cloud aloft.  Thus, although the homogeneous semi-
          spherical cloud model is generally conservative, it tends
          to underestimate doses at distances less than that of the
          maximum air concentration.

          The ARL model has compensated for this by shaping the dose
          curve, to match near-in results from previous tests.   '  '
          Step vii yields the following conversion factor, when X is
          the integrated air concentration of gross fission products:
                              3.7 x 1010 d/sec   0.7 MeV*     ion pair
               X(Ci-sec/m3) x 	 x 	 x 	
                                   Ci               d       34 x 10"6MeV
                          esu              m3     97 ergs in tissue   1R - cm3
                                                       &            x
                                                x
                 2.08 x 109 ion pairs   106 cm3           R-g

                 rad-g                                         0.18 rad
               x 	x 0.5 (for the semispherical cloud) =
esu
                 100 erg                                       Ci-sec/m3
*An average photon disintegration energy for fresh fission products
 of 0.7 MeV (ref.67,68) has been used.  (ref.35,51).
                               44

-------
     It is emphasized that the conversion factor that has been
     used in the ARL-LV model, 0.18 rad per Ci-sec/m3, is
     appropriate only for predicting ground-level gamma doses
     from a fission-product cloud for which the average gamma     '
     photon energy is 0.7 MeV.  It is not possible to use this
     factor to estimate actual gamma exposures from measured
     air concentrations.  Several factors contribute to the
     difficulty in relating measured air concentrations to
     measured gamma exposures.  A significant part of the gamma
     exposure may be caused by shine from the cloud aloft and is
     therefore unrelated to ground-level air concentrations.   '
     Clouds are generally non-homogeneous; concentration gradi-
     ents are likely to exist within the cloud.  Measurement of
     air concentrations of noble gases and short-lived gross
     fission products is difficult because air samplers that
     have been used in the NRDS surveillance program have not
     collected the noble gases and because many of the short-
     lived nuclides have decayed prior to the sample analysis
     (the NERC-LV aircraft program includes analysis of noble
     gases).

2.   Other Approaches to External Gamma Exposure Predictions

Fultyn     developed a probabilistic model for estimating not only
the mean external gamma dose as a function of distance but also
the statistical deviation from the mean.  Fultyn1s model assumed
that the gamma dose at a given distance was a lognormally dis-
tributed statistical variable.  Fultyn described atmospheric
diffusion with an empirical curve of normalized concentrations
versus distance by normalizing    I air concentrations observed
during ten reactor runs  (1964-1966).  A lognormal distribution
was fit to the data for each distance and a curve relating con-
centration to distance was then fit to the means of these distri-
butions.
                          45

-------
 Fultyn used  a  conversion factor  (integrated gross beta air con-
 centration to  external  gamma dose) of 2 rads per Ci-sec/m3, roughly a
 factor of ten  greater than the ARL conversion factor.  '
 This empirical number related air concentrations to measured
 gamma exposures observed for the NRX-A4, NRX-A5, and Phoebus-IB
 reactor tests.  Since the factor was based on measured air con-
 centrations, the difference between it and the ARL factor may
 be explained in part by gamma exposure from shine and noble
 gases (not collected by air samplers) and by the non-homogeneous
 nature of the  clouds. Although this model has been used in LASL
 reactor safety evaluation reports,  '    its use was discontin-
 ued in favor of adopting the ARL model for uniformity.

 WANL has used a model similar to that of ARL-LV in its safety
                    ( o->
 evaluation reports.

 Van Vleck proposed  a gamma exposure conversion factor of 1.4 R
 per Ci-sec/m3 for use with gross beta air sampling results.
 This conversion factor  requires the same qualifications as those
 discussed previously for the factor by Fultyn.

 From the Fultyn and Van Vleck factors, it can be seen that a
value greater than  the  theoretical value of 0.18 rad per Ci-sec/m3
 is necessary for conversion of actual measured air concentrations
 to gamma exposures.  The NUS analysis of NRX-A4 data also bears
 this out. (69,P. 20)

 3.   Evaluation

Stigall and Galley   '"*  ' noted in their analysis of effluent
data for 1964-1966 that 84% of the gamma exposure estimates
calculated from measured air concentrations were below the
corresponding gamma predictions (using post-run source term and
run-time meteorology).  Wilson's analysis     and the Fultyn  '
and Van Vleck     conversion factors indicate that the discrep-
ancy is  caused not by any inherent conservatism of the model but

                          46

-------
more by the difficulty of converting air concentrations to gamma
                  (39)
exposures,  Wilson   ' compared model predictions with measured
gamma exposures and found a slight tendency to predict low
(actually close to 50%-50%).

4.   Thyroid Dose via Inhalation Pathway

The inhalation pathway consists of steps i, ii, iv, ix, and x of
Figure 7.  The following discussion outlines the calculation for
these steps.(Ref.35,39,51,52).

     i.   The predicted source term for a specific nuclide is
     the product of reactor inventory    , the release frac-
     tion (discussed in Section II) and exponential decay re-
     lations based on the radiological half-lives of the
     specific radionuclide and its precursors.  Table 5 indi-
     cates the maximum activity of the various radioiodine
     isotopes per Mw-sec for a reactor operating time of
     1800 seconds.  The maximum for several of the isotopes
     does not occur until several hours after shutdown because
     they build up as their precursors decay.  Table 5 also
     indicates the approximate time of occurrence for each
     maximum.  The ARL model has assumed that this maximum
     activity is present at all times prior to its occurrence.
     Thus,  it also assumes that the radioiodine isotopes and
     their precursors behave similarly during transport and
     biological uptake.*

     The inventory of radioiodine produced for a given run
     (plus the remainder from previous tests) has been esti-
                              (53)
     mated from Kochendorfer.      Decay during transport
     may be accounted for by use of Reference 58 or appro-
     priate radioactive decay relationships.
     *The treatment of  _2Te-I has been an exception. Although
      the half-life of    Te was used during  transport,  the
      implications of inhaling it were not considered by the
      ARL model.
                          47

-------
              TABLE 5.  PARAMETERS FOR RAD10IODINE(53)
Iodine
Isotope
131
132
133
134
135
pa
Ci/Mw-sec
0.0200
0.115
0.448
6.05
1.29
Time When Max. Occurs
H + seconds*5
63,000
0
10,000
1,600
160
Radiological Decay
Half-Life
8.05 days
3.24 daysC
20 . 3 hours
52 minutes
6.68 hours
Based on an operating time of 1800 seconds.

H is the time of the end of reactor run.

Assuming 132Te is also released, the rate at which the quantity of
132I present is reduced is dependent on the 132Te half-life.  The 1
half-life is 2.26 hours.
                                 48

-------
               ii.   The  atmospheric  diffusion  factor  (X/Q) has  been
               calculated from one of  the  variations  of  Button's
               equation  given in Section II.

               iv.   The  breathing rate recommended  for the Inter-
               national  Commission on  Radiological  Protection(ICRP)
               for  standard man     has been used— 2.32 x 10   m3/sec.
               (Ref.35,39,51,70).

               The  intake (for each  isotope) equals
                    Ci = X(Ci-sec/m3)  x 2.32 x 10"4 m3/sec

               ix.   The  interaction  in man may be estimated  by  the
               following assumptions and considerations:
                    a.   75% of inhaled radioiodine  is retained
                                                            (59)
                    in  the body and  goes to the blood stream    ,
                    and
                    b.   30% of the radioiodine in the blood  stream
                                                  (59)
                    is  transported to  the  thyroid.

               Thus, 0.75 x 0.30 = 0.23 of the inhaled radioiodine
               is assumed to be deposited  in the thyroid.

               x.   The  following indicates the dose  to  man  based on
               a given  intake, assuming:
                    a.   Radioiodine  is uniformly dispersed in the
                    thyroid. (71-)*
                    b.   The energy  absorbed in a unit volume of the
                    thyroid is equal to the energy emitted by the
                                                                 (71)
                    quantity of radionuclide in the unit volume.
                    c.   The biological effective half-life and
                    effective decay  energies  (H ) from ICRP  2 are
                                     (59)
                    given in Table  6.
"Hine and Brownell(71) indicate that iodine is not immediately taken up into the
 thyroid, as is assumed by the model that has been used.  An uptake half-time of
 5  hours is indicated.  The ARL model is conservative by up to a factor of two
 for the shorter half-life radioiodine isotopes such as 13^I(Ref.71,p.837).

                                    49

-------
      TABLE 6.  BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS FOR RADIOIODINE ISOTOPES
Iodine
Isotope
131
132
133
134
135
Biological Effective
Half -Life (59)
Days (Seconds)
.7
0
0
0
0
.6
.097
.87
.036
.28
6.
8.
7.
3.
2.
6 x
4 x
5 x
1 x
4 x
10
10
10
10
10
5
3
4
3
4
Effective Energy
(20-g Thyroid) (59)
(MeV)
0
0
0
0
0
.23
.65
.54
.82
.52
Rad/Ci-sec/m
(20-g Thyroid)3
3
1
9
5
2
.4 x
.2 x
.2 x
.8
.9 x
io2
iolb
io1

io1
The inhalation dose for an infant with a two-gram thyroid has been assumed
to be 2.5 times that of a standard man.

This dose conversion constant is based on the biological half-life of 132I
versus the chain controlling half-life of 132Te.  Assuming 132Te is inhaled
and deposited in the body according to the ICRP 2 assumptions(59), the dose
from inhaled 132I and 132I produced from decay of 132Te in the body indi-
cates a dose factor of 51 rad/Ci-sec/m3.
                                 50

-------
d.  The thyroid weight (m)  for standard man is
20 grams.

The following expression gives the dose rate to        *
the thyroid from a thyroid burden:

Ci             in   d         (MeV)            fi (er2s)
     x 3.7 x 10          x E,,       x 1.6 x 10
m(g)              Ci-sec       (d)               (MeV)
                  rad-g
                x 	                 (rads/sec)
                  100(ergs)

To obtain the integral dose, the dose rate is integrated
from the time of intake to infinity.  Assuming the re-
moval of iodine can be represented by a single exponen-
tial, indicative of a biological half-life, the removal
of radioiodine can be represented by a biological
effective half-life (T __) which is based on both the
biological and radiological half-lives.

The approach to dose calculation parameters given in
Table 6 has been to calculate the inhalation dose for
an adult.  Rather than actually using the parameters
for an infant, it is then assumed that the infant's
dose is 2.5 times that for an adult.

The calculation procedures used by the other organizations
are similar to that indicated above.  Stocum (58) evalu-
ated the biological parameters and related them to statis-
tical distributions.  The analysis is largely related
to the parameters associated with ingestion of radio-
iodine via the milk-food chain.  In recent safety
evaluation reports, LASL has applied the geometric
standard deviation from this analysis to a mean based
on ICRP(59) parameters.  C3
               51

-------
5.   Thyroid Dose via Ingestion--Milk-Food Chain
Steps i, ii, v, vi, viii, ix and x of Figure 7 apply to the dose via
ingestion.  The calculations for steps i, ii, and x (transport and
dose parameters) are the same as presented for the inhalation dose
in the previous section although the only isotope that has been used
in predictions for ingestion dose is    I.  Iodinc-131 accounts for
the majority of the milk ingestion dose because of its longer radio-
logical half-life (with respect to other referenced radioiodine
isqtopes).   The NERC-LV considers the presence of the other radioio-
dine isotopes in sample analysis, and when estimating the possible
,    c    , . , .    ...  (46,47,50)
dose from drinking milk.         '
The following indicates the calculations for the steps pertinent
to this dose pathway not covered in the previous section:
     v, vi, and viii.   When cows are on fresh forage susceptible to
     contamination by the effluent, the amount of radioiodine inhaled
     by the cow (vi)  is insignificant.  Thus, for practical purposes
     (vi) is considered to be included within (v).   The conventional
     technique for determining cow forage contamination from passage
     of an effluent cloud is to use the product of the deposition
     velocity (m/sec)  and the reciprocal of the mass of feed growing
     per unit area of the field (m2/g), i.e., m/sec x m2/g = m3/g-sec).
     At the time the  NRDS model was developed, insufficient data were
     available to evaluate each variable.   Thus, a single parameter
     was used in the  ARL model to relate the integrated airborne con-
     centration of radioiodine to the resulting concentration in milk.
                                            -4                    3
     The value now used  in the model, 4 x  10   pCi/1 per pCi-sec/m ,
     was based on a literature survey.  The value is only intended for
        I concentrations because of the short half-lives of the other
     iodine  radioisotopes.
                    (72  73")
     Studies at  NRTSV   '  J  noted that about half of the variability
     in  deposition velocity could be explained by the variation in
     the density of vegetation on the ground.   In accordance with
     this, surveillance  results from NRDS  tests were fit to a log-
     normal  distribution based on the ratio of radioiodine concen-
                                                                      (59)
     trations  in milk and vegetation to integrated  air concentrations.
     This study  indicated a  geometric mean of about 4 x 10   pCi/1 per

                           52

-------
          pCi-sec/m  and a geometric standard  deviation  of 2,  which  indi-
          cates the appropriateness  of the  original  value  used.
          ix.   The deposition of effluent  from  NRDS tests has been  an
                                                                      \
          acute or semi-instantaneous process.   The  concentration  de-
          crease subsequent to the peak for    I can be  approximated by  an
          exponential decay with an  effective  half-life  in milk  of five
          days (Ref.56,  Report 5).  The integral concentration subsequent
          to the peak has thus been  estimated  to be  7.2  times  the  peak;
         'i.e., / (exp - Cln 2/5 daysDt)dt.  The Federal Radiation Council
          (FRC) Report 5k  J  estimates that  20-25% of the  total  intake of
             I via milk, subsequent to acute deposition, may be  due  to in-
          take prior to the occurrence of the peak.   Thus,  the total intake
          has been assumed to be equal to about  ten times  the peak.
          X.   A convenient dose conversion  parameter based on step  ix
          (Ci intake/peak cone,  in milk)  and the previously mentioned
          dose conversion factors (rads/Ci intake) is 16 mrad thyroid dose
          as a result of a peak milk concentration of 100  pCi/1.    ' This
          is based on an infant with a 2-gram thyroid consuming  one  liter
          of milk per day.
     The other organizations which have made effluent predictions have used
                                                                  r CQ~\
     similar techniques for estimating the ingestion dose.   Stocum     ana-
     lyzed the biological parameters associated  with ingestion.   Based on
                                                (74)
     this analysis and a more recent evaluation,     he suggested a dose
     conversion factor of 12 mrad/100 pCi/1.  Although this factor includes
     the dose contribution from consumption prior to the peak, it is iden-
     tical to the FRC Report 5^  ' value for the intake after the peak.  The
     difference stems from an assumption of a lower value  for the combi-
                                                         (74)
     nation of milk intake and thyroid uptake parameters.
                                          (81
     The doses estimated by the WANL model    have been about 30-50% less
     than those of the ARL model because the WANL model has not  considered
     the potential  J I ingestion prior to the occurrence  of the peak and
     used a 4.8 versus 5-day effective half-life for    I  in milk.
B.   Particle Dose Prediction Models
Models for prediction of biological hazards from particulate debris involve
steps i, ii, iii, ix, and x of Figure 7.  Methods for prediction of the
                               53

-------
 source  term,  step  i,  are  discussed  in  Section  II.  For particle pre-
 dictions,  the source  term may be  expressed as  a quantity of uranium,
 in  grams,  expected to be  lost from  the core.   Steps ii and iii, dis-
 cussed  in  Section  II,  yield predictions of expected ground concentra-
 tions in terms of  particles per unit area  (particles/m2).  Predictions
 at  NRDS have  generally used the Cluff-Palmer equation to scale ground
 concentrations of  particles measured on previous tests to predict
 expected deposition from  a future test, taking into account differences
 in  source  terms and meteorological  parameters.  Steps ix and x consist
 of  evaluating various  interactions  of  these particles with man and
 estimating doses and/or effects from these interactions.  Step x for
 the particle  model differs from that for the aerosol models in that
 there are  no  official  radiation protection standards or guides for
 evaluating the implications of particle interactions; whereas, there
 are for the aerosol effluent.
 Interaction of the particles with man  is treated statistically by the
 model.  Although there exists a possibility that a particle will fall
 at  any  downwind distance  out to several tens of miles, the probability
 that a  particle will  fall at any  particular location is small.  The
 model assumes that this probability can be predicted from the Poisson
 distribution.
 Modes of biological interaction of  the particles with man that have
 been considered include localized skin doses, eye cataracts (from
 deposition of a particle  in the eye),  doses to the lung from inhalation
 of  particles,  and  doses to the GI tract from ingested particles.  These
 modes have been evaluated by several individuals and committees, in-
 cluding the AEC  Division of Biology and Medicine, Space Nuclear Safety
 Committee, and  it  has been concluded that the localized skin dose has
 been the limiting  or critical mode of  interaction.   '  '
The hazards of  inhalation of particles have been discounted largely be-
 cause there is  evidence that nuclear rocket engine particles small
 enough  to have  a reasonable probability of being deposited in the deep
pulmonary region of the lung have not  contained sufficient activity
            •   ....      u- i  -  •,  «  *  (76,77,78)
 to produce significant biological effects.
                                54

-------
Most of the information on biological effects produced by highly
radioactive discrete particles in the lung is based on experiments
with plutonium particles.  The doses from these particles are much
larger than doses which would result from inhalation of reactor
particulate debris, and biological effects have been observed only
at levels higher than expected from reactor debris.  The two situations
are not totally analogous; however, this analysis cannot be regarded
as conclusive.  Experiments with plutonium have emphasized the alpha
dose, in which there is a sharp demarcation between tissue receiving
a lethal dose and tissue receiving a sub-lethal but potentially
carcinogenic dose.  Beta and gamma emission from reactor debris produces
a much more continuous depth dose distribution.  Langham^    noted that
most investigations have given little attention to tissue outside the
range of the alpha dose which may however receive a significant dose
from x-rays.  Biological effects in this tissue might be expected to
be similar to effects in tissue surrounding particles containing
fission products.

Another concept which deserves more investigation involves consideration
of the number of cells at risk and the quantity of tissue that must be
exposed to a sub-lethal but potentially carcinogenic dose to cause a
                         f79)
cancer.  Dean and Langham    in presenting a thought-provoking con-
cept rather than a final model, suggested that this problem be
approached by integrating the probability of cancer occurring for each
exposed cell to determine the total probability of biological effects.

The proper understanding of the relationship between the mass of tissue
exposed to a given dose  (i.e., gram-rads) and the resulting biological
effect is also relevant to analysis of skin effects.  But there are
differences between understanding the particle skin problem and under-
standing or evaluating the inhalation problem.  First, micro-effects
in the skin can be observed; whereas those in the lung are difficult
to detect in-vivo.  Past experience indicates that skin  doses which
do not produce ulcers will not produce skin cancer.      Second, skin

                               55

-------
                                           f Rfl S1 8?1
ulcers or an indication of their formation1  '  '  J can be detected
soon after exposure  (within about two weeks) and can therefore be
related directly with the exposure, while  the time involved in lung
effects may be longer.  Third, skin cancer is adaptable to successful
therapeutic treatment, whereas lung cancer may not be.

As an example to illustrate the plausibility of the argument that
inhalation hazards can be discounted, the  activity in a particle of
respirable size can be compared to the activity required in the same
size particle to produce a dose of 750 rads at Krebs' depth.*  Since
this requires the assumption that the dose-effect relationships for
the skin and the lung are similar, this exercise must be regarded
as an example only and not as conclusive evidence.

Henderson     reported a value of 1.7 x 1018 fissions/gram of
uranium for the Pewee I, EP-III, which is  higher than that reported
for other full-power runs.  Data reported  by the ICRP Committee II
                           f 831
Task Group on Lung Dynamics     indicate that particles with aero-
dynamic diameters greater than 10 micrometers are not likely to be
deposited in the deep pulmonary region of  the lung.  The NERC-LV
reported an average particle density of 11 grams/cc from Phoebus IB
     (14)
EP-IV    , larger than average particle densities reported by PAA
and the NERC-LV for other full-power runs.   '  '  '     Assuming a
particle with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers, a density
of 11 g/cc, and a specific activity of 1.7 x 1018 fissions/gram of
uranium,  there would be 3 x 108 fissions per particle.  The associated
radioactivity is roughly two orders of magnitude less than that re-
quired to produce 750 rads at Krebs1 depth for reasonable particle
travel times.      This is based on a mean retention time of much
greater than 10 hours.
*Krebs' Dose is the dose at the periphery of a circular field of   ,_...
 4 mm in radius at a depth of 100 ym below the surface of the skin.   '
 This is discussed in Section V B.
                               56

-------
As discussed below, the figure of 750 rads at Krebs1  depth is a
skin dose particle guide used at NRDS and does not necessarily
apply to biological effects in the lung, especially since the
geometry involved in particle doses to the lung is unknown.   How-
ever, the example serves to illustrate the plausibility of con-
clusions by some workers that the skin dose is a more important
mode of interaction than the lung dose. '•>»-'
                r Q(T\
Sanders, ef.al.,     summarized the implications of respiratory
system irradiation by particles, in particular, UC~ particles
with a fission product inventory.  They concluded that although
nonuniform irradiation of the lung is more carcinogenic than uni-
form irradiation, there is no justification for inferring numbers
of tumors incidence for doses less than 3000 rads, to the epithe-
lium 100 urn from the particle.  Doses of this magnitude are only
related to particle sizes of about 10 ym or more  (30 ym aerody-
namic diameter") and travel times of less than one hour.  But,
Sanders, et.al., concluded that the data necessary for a compre-
hensive evaluation of inhalation probability and radiation effect
are not available.

The remainder of this section will be devoted to the skin dose
model.  Discussion of models for the other modes of interaction
(lung, eye, and GI tract) is presented  in Appendix B.

     1.   Particle Skin Dose Model
     For this model, steps i, ii, and lii of Figure 7 consist of
     predicting the source term in grams of uranium to be released
     from the core as particles and applying the Cluff-Palmer
     equation to predict ground deposition of particles in terms
     of particles/m2 at points downwind, as discussed in Section II.
     Step ix concerns the interaction of particles with man.  This
     interaction is evaluated by computing the probability that one
     or more particles will impact on an individual in the effluent
     trajectory and will produce a guideline skin dose.  The NRDS

                               57

-------
 guideline dose  is 750 rads at Krebs1 depth/    as discussed
 in Section V.
The model assumes that  the probability P  (n,X) of a certain
number of particles  (n)  impacting on an average individual
and inflicting the guideline dose can be  described by the
Poisson distribution:

                               e"A An
                     P  (n,X)  = *	L-                IV-1
                     "           n!
where X is  the average  number of radioactive particles per
individual.      If  n =  0, P  is the probability that no
particles will interact  with the individual, Eq. IV-1 becomes

                     P  (0,A)  = e~A                   IV-2

The probability P of at  least one particle interacting with
an individual to produce the guideline dose is
                    P = 1 - P  (0,A) = 1 - e~A        IV-3
Here X is defined as the average number of particles impacting
on and retained by an individual with sufficient activity to
produce the guideline dose.  A useful approximation for small
                   _2
values of X (X < 10  ) is

                    P % X                            IV-4
Only a fraction of the particles will contain a sufficient
inventory of fission products subsequent to a given transport
time to produce the guideline dose, even if they impact on
and are retained by the exposed skin of the individual.  The
inventory which a particle must contain to produce the guide-
line dose is a function of particle size and transport time;
thus, both size and particle radioactivity inventory distri-
butions must be considered in computing X.

                          58

-------
The NRDS model divides the size distribution into i classes
and computes A from 0., the total number of particles in the
i_th size class which impact on and are retained by an indi-
vidual, and c^, the fraction of the total number of particles
in the rth size class with sufficient inventory to produce
the guideline dose:

                    X  =  E 0. a.                    IV-5
                          i
In practice, 0. and a. are estimated empirically from size
and radioactivity inventory distributions observed from
past tests, appropriately extrapolated to the proposed test
conditions.      For reasons of convenience and the accuracy
of data, the size distribution is generally divided into
three classes:  less than 15 micrometers, 15 to 50 ym, with
representative mean diameters for these classes of 10, 30,
and 70 ym, respectively.

The average number of particles, 0. (x), which impact on and
are retained by an individual at any downwind distance x is
the product of the predicted ground concentration of particles
in terms of particles/m2 in the rth size class  (developed in
steps i, ii, and iii of Figure 7 and the exposed surface area
of the individual in m2.  This assumes that the number of
particles which impact on and are retained by the exposed skin
of an individual is the same as the deposition on an equivalent
horizontal surface area.      This is based on studies by
           ( 871
Booz-Allen     which indicated that approximately the same
amount of mass was deposited on the exposed surface area of a
mannikin as was collected on an equivalent horizontal area.
These results imply that the fraction of particles which impact
but do not stick and the fraction which follows air streamlines
around an object compensate for the differences between particle
fluxes in the vertical and horizontal directions.  This ap-
proach has the advantage of simplicity and bypasses more

                          59

-------
 elaborate  theoretical  approaches proposed by  Kochendorfer  and
                                    and (
                                    (90)
Ulbergt88),  DeAgazio(89), Mikhail and Collins <-76'),  and the
 Radiological  Effects Working  Group.

 The  total exposed skin  area is used  rather  than  the  cross-
                                                       ( 88)
 sectional area  as suggested by Kochendorfer and  Ulberg
          (91)
 Henderson     assumed winter  dress styles similar to Model A
 of Kochendorfer and Ulberg:   long pants, long-sleeved shirt,
 and  hat, with a corresponding exposed  skin  area  of 0.0702 m2
 and  summer dress styles  similar  to Model B  of  Kochendorfer
 and  Ulberg:   long pants,  short-sleeved shirt,  no hat, with a
 corresponding exposed skin area  of 0.384 m2.

 The  fraction  of particles,a.(x), at a given  downwind  distance,
 x,with sufficient inventory to produce a guideline dose
 depends on:   (1) particle size distribution,   (2) particle
 inventory distribution,   (3)  reactor run history, and  (4)
 travel time from release  of particles  from  the reactor to
 impaction on  the individual.  The travel time  has been
 estimated by x/U, where U is  the mean  transport  wind speed.
 The  number of fissions required  in a particle  to produce the
 guideline dose  may be determined from  the beta tissue dose
 model of Mikhail and Collins.      This model  is based on
                                     (92)
 the  work of Ulberg and Kochendorfer.

 The  dose/fission calculations have been based  on the reactor
 power and run time profile and include self-absorption within
 the  particle.   It has been assumed that all  particles are
 retained in the reactor until the end  of the run.

 The  dose is obtained by integrating  the dose-rate with time.
 This integral has been based on arrival time and a mean
 retention time.  The mean retention  time is  estimated from
 an empirical equation fit to experimental data  '   ' which
yields the probability of P (t) of a particle  being  retained

                          60

-------
          a period of time t:

                         Pr(t)  =  e-t/6                       IV-6

          where t is in hours and 6 is the mean retention time (hours)
          for a particle of given diameter on the skin.  The value of 6
          for a given size class can be determined from references.   '  '
          The particle activity distribution has been predicted by scal-
          ing a particle activity distribution observed on a previous test
          in accordance with the ratio of the relative radioactive in-
          ventories of the reactor cores for the two tests:

                         A'  =  A(F'/F)                        IV-7

          where A is indicative of the radioactivity inventory in the
          particle, in terms of fissions per particle, F is the number
          of fissions/gram of uranium.  The primed values are for the
          proposed test.^

          Pre-run safety evaluations of reactor tests at NRDS have involved
          the use of Equations IV-3 and IV-6 to develop curves of the pro-
          bability of an individual receiving 750 rads at Krebs' depth as
          a function of distance.

                    V.  RADIATION PROTECTION GUIDES

This section is subdivided into guides and standards for total-body, inhalation,
and ingestion doses and guides applicable to evaluating doses from discrete-
particles.  Guides are recommendations of a committee, organization, or
individual, whereas standards have the impact of law  (i.e., the AEC regula-
tions).  Tests at NRDS have been conducted on a contractor basis with  the AEC,
and thus have been conducted under the standards of AEC Manual Chapter 0524
(MC 0524) versus Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20  (10 CFR 20  is
                                          (57 93 94 95)
applicable to the licensee relationship).   '  '  '
                                    61

-------
A.   Guides for Total Body and Internal Organ Doses

     1.    Normal Operation

     The standards for normal operations have been those of MC 0524,
     which specifies standards for both occupationally exposed people and
     the general population.  These standards generally follow the recom-
     mendations of the ICRP/59-1 FRC,   ^ and the National Council on Ra-
                                                f97 98")
     diation Protection and Measurements (NCRP).    '   }  The standards
     given both as organ doses and as concentration guides for air and
     water.  Table 7  gives the occupational standards.

     TABLE 7.  OCCUPATIONAL DOSE STANDARDS
     Organ Exposed                 Time Period         Dose (rem)
are
     Whole body,  head and trunk,   Accumulated         5(Age in yrs-18)
     active blood forming organs,  Calendar Qtr.            3
     gonads, or lens of eye
Skin, thyroid, and bone

Other organs

Annual
Calendar Qtr.
Annual
Calendar Qtr.
30
10
15
5
     The  dose standards  for the general population are generally one-tenth of
      u              i   _  j  j  (56,59,96)   „   „,   _,    . ,   _,   „_„(56,Report 2)
     the  occupational  standards.            For the thyroid,  the FRC   '   F
     recommended that  a  value of one-twentieth the occupational standard be
                                                       (57 93")
     used.   The  AEC  concurred with this recommendation.         To compensate
     for  the variation of doses to individuals from the average of a suitable
     sample,  the FRC recommended the guides for individuals  be  reduced by a
     factor of three when applied to the sample average.

     A suitable  sample of the population is defined as a sample of cohorts
     representing the  critical receptor;  i.e., the group of  the population
     that receives the highest dose with respect to the standards or guides.

                                    62

-------
For example, a one-year-old infant with a two-gram thyroid is the
critical receptor for ingestion of radioiodine in milk.

In January 1971 the NCRP issued an updating report, "Basic Radiation
Protection Criteria," NCRP 39. (-98'1  The NCRP recommended a basic dose
guide of 0.5 rem per year for the total body and/or critical organs
of individuals in the general population.  The reduction of the
critical organ guide, from 1.5 to 0.5 rem, was based on administrative
simplification rather than biomedical need.  The guide for an average
of the population is 0.17 rem per year.
                 (95)
The Manager, SNSCr  ', in 1967 stipulated the guides to be used in
planning and approving the conduct of reactor tests at NRDS.  The
applicability of AEC MC 0524 and the FRC guides^56-1 was noted.  The
implication of the wording was that NRDS exposures would be con-
sidered separately from Plowshare exposures. This is similar to the
implications of AEC MC 0524 which specifically excludes Plowshare
activities, noting that guidance is "being developed."  The FRC
indicates that the guides of 0.5 rem/yr and 1.5 rem/yr for total body
and thyroid doses, respectively, for individuals in the population are
applicable for the summation of all normal doses from peaceful uses of
               (56)
nuclear energy.

2.   Accident Conditions
AEC MC 0524 does not stipulate appropriate standards for approving
reactor tests based on hypothetical accident analysis.  Although the
AEC has issued standards for reactor siting in Title 10, Code of
                              (99)
Federal Regulations, Part  100,     they have not been considered
appropriate for evaluating the consequences of tests in the rocket
                (56,99)
engine program. *•
                           (95)
In 1967 the Manager, SNSO,^    recommended emergency guides to  sup-
plement the AEC standards.       It was stipulated  that accident
evaluation guides of 10 rem total body dose and 30 rem thyroid  dose

                              63

-------
      for  individuals  in  the  off-site  area would be used  in approving
      the  conduct  of tests.   Permission  to conduct tests  is also to be
      denied  if  the predicted on-site  accident doses are  above 12 rera
      and  3b  rem to the total body and thyroid, respectively, of indi-
      viduals.   The dose  guides  for  the  general population are to be
      reduced by a factor of  three where exposures cannot be adequately
      measured and evaluated  on  an individual basis.

      The  accident guides for the general population are  based on the
      protective action guides  (PAG) of  FRC Reports 5 and 7.*-56-' The
      whole-body dose  accident guide of  10 rem was evolved from the PAG
      for  157Cs  in FRC Report 7.*-56-1   Although the dose from 137Cs is a
      whole-body dose, the intake pathway is the food chain for FRC
      Report  7 versus  external gamma dose for the NRDS guide.  Actions
      to prevent or control external gamma dose in a fallout situation
      are  generally more  traumatic than  those related to  the food chain,
      and  this use of  the PAG appears  reasonable.

      The  accident guide  for  total-body  exposure for on-site personnel was
                      f93)
      based on MC  0524.^      MC  0524 stipulates a quarterly dose of 3 rem
      for  the total body.  A  year's summation of this standard would be
      12 rem--the  proposed accident guide.  A similar treatment for an
      accident thyroid guide  would be  40 rem, whereas the proposed accident
      is 36 rem  or three  times the total body guide.  The factor of three
      between the  total body  guide and the thyroid guide was based on the
      ratio of the respective FRC guides.

B.   Guides for Exposure to  Discrete  Particles

In 1967 there was increased  concern about the biological effects from dis-
crete particles of fuel matter released from the reactor.  This concern
related to the  lack of applicable radiation protection standards or guides
and the increasing quantity and specific activity of the particulate matter
with the increase in reactor run time and power level.   Some of the in-
creases—quantity, specific activity,  etc.--were actually occurring whereas

                                    64

-------
some were projected for the future.  Thus,  although specific guides  were
not available for the Phoebus-IB test in February 1967,  the effluent
trajectory was limited to minimize the possibility of effluent  interaction  v
with on-site and off-site population.  The  NRX-A6 EP-III test was  con-
ducted in accordance with preliminary guides which were  later adopted.

In May 1968, the Manager, SNSO, stipulated  a particle probability-interaction
guide to be used for approval of future tests.     ^  The guide  was given  in
terms of the probability of particles interacting with an individual and
producing a skin tumor or cataract.  The guide  stipulates that  this  proba-
bility should be less than one in ten-thousand  per person.  This probability
is to be based on the product of the probabilities of (1)  a particle inter-
acting with a person and [2)  the probability of a skin  tumor or cataract
being produced from this interaction.

The guide allows credit for the protection  afforded by buildings and/or special
clothing or equipment provided the actual use and implied protection can  be
demonstrated.  The probability of interaction is computed from  the model  in
Section IV.  The probability of an effect from  an interaction is based on
the Krebs1 depth concept and the distribution of particle sizes and  specific
activities capable of giving doses exceeding Krebs' criteria.  Although the
probability of an effect, given an interaction, is greater for  a cataract
than for a skin tumor, the probability of deposition of  a particle on skin
compared to that of deposition in the eye is such that the basic guide and
thus reactor safety evaluations have been limited to consideration of skin
tumor probabilities.

Krebs     evaluated available information concerning biological response of
mammalian skin to irradiation with small, high-specific  activity particles.
Krebs concluded that serious radiation-induced  acute lesions are caused
primarily by the destruction of the germinal layer cells of the epithelium
(stratum germinativum) and that the viable  germinal cells must  be  reduced
to a survival level of less than one-thousandth over an area large enough
that cell proliferation in the margin of the exposed field will not be able
to replace the dead cells.

                                    65

-------
  Based on considerations  of the  area  of  skin  irradiated  and the character-
  istics of skin from  the  standpoint of biological  effects, Krebs     pro-
  posed what has become  known as  Krebs1 Dose.  This is  the dose at the
  periphery of a circular  field of  4 ram in radius at a  depth of 100 pm below
  the surface of the skin.   The center of the  field is  the point on the sur-
  face of the skin  where the particle  rests.

  Krebs postulated  that  at  Krebs' Doses below  1500  rads,  development of a
  moist desquamation or  ulcer type  injury was  improbable.*  Thus, a Krebs'
  Dose of 1500 rads was  originally  used as the criteria of producing an
  "effect" in the aforementioned  guide.   This  was based on the hypothesis that
  "From a general medical viewpoint, the  production of  erythema or dry des-
  quamation is probably  inconsequential," whereas the development of an ulcer
  and/or cancer is  serious.   In rats and  mice  the development of skin cancer
  from radiation has consistently been associated with  the prior occurrence
  of  acute lesions  at  the time of irradiation.
                      f O O~*                                          f Q 1 "\
  Experiments  by Forbes      and the biomedical research group of LASL     in
  1968 and subsequent  work by Forbes      indicated that  doses of less than
  1500 rads  (Krebs1 criteria)  could produce a  moist desquamation or ulcer type
  lesion.**   The experiments  were comprised of implacing  irradiated UC~ particles
  on  monkey,  pig, and  human  skin.   Experimental dosages ranged from 1300 to
  7,400,000 rads  for the point basal layer dose (i.e.,  dose at 100 pm below the
  particle  skin  interface) and roughly 3  to 35,000  rads Krebs' Dose.*-   J

  Preliminary results from these experiments indicated that moist desquamation
  and/or ulcer type lesions could be produced at doses below 1500 rads Krebs'
  Dose.  Thus, based on  the preliminary results, the dose guide was reduced
 from 1500 rads to 750 rads Krebs'  Dose.(103j  I04)
 *Krebs denoted four degrees of lesions; erythema, dry desquamation (peeling
  or flaking), moist desquamation (moist discharge), anu ulceration (open
  weeping lesion, which is slow to heal).  Recent work by Forbes(ref.82,101)
  and LASL(ref.81,102) indicates that moist desquamation and ulceration are
  probably not separate entities for the type of lesions produced in this
  case, but rather they merge together.  Thus, they will be referred to as
  ulcers.
**Preliminary information from these experiments was presented at a meeting
  of the safety agencies in Las Vegas, Nevada, on November 8, 1968.
                                     66

-------
The following summarizes the final results from the  studies  of LASI/81j
and Forbes and Mikhail1-     and the status of the particle dose guide:

     1.   The present guide is a Krebs1  dose of 750  rads. (-103'104-)  Based
     on the original philosophy used by Krebs1  (i.e.,  prevent  moist des-
     quamation or ulcers)^  *, the work by Forbes and  Mikhail^101-1  indi-
     cates the guide should be reduced.

     2.   The work reported by Forbes and Mikhail*-   '  using pigs  indicated
     that the lowest doses used, 400 and 440 rads Krebs'  Dose,  produced
     ulcerous lesions; whereas the LASL studies using  monkeys  did  not
     indicate the formation of ulcers at doses of 470,  500,  or 770 rads
     „  ,  . n    (81,102)
     Krebs1 Dose.   '   J

     3.   Additional studies are needed to determine the  significance
     of the difference between the LASL and Forbes1  results.  The  dif-
     ferences may be due to the different animal species,  the  measurement
     of the biological effect, etc.  The highest human doses have  been
     roughly 130 rads Krebs' Dose.

     4.   Forbes and Mikhail postulated that ulcer size might  be a mean-
     ingful biological effects criterion.  They noted that ulcers  of
     0.5 mm in diameter (400 rad dose) were probably of much less  concern
     than those of 1 to 2 mm produced by doses of roughly 750  rads Krebs'
     Dose.

     5.   Krebs notes that the germinal cell layer surrounds the hair
     follicle.  That is, the layer of germinal cells extends down to the
     depth of the hair follicle—roughly a millimeter.   Krebs  indicates
     that this provides a reservoir of germinal cells that are relatively
     protected against superficial injury.  These cells would  receive a
     much lower dose than the cells in the main basal layer.  Thus, other
     things being equal, it is postulated that the dose effect relation-
     ship might vary between hairless and hairy skin.   This  may partially
     explain why the dose required to produce an "ulcer" on the sparsely

                                    67

-------
     haired pigs is less than that for the monkeys used by LASL.  This
     should also be considered in applying the results to man.

Appendix B includes a more complete review of the work by Krebs, Forbes
and Mikhail, and LASL.

                  VI.   ENVIRONMENTAL LEVELS AND DOSES

Since the beginning of reactor testing at NRDS in 1959, the effluent docu-
mentation program has  included the efforts of a number of organizations.
These have included:

     1.   EG§G - Long  range aerial tracking—not discussed in this
          report.

     2.   NOAA/ARL - Documentation of meteorology and effluent predictions.

     3.   LASL - On-site surveillance including air sampling, external
          radiation monitoring,  collection of discrete particles in fall-
          out collecting mechanisms and fallout trays.  Prior to 1966
          most of the  on-site sampling and monitoring was performed by LASL.

     4.   PAA - Primarily on-site surveillance with limited off-site
          sampling to  obtain information for effluent transport modeling
          purposes.  The program has included air sampling, gamma expo-
          sure measurements,  and ground surveys for discrete particulate
          matter.

     5.    NERC-LV  -  Off-site  surveillance program with limited on-site
          sampling  for inter-program cross-checks and to obtain near-in
          samples  to estimate potential implications in off-site popu-
          lated areas.   The program has included ground level surveillance
          for external  exposure  results (mobile monitoring personnel with
          survey instruments,  fixed instrument stations,  and thermolumin-
          escent dosimeters);  air sampling;  sampling of milk, water and
         vegetation;  and ground surveys  for discrete particulate matter.

                                    68

-------
          The aerial program has included sampling  using  equipment  for
          analysis of particulate, halogen,  and gaseous constituents
          of the effluent and monitoring equipment  to measure  gamma
          exposure rates and to track the effluent.

     6.   Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company - sampling  and
          monitoring on the Nevada Test Site—not discussed in this
          report.

A.   Aerosol Effluent

The fission products in the effluent are fractionated because  of  the  different
migration constants in the fuel for the various radionuclides. The radioiodine
isotopes have been of primary importance with regard to potential health im-
plications because of their associated fission product yields  and chain rates
of migration, environmental transport, and biological parameters.  Of the
iodine isotopes,    I has been the most important because of its  fission
product yield, half-life, and potential transport to man  through  the  forage-
cow-milk-food chain.  '

The chemical states of the various elements composing the effluent  have not
been fully documented.  Several unsuccessful attempts have been made  by
NERC-LV to determine the chemical forms of the radioiodine effluent.  At
present, since methane is assumed to be present in  the effluent (reaction
of graphite and hydrogen), it is postulated that iodine  is present  in the
effluent in numerous chemical forms.

     1.   Off-Site

     Grossman     summarized exposure history for the off-site areas  for
     the period 1959-1969, and the following discussion is taken largely
     from his summary.

     At the time of the first Kiwi reactor in 1959, NERC-LV operated a
     network of 12 air sampling stations and a network of 28 film badge
     stations in the immediate off-site area.  Mobile monitoring personnel

                                    69

-------
 were used to  supplement  information  from  the networks.  Prior to
 each test,  these  monitors  were positioned at populated locations
 and on existing highways in  the predicted effluent trajectory to
 measure radiation levels and to collect environmental samples
 (milk, water,  cow feed,  air)  should  airborne radioactivity be
 released.   The monitors  were also  in two-way contact with a control
 center which  followed reactor test operations and meteorological
 conditions, and could be repositioned, as required.

 In  subsequent  years  several  changes  in monitoring techniques and
 expansions  in  NERC-LV routine monitoring  networks were made.  Be-
 ginning in  1961,  self-powered air  samplers were included with the
 monitor's equipment, making  the air  sampling coverage for tests
 more adaptable.   In  the  same  year, the monitoring of NRDS test
 effluents by aircraft was  begun, aiding in the locating of effluent
 trajectories and  in  the positioning  of ground monitors.

 In  1963 gamma-rate recorders  were placed  at 16 of the air sampling
 locations and  in  1965, Model  TL-12 thermoluminescent dosimeters by
 EG§G,  Inc., were  included  in  the film badge network and used off site
 by mobile monitors.

 The  film badge and air sampling networks  were expanded after the
 latter  part of 1961, due to the resumption of nuclear weapons
 testing.   '  These  off-site  networks were gradually expanded
 through the years so that  they now number about 100 air sampling
 stations in Nevada and the Western United States, and include 30
 gamma-rate recorders, 100  fixed TLD  stations, and selected off-site
volunteers who wear dosimeters.   Use of film badges in the off-site
 dosimetry program was discontinued in 1970 because of the greater
 reliability and sensitivity of TLD's.  The precise number of the
various sampling stations varies with time.

Grossman     estimated whole-body gamma exposures (cloud passage
plus infinite deposition exposure) from reactor effluent and calculated

                               70

-------
hypothetical infant thyroid doses from inhalation of airborne
radioactivity and from the assumed ingestion of milk contaminated
with radioiodine from reactor effluent.   Grossman's exposures and
infant thyroid doses were hypothetical in almost all cases,  since
air samples were often taken at unpopulated locations and infants
were seldom present at the locations where air and/or milk samples
were collected.      Whole-body gamma exposures were integrated
from G-M survey instrument data because no measurable exposure was
ever detected with TLD's or film badges.  0-*

Figure 8 taken from Grossman,   •* indicates the totals for exposures
and hypothetical doses for reactor/engine tests for the period 1959
through 1969 for various sectors of the off-site area.  Figures in
Appendix D indicate hypothetical exposures and doses for shorter
periods within the 10-year NRDS testing history.  These figures were
compiled by summing the maxima for each test occurring within each
year and within a given sector and entering this value in that
sector.  Blank sectors indicate that no radioactivity was detected
or that the hypothetical infant thyroid dose was less than 1 mrad.
The reactor engine tests which released effluent which was detected
off site are listed in Appendix D.

Table 8 [from Grossman    ] compares the Radiation Protection Stand-
ards of AEC Manual Chapter 0524 and the FRC guides with the maximum
hypothetical whole-body gamma exposures and the maximum hypothetical
infant thyroid doses received by postulated receptors during the
history of NRDS reactor testing.  Within any given year the postu-
lated whole-body gamma exposures were below 12% and 14% of the whole-
body and thyroid dose standards respectively, for a sample of the
population.

Table 9 presents some of the highest environmental concentrations
observed during past reactor tests and the potential hypothetical
doses from these concentrations.  Higher values for the air con-
centrations were observed at close-in locations in some instances.

                               71

-------
               WINNEMUCCA
            BAKERSFIELD
              o o c o  BARSTOW
              t-Lj       \   X
  ND: Not Detected
  TOP NUMBER:
   Hypothetical whole-body gamma exposure in mR
  BOTTOM NUMBER:
   Hypothetical infant thyroid dose in mrad
Figure 8
Off-Site Whole-Body Gamma  Exposures and
Infant Thyroid Doses Resulting  from
Reactor Engine Tests from  CY 1959  to 1969
              72

-------
TABLE 8.  COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM HYPOTHETICAL WHOLE-BODY GAMMA EXPOSURES
          AND INFANT THYROID DOSES WITH RADIATION PROTECTION STANDARDS.(50)


                             Radiation     Maximum Whole-Body Gamma Exposure  (mR)
Type of Exposure/Dose        Protection    and Infant Thyroid Doses(mrad)**
                             Standard*     '59-'63  '64  '65  '66  '67  '68   '69
Whole-body gamma exposure
Thyroid dose
170 mrem/yr
500 mrem/yr
ND
<3
<1 6
24 72
20
36
2 <1
18 13
2
* Standards are for sample of population, AEC Manual Chapter 0524. (57)

**Units in mR and mrad are equivalent to mrem for this comparison.
                                    73

-------
                       TABLE 9.   SUMMARY OF NRDS NUCLEAR ROCKET TESTING RESULTS
                         Milk Results,  131I - Infant
Air Concentrations - Adults
Event
NRX/EST-A4,
EP-IVA 3/25/66 (46)
NRX-A5,
EP-IV 6/23/66 (47)
Phoebus-lA,
EP-IV 6/25/65(105)
Phoebus -IB,
EP-IV 2/23/67(45,48)
Distance
from Test
Cell (mi.)
95C
180
120
193
Peak Milk
Concentra-
tion (pCi/1)
140
240
180
iooe
Potentiala
Dose(mrera)
16
17d
20
156
Distance
from Test
Cell(mi.)
95C
60
65
78
131Z
(yCi-sec/m3)
7.4'
9.7
1.7
2.8
Potential
Dose (mrem)
4
7
0.1
6
  Potential thyroid dose for an infant drinking 1-liter of milk per day assuming a 2-gram thyroid.

  Potential thyroid dose for standard man; based on iodine-131, 132, 133, and 135.

C The meteorological conditions appeared to produce a subsidence and possibly rainout or washout
  at this distance, resulting in higher concentrations than would have been suspected from those
  near-in.  The cows were receiving only about 1/10 of their feed from fresh forage.

  FRC 5 type assumptions (5-day effective half-life in milk) would indicate a dose of 48 mrem;  but
  the observed half-life was shorter than 5 days.

6 There were not complete daily results.  The peak concentration is based on extrapolating values
  prior to the peak.  The highest measured result was 60 pCi/1.  Based on FRC Report  5 assumptions.

-------
It is apparent from a comparison of Tables  8 and 9 that  most  of the
totals for annual exposure and hypothetical thyroid dose given in
Table 8 results from one or two tests for the indicated  time  period.

Figure 9   '     compares estimated hypothetical doses with pre-run
dose predictions for Phoebus-IB EP-IV.   The estimated doses were
calculated from environmental surveillance  data and are  about an order
of magnitude below the pre-event predictions.  Estimated hypothetical
external "gamma exposures are not indicated  on the graph.  The off-site
gamma exposure-rate was near the limit of detectability, with the
highest measured exposure being less than 0.1 mR.  Thus, all  of the
gamma exposures fall off the scale of the graph.  The predicted external
gamma exposure was based only on cloud passage (i.e., did not include
exposure from deposited activity).

The difference between the pre-event predictions and the post-event
estimates was in large part due to differences between pre-event
estimates of parameters and what actually occurred.  Table 10 compares
some of these parameters and shows the effect of various assumptions
on predicted doses.

Figure 9 indicates that pre-event predictions were roughly an order of
magnitude above the hypothetical dose estimates based on surveillance
results.  Table 10 indicates that the difference between pre-event
predictions of parameters and post-event estimates of these parameters
accounted for roughly a factor of 7 of the  order of magnitude differ-
     (48)
ence.

Figure 10 shows the crosswind distribution  of the effluent and indi-
cates the relative quantity of    I on natural desert vegetation
(relative pCi per unit wet weight of vegetation).

2.   On-Site

This section is concerned with exposures produced by reactor test
effluent and does not consider occupational exposures to personnel

                               75

-------
                   THYROID DOSE  ESTIMATES FROM
                             RADIOIODINE
                              OlNGESTION OF 131I
                                 IN MILK (INFANT)

                              • INHALATION (ADULT)
       10
  50   100    200

 MILES FROM TEST CELL
Figure  9
Pre-Event Dose Predictions and Dose
Estimates from Surveillance Results'*8
                           76

-------
              TABLE 10.  TYPICAL EFFLUENT PREDICTION PARAMETERS(48)


_   „,_„,.             Pre-Event Predictions        Post-Event            Factor Change
Parameter           Accident       Normal Run      Normal Run      ,  .   In Predicfon
                                                                   (+ increase; - decrease)*

Power Integral
  (Mw-sec)          2.7 x 106      2.7 x 106       '  3 x 106                  +0.1


Fission Pro-
duct Release             a              0
         r             OU'o             o-a              1-6                     -5
Fraction for
1311 (percent)
Wind Speed
(mph) 6
Effective
Stack Height 300
(meters)
6 15 -2.5
1,500 1,200 Minor for off -site
area
 Summing this factor indicates that the pre-event prediction was roughly a factor
 of 7 above doses estimated by use of post-event parameters and the model.
                                        77

-------
     10 4
                                             PHOEBUS  1B EP IV
     10 3
   o
   LU
   O
   X

   O
   LU
     10"
or
LU
Q.

6
z
o
o
     103
                                           ARC AT 90  MILES
                                          ARC AT  20-23  MILES
  LL1

  >
    103
102

 340'
Figure 10
                                          ARC AT 15-20  MILES
              350°       0°       10°        20°

                     AZIMUTH FROM TEST CELL
                                                  30'
               Relative  Quantity of  131I on  Natural

               Vegetation (Sagebrush or Greasewood

               Phoebus IB,  EPIV)
40'
                              78

-------
     involved in reactor disassembly or test operations.   No compre-
     hensive summary of surveillance data or actual absorbed doses in
     the on-site area is available, and information presented here is
     limited to hypothetical whole-body gamma exposures estimated from
     exposure-rate data compiled by Van Vleck^   '  for several reactor
     tests.  The on-site program has been conducted by LASL and PAA.

     Figure 11 indicates the cloud centerlines for  the following tests:
     NRX-A3, EP-V; NRX/EST-A4, EP-IV; NRX/EST-A4,  EP-IVa;  NRX-A5, EP-V;
     Phoebus-IB, EP-IV; NRX-A6, EP-IIIa; Phoebus-2A, EP-IV; Phoebus-2A,
     EP-V; and Pewee-I, EP-III.

     Figure 12 presents estimated hypothetical whole-body external gamma
     exposures (infinite exposures integrated from  time of completion of
     cloud passage) resulting from activity deposited by the tests whose
     cloud centerlines are indicated on Figure 11.   Figure 12 excludes
     external exposure received during cloud passage.  Past experience
     at NTS indicates that exposure during cloud passage may be about
     half of the infinite exposure from deposited activity.  The inte-
     grated exposures are based on the assumption that the deposited
                                              -1 2
     activity decayed with time according to t    .

B.   Deposition uf TVrticulate Effluent
       (29)
Simens     summarized the early history of environmental surveillance ef-
forts related to particulate effluent.  Ground deposition of particulate
matter out to several miles from the test stand was noted commencing with
the first NERVA test (NRX-A2, 1964).  Prior to the NRX-A5, EP-IV test in
June 1966, the particulate effluent was considered to be related to the
immediate environment within several miles of the test point.  Subsequent
to the NRX-A5 test, particles were found on site 30 miles downwind of the
test stand^  '    .  This initiated the concern for particles as a poten-
tial off-site safety problem.

Beginning with Phoebus-IB, EP-IV, LASL, PAA and NERC-LV mounted  extensive
field efforts to measure the extent of particulate contamination and  to

                                    79

-------
                                    NTS BOUNDARY.
                                    AREA BOUNDARY
                                    DIRT ROADS
                                    PAVED ROADS.
            NRDS (AREA 400)
                   w
  il'UOG 0
Figure 11
Cloud Centerlines for Selected Reactor
Tests
                               80

-------
   10

   9

   8

   7

   6

   5
tr
o
<

Q
UJ

V)

2
UJ
Q
O
cc
u.

LU
o:

en
O
Q.
X
UJ

Q
UJ
CC
o
UJ
10

9
8

7

6

5
10
Q

8

7

6

5
   10

    9

    8

    7

    6
                        \
                     10       15        20       25




                     DISTANCE FROM TEST POINT, IN MILES
                                                       30
  Figure 12
                Estimated Hypothetical Whole-Body

                External Gamma  Exposures from Activity

                Deposited by Selected Tests  Indicated

                on  Figure 11
                                     81

-------
 estimate  particle  size  and  activity distributions.  The findings of the
 organizations  are  described in  their respective reports of surveillance
 operations  for the Phoebus-IB,  EP-IV; NRX-A6, EP-IIIa; Phoebus-2A, EP-IV
 and EP-V; and  Pewee-I,  EP-III reactor tests.(14,15,17,43,84,85,108.109,110,111)

 Altomare  and Coleman     compared  the preliminary particle data obtained
 for effluent from  Phoebus-IB, EP-IV, by PAA, LASL, and NERC-LV and found
 the data  to be inconsistent.  For  this test, PAA and LASL data indicated
 a log-normal size  distribution  of  particulates with a count median
 diameter  of about  67 micrometers and a geometric standard deviation of
 2.0.  NERC-LV  particulate data  indicated a log-normal size distribution
 with a count median diameter of 11.5 micrometers and a geometric standard
 deviation of 2.9.  PAA  reported an average particle density of 6 gm/cc
 while NERC-LV  reported  an average  particle density of 11 gm/cc.  Altomare
 and Coleman indicate that the PAA  data showed a decrease in particle size
 with distance  and  a correlation between particle size and activity.

 Mikhail and Collins^ 6' also evaluated the Phoebus-IB, EP-IV, particle
 data.  They divided the particles  into size groups, greater than and less
 than 12 urn, and evaluated the associated inhalation, ingestion, and skin
 exposure  implications of human  interaction.  They concluded skin exposure
 was  the limiting mode of exposure.

 The  final NERC-LV report for the Phoebus-IB particle studies indicates an
                                       f!4)
 overall count median diameter of 12 ym.      The count median diameter for
 the  particles over 10 ym in diameter and within 10 miles of the test cell
 was  35 ym.  This latter number  is  somewhat analogous to the data of PAA
 and  LASL, which only collected particles greater than 10 to 15 ym in
 diameter, the majority of which were within 10 to 15 miles of the test cell.
 It was also noted that the particle size generally decreased with distance
 although the correlation coefficient was not significantly different from
 zero at the 95% confidence level.

The "hot-lines" for the five reactor engine tests for which particulate
data were collected in the off-site area are indicated on Figure 13,

                                    82

-------
       CD
00
CH
CROSSBARS  INDICATE AREAS WHERE
      DATA WERE COLLECTED
         36'00
                                                                                       8   0  8  16 12

                                                                                         KILOMETRES

                                                                                             ARTRO S ( f6
                                                          11600
                                                                                      11500
                                       Cloud Centerlines for Reactor Engine
                                       Tests for Which Particle  Deposition
                                       was  Documented  in Detail

-------
 together with  the  arcs  on  which  particle  data  were  collected.   Particle
 sampling efforts for  Phoebus-IB,  EP-IV, were primarily  devoted  to  lo-
 cating  the  "hot-line" and  determining  concentrations  along  the  centerline,
 rather  than establishing lateral  distribution  about the centerline.  Fig-
 ure  14  indicates the  particle  concentrations observed by NERC-LV for the
 Pewee-I, EP-III test.   Data  for  the other tests  indicated in Figure 13
 are  in  Appendix E.

 NERC-LV data indicate particle concentrations  for Pewee-I,  EP-III, as high
 as 0.4  particles/m  at  a distance of 38 miles,      somewhat higher values
 than NERC-LV reported for  other  tests  at  this  distance.  However,  particle
 concentrations in  themselves are  not sufficient  to  appraise the hazards
 from particles.  As outlined in  Section IV, particle  hazards have  been
 evaluated in terms of the  probability  of  receiving  a  specified  skin dose
 at Krebs1 depth.   Initially, for  operational purposes at NRDS, proba-
 bilities greater than one  in ten  thousand of receiving  1,500 rads  at Krebs1
 depth were  considered unacceptable in  the off-site  area.  This dose value
 was  later reduced to  750 rads.    *  Figure 15 shows  the potential proba-
 bility  of receiving the specified doses at Krebs1 depth  as  a function of
 distance for NRX-A6,  EP-IIIa;  Phoebus-2A,  EP-IV; Phoebus-2A, EP-V; and
 Pewee-I, EP-III; as estimated  from particle data collected  after the tests.
 The  curve for Phoebus-2A,  EP-IV,  is the probability of  receiving 1500 rads
 at Krebs' depth; the other three  curves are calculated  for a critical dose
 of 750  rads  at Krebs' depth.

These probabilities were estimated using  the ARL model  and methods.
 Kennedy  and  Henderson performed the calculations for  Phoebus-2A, EP-IV,
and  Pewee-1, EP-III.'-112-'  The curves  for  Phoebus-2A, EP-V and NRX-A6,
EP-IIIa, were estimated from data reported by  PAA^  '   ^ using the ARL
model and values for the particle activity required to produce 750 rads
at Krebs' depth calculated by Mikhail  for  XE Prime.      Comparison of
curves of particle travel  time versus particle activity required to produce
"'See Section V on guides.
                                    84

-------
    H-
    TO
    C
    ^
    0>
00
01
            a
            a.
           Z
           O
           H;
           175
           O
           a.
            y
            H-
            oe
            <
            Q.
                                                                         100   98	96
                             Three Dimensional Representation of
                             Particle  Deposition for Pewee I, EP-III119

-------
  1.0
  0.1
CL
HI
a
CD
LU
cc
<

LU
    „

Sib2
o
t
cc
o

o
LJJ
o
LU
u_
O
CD
<
CO
o
cc
CL
  10
  lO'5
                          SYMBOL      TEST     CRITICAL DOSE


                            A      NRX A6 EP mA    750 rads


                            •     PHOEBUS 2A EPEZ  1500 rads° (ref.m)


                            •     PHOEBUS 2A EPS  750 rads


                            O       PEWEEIEPH    750 rads0 (ref.iiz)
            PHOEBUS 2A EP-ffi
             PHOEBUS  2A EP2'
I   I  I M Mil	|_l
                               PEWEE I EPH
             345 678910   20     50    100


               DISTANCE FROM TEST POINT IN MILES
   Figure  15
            Probability  of Receiving Critical Dose

            at Krebs Depth for Four Tests
                                   86

-------
750 rads at Krebs1 depth for Pewee-I,  EP-III, (-91-) (activity production
time about one hour) with the corresponding curves  for XE Prime,  EP-V,'-16-'
(activity production time about 6 minutes)  indicated that the errors intro-
duced by using the XE Prime curves for NRX-A6,  EP-IIIa, and Phoebus-2A,
EP-V, were relatively small, probably  less  than a  factor of two.

For NRX-A6 (December 15, 1967) and Pewee-I, EP-III  (December 4,1968), the
exposed area of an individual was assumed to  be 7.0 x 10~  m ,  which cor-
responds to a dress style similar to Model  A  of Kochendorfer and  Ulberg.    '
For the two Phoebus-2A runs (June and  July 1968),  the exposed area of the
                        :o be
                        (88)
                                    2
individual was assumed to be 0.384 m , corresponding to Model B of
Kochendorfer and Ulberg.

The data in Figure 15 indicate that the probability of receiving the critical
dose (either 750 or 1,500 rads) at Krebs' depth exceeded 0.0001 at some lo-
cations in the off-site area for NRX-A6, EP-IIIa,  and Pewee-I, EP-III (see
Figure 16).  The 0.0001 probability points for Phoebus-2A, EP-IV and EP-V,
occurred at about 20 and 30 miles, respectively, from the test point; Fig-
ure 13 shows these points to be within the NRDS-NTS complex.  For NRX-A6,
EP-IIIa, off-site residents in the effluent trajectory within 25 miles of
the test point were advised to stay indoors for at least one hour after the
end of the test.       There were no residents in the range between 25 miles
and 60 miles (the 0.0001 probability point for 750 rads).  The 0.0001 proba-
bility point for Pewee-I, EP-III, occurred at about 40 miles and the effluent
did not pass over any populated areas prior to reaching this distance.

There are no known instances of interaction of particles with individuals in
the off-site area; although there are several instances of interaction of
particles with NRDS test related personnel.  These include the exposure of
the individuals related to the Phoebus-IB, EP-IV,  test^     .  Measurable
biological effects from these interactions including erythema were not
observed.

Henderson^  ' analyzed particle deposition data collected for the five
reactor tests where there was significant documentation  (Phoebus-IB, EP-IV;

                                    87

-------
 NRX-A6,  EP-III;  Phoebus-2A,  EP-IV  and  EP-V;  and  Pewee-I, EP-III) by PAA,
 LASL,  and NERC-LV.  Maximum  particle concentrations for these tests at
 each arc distance are  plotted  in Figure  16.   Particle concentrations shown
 in Figure 16 have been normalized  to all parameters in the scaling equa-
 tion:  wind speed,  shear  angle, and source strength (grams of uranium).

 The downwind distance  was normalized to  the  height of rise of the plume,
 which  is an attempt to normalize the peak concentration for all runs at
 a  constant dimensionless  distance  x/h  (distance  divided by release
 height).   However,  after  normalization,  there remains variations in the
 data of  approximately  an  order of  magnitude.  Henderson     has indicated that
 some or  all  of this variation might be explained by taking into account
 the effects  of terrain and variations  in particle sizes.  The lines on
 Figure 16 are indicative  of  the range of expected results, based on past
 data.

 Values for the variables  used in the normalizations shown in Figure 16
 are given in  Appendix  F.  Figure 16 can be used  to scale particle depo-
 sition by forecasting  normalization parameters.

                       VII.  SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS

 This paper has reviewed the  history of nuclear rocket reactor engine tests
 at  the Nuclear Rocket  Development  Station, which adjoins the Nevada Test
 Site.  The nuclear  rocket engines  tested during  the period covered by this
 report, have  primarily been  based  on single-pass hydrogen-cooled reactors
 with fuel  rods of UC_  (highly enriched uranium) beads in graphite matrices.
 NbC and other materials have been used for coolant channel coating to both
 protect the fuel and reduce  the diffusion of fission products into the
 effluent.

The subject tests included planned radioactive effluent releases.  Many
 of the changes and  improvements in reactor design have been primarily
 intended  to maintain reactor integrity and improve the operational char-
acteristics of the reactor-power level, run-time, etc.  In addition, these
changes were intended to and did reduce the radioactive effluent releases.

                                    88

-------
    100
   10.0
 Nua
••••HMBM
 Q
    1.0
    0.1
     0.1
                                   O  PHOEBUS  18  EP-IV
                                   +  NRX A6 EP-III
                                   A  PHOEBUS  2A EP-IV
                                   D  PHOEBUS  EP-V
                                   •  PEWEE I  EP-III
             \    \   \  I  l (I I I      I    I   I  I  I I  I I I	I    I  i  i I  I i I
      Figure  16
    1.0                    10.0

        x/h  (DIMENSIONLESS)

Normalized Maximum Particle Concentration16
100
                                     89

-------
 The reactor effluent  has  been  described under  two  categories:   (1)  fission
 products  which migrated from the  fuel  into  the coolant  and were exhausted as
 gases  and/or small  particulate matter  (micrometer  size  range)--denoted
 "aerosol  effluent," and   (2) discrete  fuel  fragments which were exhausted
 as  a result of erosion, corrosion,  and minor breakage of  the  fuel elements
 denoted as  "particulate effluent."  The potential  effluent from reactivity
 insertion or loss of  coolant accidents has  also been considered.  The
 accident  effluent has been  assumed  to  be  characterized  by the aerosol
 effluent, but has been postulated to be about  an order  of magnitude greater.

 The biological or health  implications  of  the effluent are evaluated by
 comparing effluent  predictions and/or  surveillance results to the appro-
 priate  radiation protection guides.  Actual biological  effects have not
 been observed at the  low  doses associated with the effluent from this
 program.

 The surveillance results  indicate that postulated hypothetical thyroid
 doses have  been well  below  (roughly an order of magnitude) the FRC  guides
 and AEG standards   '  '  '  '    .  The term postulated hypothetical doses
 refers  to theoretical  estimates which  are based on environmental surveil-
 lance results (air, milk, etc.) which  assume biological parameters  for
 an  infant	the critical  receptor or person who might receive the highest
 potential dose.

 Results from  surveillance for discrete particles indicate that, although
 the administrative  guide  (less than a  probability of 10   of a person
             v u I  A      £ -rrn    A  -,(80,100,103,104)      ,    ,
 receiving a  Krebs"  dose of 750 rads)v                may  have been
 exceeded in unpopulated areas, there have not  been any  reported inter-
 actions of particles with people  in the off-site area.  For the NRX-A6,
                                  -4
 EP-III test,  the probability of 10   was  exceeded in a populated area,
 but  there was  a specific operational field effort to request and insure
 that the off-site populace in the area of concern stayed  indoors.
The guide^    '   '   ' includes the latitude for use of appropriate counter-
measures.   It  is concluded that off-site  exposures or doses from nuclear

                                    90

-------
rocket engine tests at NRDS have been below the applicable guides.   In
general, it is felt that the program has been administered and conducted
in a creditable manner and that the results reflect favorably on the
management agencies.  In reviewing the effluent program, several aspects
were noted where possible improvements could be made.  Potential areas
for improvement include:
                                         132
     1.   Consideration of the dose from    I resulting from the decay
             132
          of  •  Te that is inhaled.
     2.   Additional investigation of techniques for estimating the
          external gamma dose from sky shine.
     3.   Resolve the remaining uncertainties related to the biological
          effects of human interaction with the particulate effluent.
          Proposed changes in fuel design, indicated in the preface,
          may cause these differences to be irrelevant to future nuclear
          rocket engine tests.  The effluent from the nuclear furnace
          tests started in June 1972 was passed through a high-efficiency
          scrubber/filter system.
                                     91

-------
                                REFERENCES

  1.   Atomic  Energy Commission  and  National Aeronautics  and  Space
      Administration.   Environmental  Statement,  Reactor  Testing,
    .  FY-1972.   WASH-1508.  (December  1971)

  2.   Atomic  Energy Commission.  Nuclear  Propulsion  for  Space.  Library
      of Congress  67-61704.  Technical  Information Center, P.O.Box  62,
      Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  (February 1968)

  3.   Los Alamos Scientific  Laboratory.   Pewee  I Effluent Effects
      Analysis.  Memo  P.V.Fultyn to H.T.Knight.  (November 4, 1968)

  4.   Los Alamos Scientific  Laboratory.   Personal communication,
      E.  A. Bryant  and Luther Lyon. (May  1970)

  5.   Space Nuclear Systems  Office.   NRDS effluent data  bank.  Unpub-
      lished, undated  manuscript received by the National Environ-
      mental  Research  Center, Las Vegas,  June 1971.

  6.   Bryant, E.A.,  and A.E. Norris.  Pewee 2 Fission Product Release
      Estimates. Los Alamos  Scientific  Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
      Mexico. (January 15, 1970)

  7.   Los  Alamos Scientific  Laboratory. Phoebus-2A Safety Analysis
      Report.  JB-67-740, Sections  5.3  and 5.4.  (July 1967)

  8.   Westinghouse Astronuclear  Laboratories. NRX-A6 Safety Evaluation
      Report. WANL-TME-1633, Chapter  7. (October 1967)

  9.   Los Alamos Scientific  Laboratory. Fission Product  Release from a
      PH-2 Reactor. Memo E.A.Bryant to R.V.Fultyn. (August 8, 1967)

10.   Westinghouse Astronuclear  Laboratory. Source Term. Letter A. C.
      Sanderson to J.  P. Jewett, Space Nuclear Systems Office.
      (October 28,  1969)

11.   Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory. Final Report of Aerial
     Surveillance for the NRX/EST, Experimental Plans IIB through IVA.
     Technical  Information Center, P.O.Box 62,  Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
      (May 1966)

12.  Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory. Final Report of Aerial
     Surveillance for the NRX-A5,  EP-III and EP-IV.  Technical Informa-
     tion Center,  P.O.Box 62,  Oak Ridge,  Tennessee.  (February 1967)

13.  Fultyn,  R.V.   Effluent Effects Evaluation. Part of Pewee 2 Safety
     Analysis Report.  Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos,
     New Mexico. (Undated)
                                  92

-------
14.  Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory.  Particulate Effluent
     Study Phoebus-IB, EP-IV. SWRHL-46r.  Technical Information Center,
     P.O.Box 62, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.  (April 1970)

15.  Van Vleck, L. D.  Summary of Results Effluent Monitoring Phoebus-IB,
     EP-IV.  PAA-33-12.  Pan American World Airways,Inc.  (July 1967)

16.  Henderson, Donald.  Predicting Potential Skin Dose Effects Result-
     ing from Particulates Released by Nuclear Rocket Engines. ARLV-351-6.
     Environmental Science Services Administration/Air Resources Lab-
     oratory, Las Vegas, Nevada. (September 1969)

17.  Van Vleck, L. D.  Summary of Results Effluent Monitoring Phoebus-2A,
     EP-IV and EP-V. PAA-33-31. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
     (December 1968)

18.  Fultyn, R. V.  Large Particles in the Phoebus-IB Effluent. LA-3799.
     Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory,  Los Alamos, New Mexico.  (June 1968)

19.  Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.   Letter H.T.Knight to J.P.Jewett,
     Space Nuclear Systems Office. (October 10, 1968)

20.  Strom, P. 0., D. L. Love, A. H. Greendale, A. A. Delucchi, D. Sem,
     and N. E. Ballou.  Nuclear Charge Distribution  of Fission Product
     Chains of Mass Number 131-133. Phys. Rev. 144,  3, p. 984-993.  (1966)

21.  Katof, S.  Fission Product Yields from Neutron-Induced Fission.
     Nucleonics 18:201. (1960)

22.  Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.   Contribution to Pewee 2 Safety
     Analysis Report, transmitted L. L. Lyon to H. T. Knight. N-l-2537.
     (January 27, 1970)

23.  Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.   Release of Fuel Beads from
     Phoebus-2A During EP-IV.  Memorandum E. A. Bryant to distribution,
     (July 3, 1968)

24.  Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.  Private communication, W. Stratton
     and R. V. Fultyn.  (May 7, 1970)

25.  Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.  Personal communication,  W. Stratton.
     (May 11, 1970)

26.  DiNunno, J. J., F. D. Anderson, R. E. Baker and R. L. Waterfield.
     Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites.
     TID-14844.   (March 1962)

27.  Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.  Phoebus-2A Experimental Plan  IV,
     Full Power Run.  64 J-17-393-68, pp 34.  LASL, Mercury, Nevada.
     (June 26, 1968)
                                   93

-------
 28.  Coleman, R. D., and V. E. Andrews. Aerial Measurement of the Kiwi
     Transient Nuclear Test.  Radiation Data and Reports 8:558-566.  (July 1967)

 29.  Aerojet-General Corporation. Untitled, unpublished manuscript,
     Hugo  Simens, Nuclear Rocket Development Station, Nevada. (1967)

 50.  Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.  The radioactive effluent from
     Pewee-I. A memorandum, E. A. Bryant.  (December 27, 1968)

 31.  Quiring, R. F.  Cliinatological Data, Nevada Test Site and Nuclear
     Rocket Development Station.  ERLTM-ARL 7, UC-53, Meteorology.
     TID-4500.  Environmental Science Services Administration.(August 1968)

 32.  Van Vleck, L. D.  Meteorological Variables Applied to the Prediction
     of Dispersion from Nuclear Rocket Tests at the NRDS.  PAA 55-25.
     Pan American World Airways, Inc. (June 1968)

 55.  Fultyn, R. V.  A probabilistic scheme for predicting and evaluating
     hazards resulting from radioactive emissions to the atmosphere, and
     statistical nature of the radioactive effluent from ground tests of
     nuclear rocket engine prototypes.  Proceedings of the Health Physics
     Society Symposium, Augusta, Georgia, January 1968. Environmental
     Surveillance in the Vicinity of Nuclear Facilities; edited by W. C.
     Reinig. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. (1970)

 54.  Briggs, G. A.  Plume Rise, AEC Critical Review Series. Technical
     Information Center, P.O.Box 62, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. (1969)

 55.  Booth, H. G.  The gas-cloud radiological dose prediction models
     used by ESSA in support of testing at the Nuclear Rocket Development
     Station.  Environmental Science Services Administration/Air Resources
     Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada. Unpublished. (May 1968)

 56.  Air Resources Laboratory-Las Vegas, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
     Administration, Department of Commerce.  Personal communication,
     Donald Henderson.  (September 27, 1971)

 57.  Slade, D. H. (editor). Meteorology and Atomic Energy.  Atomic Energy
     Commission. Technical Information Center, P.O.Box 62, Oak Ridge,
     Tennessee.  (July 1968)

58.  Wilson, D.  A.   Application of Diffusion Models to NRDS Effluent
     Released. A progress report. Environmental Science Services Adminis-
     tration/Air Resources Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada. (Unpublished May 1968)

39.  Wilson, D.  A.   An Evaluation of Radiation Prediction Models Used by
     ARFRO at the NRDS. Environmental Science Services Administration/Air
     Resources Laboratory,  Las Vegas, Nevada.  (March 1967)

40.  Stigall, G. E.,  and H.  W. Galley.  Summary and Analysis of Effluent Data
     from Nuclear Rocket Testing at the Nuclear Rocket Development Station.
     NUS-599, Vol.  1 and 2.  NUS Corporation. (September 1967)


                                  94

-------
41.  Environmental Science Services Administration/Air Resources
     Laboratory. A Fallout Scaling Model  for the  Prediction of Gross
     Gamma Dose Rates from Earth Cratering Detonations.  An unpublished
     manuscript, F. D. Cluff and T. Palmer.  ESSA/ARL,  Las  Vegas,  Nev.(1964)

42.  Hughes, D. C.  Nuclear Construction  Engineering Technology.  NCG
     Technical Report No. 2.  U.S. Army  Nuclear  Cratering Group,
     Livermore, California. (September 1968)

43.  Altomare, P. N., and J. R.  Coleman.  Study of Particulate Effluent
     from Nuclear Rocket Engine Test.  NUS Corporation. (September 1967)

44.  Van der Hoven, I.  A Diffusion Deposition Model for Particulate
     Effluents from Ground-Tested Nuclear Engines.   Int.,  J. Air, Water
     Pollution 7:1025-32. Pergamon Press. (1963)           ~

45.  Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory. Final Report of Off-Site
     Surveillance for the Phoebus-IB Reactor, EP-I,  EP-II, EP-III, EP-IV
     Test Series. SWRHL-45r. Technical Information Center, P.O.Box 62,
     Oak Ridge, Tennessee. (July 1969)

46.  Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory. Final Report of Off-Site
     Surveillance for the NRX-A4/EST Test Series. SWRHL-30r. Technical
     Information Center, P.O.Box 62, Oak  Ridge, Tennessee.  (September 1966)

47.  Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory. Final Report of Off-Site
     Surveillance for the NRX-A5 Test Series. SWRHL-32r. (October 1968)

48.  Bernhardt, D. E., and J. R. McBride. Normal  Run and the Accident Case
     for a Nuclear Rocket Engine.  Proceedings of the  International
     Congress on the Diffusion of Fission Products,  Saclay, France.(Nov.1969)

49.  Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory. Final Report of Off-Site
     Surveillance for the NRX-A2 Experiment. SWRHL-16r, p.  15. (Feb.3, 1965)

50.  Grossman, R. F.  Summary of Hypothetical Whole-Body Gamma Exposures
     and Infant Thyroid Dose Resulting Off-Site from Project Rover Nuclear
     Reactor Engine Tests at the Nuclear  Rocket Development Station.
     SWRHL-92r.  (August 1970)

51.  Griffiths, P., and P. B. Erickson.  Radiological  Prediction and
     Monitoring of Tests at the Nuclear Rocket Development  Symposium of the
     Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Space Nuclear
     Systems Office.  (October 1969)

52.  Goldman, M. I.  Safety Aspects of Ground Testing for Large Nuclear
     Rockets.  Nuclear Applications 2:94-98.  (April 1966)

53.  Kochendorfer, D. B.  Calculated Activities of U-235 Fission  Products
     for Very Short Nuclear Reactor Operation. USNRDL-TR-757, Vols.  1 and 2
     (June 1964)

                                   95

-------
 54.  Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory. Rover Program Reactor Tests
     p.  III-l, Performance Summary, NRX-A1 through NRX-A6.  WANL-TME-1788.
     (July  1968)

 55.  Bemhardt, D. E.  Milk-to-Air Ratios for  Iodine-131 Concentrations
     (Project Rover). Proceedings of the Health Physics Society Symposium,
     Augusta, Georgia, 1968.  Environmental Surveillance in the Vicinity
     of Nuclear Facilities; edited by W. C. Reinig. Charles C. Thomas,
     Springfield, 111. (1970)

 56.  Federal Radiation Council. Background Material for the Development of
     Radiation Protection Standards, Report 1  (May 1960), Report 2
     (September 1961), Report 5 (July 1964) and Report 7 (May 1965).

 57.  Atomic Energy Commission.  Standards for  Radiation Protection,
     USAEC Manual Chapter 0524. (November 8, 1968)

 58.  Stocum, W. E.  Variability in the Parameters Used to Predict the Dose
     to the Thyroid from the Ingestion of Iodine-131 in Milk.  Proceedings
     of the Health Physics Society Symposium, Augusta, Georgia, 1968.
     Environmental Surveillance in the Vicinity of Nuclear Facilities;
     edited by W. C. Reinig.  Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, 111.  (1970)

 59.  International Commission on Radiological  Protection. Report of Com-
     mittee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation.  ICRP Publi-
     cation 2. Pergamon Press. (1959)

 60.  Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory.  Ingestion of Iodine-131
     from Food Products Other Than Milk. Memorandum to the Files,
     D. E. Bernhardt. (June 5, 1968)

 61.  Fultyn, R. V.  Environmental Effects of the Kiwi-TNT Effluent: A
     Review and Evaluation. LA-3449.  Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.
     (April 1968)

 62.  Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory.  Kiwi-B Report, U. S.
     Public Health Service Off-Site Radiological Safety Organization.
     Distributed December 7, 1961.

 63.  Fitzsimmons, C. K.,  and W. H. Horn.  Environmental Monitoring with
     Thermoluminescent Dosimeters. SWRHL-58r. Technical Information Center,
     P. 0. Box 62, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. (1969)

 64.  Thompson, J. C.  Comparison of Iodine-131 Intake from Milk and
     Foods.  Health Phys.  14_:483-489. (May 1968)

65.  Imai, K., and T. lijima.  Assessment of Gamma Exposure Due to a
     Radioactive Cloud Released from a Point Source. Health Phys.
     18^:207-216.  (March 1970)

66.  Alonso, A.   Generalization of Holland's Method to Assess Gamma Doses
     from Radioactive Clouds. Health Phys.  13:487-494. (May 1967)
                                  96

-------
67.  Glasstone, S. Principles of Nuclear Reactor Engineering.
     D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc.  (1958)

68.  Glasstone, S., and A.  Sesonski.   Nuclear Reactor Engineering.
     D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc.  (1963)

69.  NUS Corporation, Environmental Safeguards Division.   Effluent  Report
     for the NRX/EST Test Series. NUS-311.  (October 1966)

70.  Space Nuclear Systems  Office.  Standard Effluent Concentration to
     Dose Conversion Factors for Rover Reactor Operations  at NRDS.
     Letter R.S.Decker to B.P.Helgeson, April 1, 1966.

71.  Mine, G. J., and G. L. Brownell.   Radiation Dosimetry.  Academic
     Press, Inc.  (1956)

72.  Bunch, D. F. (editor). Controlled Environmental Radioiodine Tests,
     Progress Report No. 2. IDO-12053, TID-4500. USAEC.  (August 1966)

73.  Hawley, C. A. (editor). Controlled Environmental Radioiodine Tests
     at the National Reactor Testing Station, 1965 Progress  Report.
     IDO-12047. USAEC.  (February 1966)

74.  Stocum, W. E. Conversion Factors for the Child Thyroid  Dose in the
     H-8 Prediction Model.  LASL H-8 Division letter, H-8 M1045. Los Alamos
     Scientific Laboratory. (April 3,  1968)

75.  Atomic Energy Commission.   Conclusions of the Division  of Biology
     and Medicine/Space Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee.  Letter
     W. E. Lotz to D. S. Gabriel, June 6, 1968.

76.  Mikhail, S. Z., and K. A.  Collins.  Analysis of the Particulate
     Effluent Data from Phoebus-IB, EP-IV Nuclear Reactor  Test.
     USNRDL-TR-69-76.  Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory.   (July 15,  1969)

77.  Sanders, C. L., R. C.  Thompson and W.  J. Bair.  Carcinogenesis in the
     Lung from Inhalation of Radioactive Particles.  NRDL-TRC-69-8.
     Battelle Memorial  Institute, Pacific Northwest Laboratory (contract
     with the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory.  (March  18, 1969)

78.  Mikhail, S. Z., and K. A.  Collins. NRX-A6, EP-III Propulsion Reactor
     Test: Characteristics of Particulate Effluent and Comparison to
     Phoebus-IB, EP-IV. NRDL-TR-69-76. Naval Radiological  Defense
     Laboratory.  (July  15,  1969)

79.  Dean, P. N., and W. H. Langham. Tumorigenicity of Small Highly
     Radioactive Particles.  Health Phys. .16_: 79-84.  (1969)

80.  Krebs, J. S. The Response of Mammalian Skin to Irradiation with
     Particles of Reactor Debris. USNRDL-TR-67-118.  Naval Radiological
     Defense Laboratory. (September 1967)

81.  Dean, P. N., J. Langham and L. M. Holland.  Skin Response to a  Point
     Source of Fissioned Uranium-235 Carbide.  Health Phys.  l_9:5-7.  (July 1970)


                                  97

-------
 82.  Forbes, P. D.  Acute Effects on Skin Produced by Radioactive
     Microspheres: A Progress Report.  Undated, unpublished manu-
     script.  The Skin Cancer Hospital, Temple University, Health
     Sciences Center, Philadelphia, PA. (USNRDL contract No. NOO-228
     68C571).

 83.  Deposition and Retention Models for Internal Dosimetry of the
     Human Respiratory Tract.  By the Task Group on Lung Dynamics for Com-
     mittee - II of the International Commission on Radiological Protec-
     tion. Healtl^Phys^ 12^:173-207. (1966)

 84.  Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory.  Particulate Effluent
     Study - Phoebus 2A, EP-IV and EP-V.  SWRHL-60r. (June 1969)

 85.  Pan American World Airways, Inc.  Summary of Results Effluent Moni-
     toring NRX-A6, EP-IIIa.  PAA33-21. (April 15, 1968)

 86.  Sanders, C. L., R. C. Thompson and W. J. Bair. Lung Cancer: Dose
     Response Studies with Radionuclides.   CONF-691001.  AEC Symposium
     Series 18.  Technical Information Center, P.O.Box 62, Oak Ridge,
     Tennessee. (April 1970)

 87.  Booz-Allen Applied Research, Inc.  Empirical Relationships Between
     Deposition on Mannikins and Ground Contamination density from
     Particulate Clouds.  Special memorandum No. 4 to Systems Analysis
     Division, Chemical Research and Development Laboratories, Edgewood
     Arsenal, MD.  (1963)

 88.  Kochendorfer, D. B.,  and J. C. Ulberg.  Human Exposure to Particu-
     late Debris from Aerospace Nuclear Applications.  USNRDL-TR-67-59.
     Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory.  (June 8, 1967)

 89.  DeAgazio, A.W.  Dose Calculation Models for Re-Entering Nuclear
     Rocket Debris.  NUS-229.  NUS Corporation. (May 1965)

90.  Space Nuclear Systems Office, Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory.
     Rover Flight  Safety Program Preliminary Review. IV. Safety Analysis
     Report:   Radiological Considerations  in Nuclear Flight Safety.
     USNRDL-TR-1010.(April 20, 1966)

91.  Environmental Science Services Administration/Air Resources Lab.
     Post-Run Probability Calculation for  Pewee I, EP-III.  Memoran-
     dum D. Henderson to R.  Nelson, Space  Nuclear Systems Office. (Mar.26, 1969)

92.  Ulberg,  J.  C., and D. B. Kochendorfer.  Models for Estimating Beta
     Dose to Tissue from Particle Debris in Aerospace Nuclear Applications.
     USNRDL-TR-1107. Naval Radiological Defense Lab. (Dec. 12, 1966)

93.  Federal  Register.   Standards for Radiation Protection, Title 10,
     Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20.
                                  98

-------
 94.   Atomic Energy Commission.   Radiological  Protection Criteria at
      the Nevada Test Site.   Memorandum N.  H.  Woodruff, Director,
      AEC Division of Operational Safety, to J. E. Reeves, Manager,
      AEC Nevada Operations  Office.  (August 1,  1962)

 95.   Space Nuclear Systems  Office.   Radiation  Dose Guides for Reactor
      Engine Test Approvals.  Memorandum M. Klein, Manager,  Space
      Nuclear Systems Office, to J.  P. Jewett,  Space Nuclear Systems
      Office-Nevada. (July 26, 1967)

 96.   Atomic Energy Commission   Off-NTS Radiological  Safety Criteria for
      Reactor Runs at NRDS.   Memorandum R.  E.  Miller,  Manager, AEC
      Nevada Operations Office,  to M. B. Biles, Director, AEC Division
      of Operational Safety. (June 26,  1969)

 97.   National Committee on Radiological Protection. Maximum Permissible
      Body Burdens and Maximum Permissible  Concentrations of Radionuclides
      in Air and in Water for Occupational  Exposure.   National Bureau of
      Standards Handbook 69. (June 5, 1959)

 98.   National Council on Radiation  Protection and Measurements.   Basic
      Radiation Protection Criteria.   NCRP  Report No.  39.  (Jan.  1971)

 99.   Federal Register.  Reactor Site Criteria.  Title 10, Code  of
      Federal Regulations, Part 100.  (April 5,  1966)

100.   Space Nuclear Systems Office.   Additional Radiation Criteria. Memor-
      andum M. Klein, Manager, SNSO,  to J.  P.  Jewett,  SNSO-N, (May  20,  1968)

101.   Forbes, P. D., and S.  Z. Mikhail.  Acute Lesions in Skin Produced by
      Radioactive Microspheres.   Final Report,  Contract SNSO-49.  (April 1970)

102.   Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory,  Biological and Medical Research Group.
      Some Biological Aspects of Radioactive  Microspheres. LA-3365-MS.
      (August 23, 1965)

103.   Space Nuclear Systems Office-Nevada.   Radiation  Dose Guides.  Memor-
      andum J. P. Jewett to Milton Klein, Manager, SNSO.  (January 1969)

104.   Space Nuclear Systems Office.   Particle Guides.   Memorandum Milton
      Klein, Manager, SNSO, to J. P.  Jewett,  SNSO-N.   (January 1969)

105.   Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory.   Final  Report of Off-Site
      Surveillance for the Phoebus-lA Experiment.  SWRHL-19r. Technical
      Information Center, P.O.Box 62, Oak  Ridge,  Tennessee.   (Jan. 1966)

106.   Pan American World Airways, Inc.  Personal  communication,  L.  D.
      Van Vleck.  (1970)

107.   Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory.   Particulate  materials.
      Memorandum D. N. McNelis to D. S.  Barth. (Oct.   18, 1966)
                                    99

-------
 108.  Pan American World Airways,  Inc.  Summary of Results Effluent
      Monitoring Pewee  I, EP-III.  PAA 40-1.   (March 24, 1969)

 109.  Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory.  Particulate Effluent
      Study of NRX-A6,  EP-IIIA.  SWRHL-57r.  Technical Information
      Center, P.O.Box 62, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

 110.  Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory.  Particulate Effluent
      Study, Pewee I, EP-III.  SWRHL-66r.  (in press)

 111.  Pan American World Airways,  Inc.  On-site Report for the Phoebus-IB
      Reactor Test Series.  PAA 33-13. (August 18, 1967)

 112.  Kennedy, N. C., and D. Henderson.  NRDS Radiation Prediction Model
      Evaluation.  Environmental Science Services Administration/Air
      Resources Laboratory.  Report No. ARLV-351-7.  (June 1970)

 113.  Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory.  Final Report of
      Off-Site Surveillance for the NRX-A6 Test Series.  SWRHL-78r.
      (August 1971)

 114.  Space Nuclear Systems Office.  TWX concerning particle guides,
      J. P. Jewett, SNSO-N, to Milton Klein, Manager, SNSO.  (Dec.2, 1968)

 115.  Spencer, L. V.  National Bureau of Standards Monogr. 1. (1959)

 116.  Mikhail, S. Z.  Tissue Beta Radiation Doses from Particulate
      Fission Product Sources:  Comparison of Model Predictions with
      Experimental and Monte Carlo Values.  ESA-TR-70-1.  Environmental
      Science Associates. (May 1970)

 117.  Space Nuclear Systems Office.  Particle Study.  Letter S. Z. Mikhail,
      Naval Elect. Lab., to R. Nelson, SNSO-N. (Oct. 7, 1969)

 118.  Eve, I. S.  A Review of the Physiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract
      in Relation to Radiation Doses from Radioactive Materials.  Health
      Phys. 12^:131-161. (February 1966)

 119.  Dolphin, G. W., and I. S. Eve.  Dosimetry of the Gastrointestinal
      Tract.  Health Phys. .12^163-172. (February 1966)

 120.  Coleman, J. R., and L. J. Perez.  Consideration of Dose Models for
      the Eye and Lung from Nuclear Rocket Particulate Effluent.
      NUS-467.  NUS Corporation.   (May 15, 1968)

121.  International Commission on Radiological Protection.  Radiosensitivity
      and Spatial Distribution of Dose. Committee I.  ICRP Publication 14.
      Pergamon Press.  Glasgow. (1969)

122.  Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory.  Personal communication,
      R. E.  Stanley.  (1970)
                                   100

-------
123.  Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.   Personal  communication,  W.  H.
      Langham. (May 1970)

124.  Coleman, J. R., and L. J.  Perez.   Radiological Safety Studies  of
      Space Nuclear Systems—Fourth Quarterly and  Final Report.
      SC-CR-67-2729.  Sandia Corporation.  (October 1967)

125.  Pestaner, J. F., D. A. Kubose and W.  R. Balkwell.  Beta Dose Rates
      from Neutron-Irradiated Uranium-235 Carbide  Particles. USNRDL-TR-1082.
      Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory.  (June 30, 1966)

126.  Richmond, C. R., J. Langham and R. S. Stone.  Biological Response
      to Small Highly Radioactive Sources.   Health Phys.  18:401-408.
      Pergamon Press.   (1970)

127.  Altomare, P. M., L. J. Perez and J. R.  Coleman.  Method Applied for
      Calculation of Probability of Cataract and Probability of
      Exceeding Krebs1 Depth Dose for Phoebus-2A,  EP-IV.   NUS Corporation.
      (June 20, 1968)
                                    101

-------
                                  APPENDICES

Appendix                            Title                        Page

   A.    .Population and Milk Cow Distribution.                    104

   B.     Models and Information Related to Potential
          Biological Effects of Radioactive Particles.             105

   B-l.   Acute Lesions in Skin Produced by Particulate
          Effluent.                                               106

          Dose Calculation Techniques.                             106

          Results of Experiments.                                  108

          Summary of Particle Skin-Bioeffects Experiments.         110

          Summary.                                                 113

   B-2.   Potential Dose to the GI Tract from Particulate
          Material.                                               114

   B-3.   Mathematical Models for Predicting Effects On the Lung
          From Inhalation and Deposition of Radioactive Particles.117

          Introduction.                                            117

          Deposition of Particles  in the Respiratory System.       118

          Estimation of Dose to the Lung from Deposited
          Material.                                               120

          Biological Effects of Doses to the Lung  from
          Particulates.                                            121

   B-4.   Model Used for Calculation of Probability of  Cataract
          from Deposition of Particle in Eye.                      122

          Schematic Drawings of the Model Eye.                     123

          Anatomical Constants for Model Eye.                      124

          Probability of Cataract  Per Particle for Various
          Locations and  Residence  Times in the Eye as a Function
          of Total  Particle Activity at Time of Deposition.        126

         Average Number of Particles Deposited in Eye  Region
          Per  Unit  Air Concentration Versus Wind Speed.            129


                                     102

-------
Appendix                            Title                        Page


   C.     Dosimetry and Air Surveillance Network Stations.        130

   D.     Reactor Engine Tests at NRDS from Which Airborne
          Radioactivity was Detected Outside the Test Range
          Complex.                                                132

   E.     Deposition Measurements and Survey Results.             140

   F.     Particle Concentrations and Normalization
          Parameters.                                             145
                                      103

-------
POPULATION AND MILK COW DISTRIBUTION
APPENDIX A, FIGURE A-1

POPULATION/MILK COWS
                          U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
                          PROTECTION AGENCY
                       NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
                           RESEARCH CENTER
                          LAS VE6AS, NEVADA
Figure A-1
Population and Milk Cow Distribution
                               104

-------
                               APPENDIX B


              MODELS AND INFORMATION RELATED TO POTENTIAL
              BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES


1.   Acute lesions in skin produced by particulate effluent.


2.   Potential dose to the GI tract from particulate material.


3.   Mathematical models for predicting effects on the lung from inhalation
     and deposition of radioactive particles.


4.   Model used for calculation of probability of cataract from deposition
     of particle in eye.
                                    105

-------
 APPENDIX  B  -  1.  Acute Lesions in Skin Produced by Particulate Effluent.

 This  appendix  includes information which supplements the information in
 Section V on guides for the particulate effluent.

 Based on  considerations of the area of skin irradiated and the character-
 istics of skin from the standpoint of biological effects, Krebs     pro-
 posed what  has become known as Krebs1 Dose.  This is the dose at the
 periphery of a circular field of 4 mm in radius at a depth of 100 ym below
 the surface of the skin.  The center of the field is the point on the
 surface of  the skin where the particle rests.  He postulated that Krebs'
 doses of  less  than 1500 rads would not produce serious skin lesions.

 In 1968 preliminary results from experiments conducted by Forbes and
Mikhail(82>101) and the Biomedical Research Group of LASI/81'102-* indi-
 cated the need for reconsidering the dose guide for the skin.  The
 experiments were based on implanting irradiated pyrolytic graphite-coated
UC,, beads on the shaved skin of monkeys and humans (LASL) , and pigs
 (Forbes).

 Based on the preliminary results of these experiments   '  '   '   ' the
particle dose  guide was reduced to 750 rads Krebs' dose.     '   '

Dose Calculation Techniques

The following reviews briefly compares the dose calculation techniques
used by the investigators.

Three types of dose calculations were made:
     1.    Beta dose at the surface of the particle.
     2.    Beta dose at the pstulated depth of the basal or germinal cell
          layer—100 ym.
     3.    The dose at the periphery of a 4 mm circular plane at a tissue
          depth 100 ym below the particle,  Krebs1  dose.
                                   106

-------
The Krebs1 criterion has been used as a normalizing  tool  for presenting
the results from particles of various sizes for the  various  studies
referenced in this paper.  The basal layer dose is also given.   The
surface dose has received limited use.  Since the surface skin  is  composed
of dead cells and the point dose gives no consideration to area distri-
bution of the dose, it has limited biological meaning.

The LASL dose calculation technique is given in References 81 and  102.
In summary the beta energy spectrum is measured using a plastic scintil-
lator, the dose rate is then computed based on energy loss values  for
100 keV intervals and integrated. *•  jl  ^  The dose  at 100 pm is calculated
based on exponential absorption.

The doses reported by Krebs and Mikhail are based on a determination of  the
number of fissions that have occurred in the particle using  a specially  cali-
brated high pressure ionization chamber and a combination of computer codes
produced by the former Navy Radiological Defense Laboratory  (NRDL) and known
as the Transmission-Degradation-Dissipation (TDD) beta dose  model.  The  first
code estimates the build-up and decay of the fission products and a second
code computes the beta energy spectrum for each beta emitting nuclide.  A
third code computes a composite spectrum weighted for the quantity of each
nuclide present.  A fourth code calculates the energy loss by self-absorption
within the particle and a fifth code then gives the  beta radiation emitted  by
the particle.  A sixth code computes the beta depth-dose-rate in tissue and
the integrated dose.

Mikhail^   ' has performed several evaluations of the NRDL model and com-
pared it to the LASL model.  In summary, there is good agreement between
the LASL and NRDL models and between the NRDL model  and empirical meas-
urements.  The following summarizes some of the conclusions:
     1.   A comparison of the NRDL and LASL techniques for calculating
          the basal layer dose  (100 pm skin depth)  for 11 particles
          indicated the maximum difference  (difference/average) was 33
          and the average difference was 27%.  The  NRDL dose estimate
          was always larger than the LASL estimate.

                                    107

-------
      2.    An evaluation of the TDD  NRDL program  indicated that it gave
           invariably higher results than  empirical experiments for
           shallow tissue depths  (range of 100 ym). *•    '  The TDD doses
           ranged to  roughly 50%  higher than the  measured doses (varied
           with particle size, radioactive decay,  tissue depth, etc.).
           This gives reasonable  confirmation for the LASL dose
           estimates.

 The various  dose models are in reasonable agreement.   The apparent bias of
 the TDD model  towards higher results  is acceptable if  it is used for both
 estimating the doses versus biological effects and the evaluations for
 hazards from reactor operations; as is presently done.  Mikhail    * dis-
 cusses the possible  biases  in the model and these will not be discussed here.

 The estimates  for Krebs'  doses for  the LASL results were determined in sev-
 eral ways:
                                                              f 811
      1.    For  the third experiment  with monkeys, Dean, et al.,     the
           Krebs'  dose was  calculated  by Mikhail using  the TDD program.
      2.    For  the human experiments the Krebs' dose was estimated from
           a  plot of  particle size versus  the ratio of  the basal layer
           dose to the Krebs' dose (based  on Mikhail's  data in item one
           above).
      3.    For  the first  two  experiments with monkeys,  actual particle
           sizes  were  not reported.    '   The ratio of  the LASL basal
           layer  dose  versus  Krebs'  dose for a 150 ym (a range of 140 to
           160  ym  was  given)  particle  was  used per the  information in
           items  1 and 2  above.  This  ratio was 400.

Results of Experiments

The preliminary  results  of these studies  indicated that the skin lesions
                                                         f 881
did not fall into  the four categories indicated by Krebs.   J  Rather,
moist desquamation and ulceration did not appear to be separate entities,
but merged together.        Thus, for  simplicity the single term "ulcer-
ation" will be used.

                                    108

-------
The following sections summarize the results of the respective studies.
Table B-l indicates the particle size used,  the resulting doses,  and the
lesion produced for all of the experiments.   LASL,  Experiments by Dean,
et al,: ^'102^
     1.   The study utilized UC2 beads of 100-200 urn in diameter  which
          were placed on the skin of humans  and monkeys.   The resulting
          doses were calculated at a point 100 ym below the particle
          and'at the skin surface.  The LASL work is essentially  com-
          posed of four experiments:  two in 1965 on monkeys (basal skin
          layer dose ranged from 1,300 to 52,000 rads or 3 to 130 rads
          Krebs' dose); one on human skin in 1965 (basal skin layer dose
          ranged from 14,000 to 54,000 rads  or 40 to 130 rads Krebs1
          dose); and a recent one on monkey skin with basal skin  layer
          doses of 157,000 to 664,000 rads or 470 to 2,700 rads Krebs'
          dose.*
     2.   Ulceration, or moist desquamation, was observed at all  sites
          with basal point doses of 261,000 rads or Krebs' dose of
          850 rads or higher.  The lesions remained open for approxi-
          mately two days after exposure.  Epithelization was complete
          by 71 days after exposure, the residual effect being a dimple.
     3.   Skin sites receiving less than a 261,000  rad basal layer dose
          showed only a dry desquamation over an area of 3-4 mm in
          diameter.
     4.   The LASL results bracketed the minimum dose which produced a
          moist desquamation and/or ulcer.

Forbes' and Mikhail's Experiments Using Pigs.
     1.   Forbes' experiments dealt with implacement of 12 irradiated
          particles on pig skin.  The particles ranged from 140-328 ym
*The LASL studies were not based on the concept of Krebs' dose.  Estimates of
 Krebs' doses for the LASL studies are based on calculations, using LASL data,
 by Mikhail (Ref.117) or estimates by the authors of this paper using a plot of
 particle size versus the ratio of the basal layer dose to the Krebs1 dose.
                                    109

-------
TABLE B-l.  SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SKIN-BIOEFFECTS EXPERIMENTS.
Particle
Size
(urn)
Forbes §
148

140
145
153
144
148
152
154
150
283
305
308
295
304
282
294
328
149
298
Dose
NRDL
..... -,(101)
Mikhail^ •*
240

286
488
514
563
569
642
717
1370
1230
1530
1510
2350
2320
3550
3800
3850
7400
1700
at Basal Layer
(KRAD)
LASL Calc by
NRDL*





















Krebs '
Dose
(RAD)

405

444
770
771
921
944
060
210
310
400
320
490
10,980
11,100
15,100
17,300
19,800
35,200
28,900
Ulcer Type
Dia. Lesion
(mm)

0.5 Ulcer-
ation
0.5
1
2
0.5
0.5
2
2
3
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
8
4
Experimenta
Animal

Pig



















LASL--First Monkey Experiment (102)
140-160



























1.3 Not
Calc.
2.0
2.8
3.4
4.1
4.5
4.9
5.4
7.9
7.0
7.5
8.9
9.6
3

5
7
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
20
20
20
Erythema













Monkey













                            110

-------
TABLE B-l.  Summary of Particle Skin-Bioeffects  Experiments.(continued)
Particle
Size
(yra)
LASL- -Second
140-160










LASL --Human
174

159
140

LASL--Third
172
174
186
184
186
184
191
225
204
215
213
Dose at Basal Layer
(KRAD)
NRDL LASL Calc by
NRDL*
Monkey Experiment (102)
15.8 Not
Calc.
19.5
• 21.5
23.8
29.3

29.5
31.4
45.8
52.1
Experiment (81)
14.2 Not
Calc.
40.0
54.0

Monkey Experiment (81)
157 220
173 230
242 320
261 350
270 360
289 390
313 420
351 430
472 600
458 590
664 870
Krebs'
Dose
(RAD)

40

50
50
60
70

70
80
110
130

43

110
130


470
500
770
850
890
950
1,100
1,400
1,800
1,800
2,700
Ulcer Type
Dia. Lesion
(mm)

Erythemia




Possibly--
Dry Desquam





Erythemia

Erythemia
Erythemia -
Dry Desquam

Dry Desquam


Ulceration







Experimental
Animal

Monkey





.





Human



•

Monkey










  Calculated from NRDL fission product  beta dose  calculation  code.     J  The  NRDL  dose
  estimates for LASL experiments are presented to allow  normalization  of all  of  the
  data.
                                         Ill

-------
           in diameter.   Based  on  the  Krebs' dose criteria, the doses ranged
           from 400  to  35,000 rads and the basal layer point doses from
           240,000 to 7,400,000 rads.
      2.    The minimum  dose used in the experiments, 400 rads  (Krebs1 dose),
           produced  a small ulcer.
      3.    The authors  suggested using ulcer size as a biological end-point
           versus  ulceration, etc.
      4.    The various  biological  responses versus dose were evaluated.
           Straight  line  plots  of  lesion diameter versus the log of the
           dose resulted  in correlation coefficients of 0.94 and 0.98,
           respectively,  for dry desquamation and ulceration.  Assuming
           a  straight line extrapolation is applicable, the authors noted
           that the  lines approached zero at 250 and 350 rads  (Krebs'
           dose),  respectively, for  dry desquamation and ulceration.

The  following items denote the uncertainties that occurred in attempting to
correlate  these experiments:
      1.    The doses were not uniformly distributed throughout the total
           dose interval.
      2.    The experiments were conducted on both pigs and monkeys, with
           limited experimental results on human skin.  The range of ex-
           perimental doses for each species was even more limited than
           for all of the experiments.
      3.    In  addition to the uncertainties of the dose estimates, dif-
           ferent  dose calculation techniques were used by the different
           investigators.  The uncertainties due to this were largely
           resolved by the dose calculation correlation efforts of Mikhail.
      4.   The variation  of the depth of the basal or germinal layer of cells
           on  an individual animal can  cause biological variability in
           addition to the biological variability between animals and
          across  specie  lines.   There may be other sources of biological
          variability.

The AEC Division of Biology and Medicine,  Space Nuclear Safety Advisory
Committee met on February 15,  1968, to consider the hazards associated
                                   112

-------
with nuclear rocket ground tests --concerned primarily with particulate
effluent.  They were asked to consider only the implications of various
modes of interaction of particulate material with humans--not the prob-
ability of the interaction.  Based on their conclusions,  and upon con-
sidering probabilities of interaction, the dose to the skin from particles
residing on the skin was considered to be the limiting situation.

This committee did not have the benefit of the previously mentioned studies
(Forbes and LASL final results) and thus their dose-effect relationships
were not in full agreement with the aforementioned information.  But,  one
of their recommendations is of special interest.  The committee endorsed
the concept of Dean that the skin tumor hazard could be estimated from
an integration of the expected tumor yield for each exposed cell.  The
tumor yield per cell would be based on the dose yield per cell and published
                                  f 79)
dose-tumor response data for rats.

Summary

The present guide is a Krebs1 dose of 750 rads.    '   •*  This is based on
minimizing the probability of ulceration occurring.  Moist desquamation
was not considered as a separate entity.

The work reported by Forbes and Mikhail^   ' using pigs indicated that
the lowest doses used, 400 and 440 rads Krebs' dose, produced ulcerous
lesions; whereas the LASL studies using pigs did not note the formation
of ulcers at doses of 470, 500, 770 rads Krebs' dose. (81>102}

Additional studies are needed to determine the significance of the
difference between the LASL and Forbes results.

Forbes and Mikhail postulated that ulcer size might be a meaningful bio-
logical effects criterion.  They noted that ulcers of 0.5 mm in diameter
(400 rad dose) were probably of much  less concern than those of  1 to  2 mm
produced by doses of roughly 750 rads Krebs1 dose.
Krebs ^83^ notes that the germinal cell layer surrounds the hair follicle.
That  is, the  layer of germinal cells extends down to the depth of the hair
                                    113

-------
follicle—roughly a millimeter.   Krebs indicates that this provides  a
reservoir of germinal cells that are relatively protected against  super-
ficial injury.  These cells would receive a much lower dose than the
cells in the main basal layer.   Thus, other things being equal, the  authors
postulate that the dose effect  relationship might vary between hairless and
hairy skin.  This may partially explain why the dose required to produce an
ulcer on the sparsely haired pigs is less than that for the monkeys  used by
LASL.

APPENDIX B - 2.  Potential Dose  to the GI Tract from Particulate Material.

Several investigators have evaluated the implications of ingesting discrete
radioactive particles either directly or through clearance from the  respir-
atory system to the gastro-intestinal tract (GI).   Several of these  inves-
tigators and their general area of investigation are indicated below:
     1.   The LASL Bio-Medical  group experimentally evaluated the  solubility
          of coated and uncoated UC? particles in the gastric juices of
          monkeys.  They also determined the clearance time for particles
          of various densities  for the GI tract of man.
                                                                    fO Q •*
     2.   Kochendorfer and Ulberg evaluated various modes of intake.
          They noted that a mouth breather had a higher probability  of
          exposure than a nose breather.
     3.   The Radiological Effects Working Group of SNSO developed a
          complete model from potential intake to dose to the GI tract.   '
          The model considers both the average gamma dose to the GI  tract
          and the beta dose at a depth of 300 ym from the gut wall.   The
          depth of 300 ym is based on the depth of the dividing crypt
          cells.   The model also considers transfer of radionuclides from
          the GI  tract to the blood.
     4.    Mikhail and Collins^     evaluated the effluent data from the
          Phoebus-IB reactor test.   They used the  intake model of  item 2
          above,  and indicated intake probability and potential doses at
          a 300 ym tissue depth.   They apparently calculated the integral
          dose from the passage  of particles  through the intestines  versus
          the dose to discrete volumes of tissue.   They concluded  that the
          dose to the skin was more limiting  than  that to the GI tract.
                                   114

-------
     5.   Altomare and Coleman*-  J  evaluated  the ground deposition  and
          transport data from the Phoebus-IB  reactor test and developed
          dose prediction models for human  interaction, including the
          GI tract.  Their dose calculation is  based on the beta energy
          loss to the GI contents during  transit.  This is the basic
          model used by the ICRP^  ^ for  GI tract dose calculations.
          The transit times suggested by  Eve^  ' were used.
     6.   At the request of SNSO, the AEG Division of  Biology and Medicine
          Space Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee evaluated the various
          modes of potential particle interaction with humans.   '  They
          were requested not to consider  the  probability  of interaction--
          only the implications of an interaction.  They  concluded  that
          for the GI mode of interaction, "...the impact  on a person's
          health would be roughly the same  or less than the effects
          resulting from skin exposure."  Mikhail and  Collins,   '  indi-
          cated that the probability of a particle reaching the GI  tract
          was at least two orders of magnitude less than  that for  inter-
          acting with the skin.

The above models have little in common other  than that  they indicate  that
the probability of interaction with, and irradiation of,  the  skin  is  more
limiting than that for the GI tract.  The following steps indicate a  general
approach for estimating the dose to the GI  tract.  As  with the  skin and  lung,
the basic uncertainty is the appropriate tissue, both  depth from the  surface
of the GI lining and tissue mass and/or distance along the GI  tract that
should be used for the dose calculation.
     1.   The intake of particles can be based on evaluations  in references
          43, 76, 88 and 90.  These references use  similar approaches.   It
          would appear that the particles cleared from the respiratory
          tract to the GI tract are of prime  importance.   The ICRP Task
                                       f831
          Group report on lung dynamics^    is a good  basic  reference from
          which the transfer of material from the respiratory system to the
          GI tract can be calculated.
     2.   The transfer time through the various segments of the GI tract is
          important for all of the various  dose calculation techniques.

                                     115

-------
           There are several  values  given  in  the  literature:
                                                    Small     Upper     Lower
                                          Stomach Intestine   Large     Large
                                          	 Intestine Intestine
           a.  The ICRP  in  Report  2,  1959
              recommends(ref.59)            1 hr     4 hr      8 hr     18 hr
           b.  Kochendorfer and Ulberg
              (ref.88)  indicate that
              Snyder of ORNL  indicates
              that  the  ICRP will  change
              the values to                1 hr     4 hr     13 hr     31 hr
           c.  Kochendorfer and Ulberg
              (ref.88)  also refer to
              work  at Argonne that
              indicates some  retention
              for several  days
           d.  Eve (ref.118) recommended     1 hr     4 hr     13 hr     24 hr

      3.    Eve's      work  concurs with the SNSO Radiological Effects Working
           Group      in that  the mitosing  cells are  at some depth below the
           GI  surface lining.  Her literature review indicated that this
           depth  varies from  140 ym  for the small  intestine  (SI) to possibly
           420 pm for the  large intestine  (LI).   But, she also notes that it
           is  not certain  that some  of the GI contents do not penetrate the
           wall to  some extent.

 In summary, it appears reasonable to select the  large intestine (upper or
 lower--ULI or LLI)  as  the  critical  organ  (due to  the transit time) and cal-
 culate the dose  at  300 nm.  The dose can  be calculated by the techniques
 indicated  in  references 102 and 116.

 Dolphin and Eve^     recommend changing from the  ICRP 2^  J concept of cal-
 culating the  dose at the entrance to a given section of the GI tract to
 calculating the  average dose for the section.  They note that this would be
more consistent with dosimetry used for other body  organs.  Due to the rel-
 atively short half-life of the gross fission products in the particles
 (based on roughly 2 hours transport time  prior to ingestion) the dose for
 the various sections will change by roughly a factor of two between the

                                   116

-------
beginning and end of a section.   Considering  the lack  of information  on
the bio-effects to the GI tract  from irradiating various masses  of  tissue,
this factor of two is probably minor.

Due to the generally low solubility of the particles,(90>102) uptake  of
radionuclides from the particles to the bloodstream  does not  appear to
merit further consideration.

APPENDIX B - 3.' Mathematical Models for Predicting  Effects On the  Lung
                 From Inhalation and Deposition of Radioactive Particles.

Introduction
Prediction of biological effects on the lung from inhalation of particulate
debris from nuclear rocket engine tests is best visualized as a four step
process:  (1)  prediction of debris transport;   (2)   prediction of inhalation
and deposition of the particles in the lung;  (3)  estimation of the dose to
the lung from deposited particles; and  (4)  prediction of biological effects
resulting from the estimated doses.  The techniques  for carrying out each of
these steps are not equally well defined;  in particular biological effects
on the lung from radiation are not well understood.

Particle air concentrations at points downwind can be estimated with one of
the several available models.  Examples include the  ARL-LV model described
by Henderson^  ' and the Van der Hoven model adapted for computer usage
reported by Stigall and Galley.^

Several methods have been proposed to accomplish the second step, prediction
of inhalation and deposition of particles in the lung.  Perez and Coleman
summarized and compared five deposition models contained in the literature.
From a knowledge of particle characteristics such as activity and size distri-
butions and the particle residence time, doses to the lung from deposited
particles can be estimated (the third step).

The fourth step, prediction of biological effects on the lung from inhaled
particles, is not well-defined.  A question which is central to this problem
is the relative tumor-producing effectiveness of a relatively small dose to a

                                   117

-------
 large mass of tissue (kilograms)  compared  to  a  large dose  to  a  small mass
 of tissue close to the particle  (grams  or  fractions of  a gram).  The
 question is whether averaging  the dose  from the inhaled particle over the
 entire lung is more conservative  from a health  standpoint  than  computing
 the dose to the small  mass  of  tissue which is actually  exposed.  The ICRP
 in Publication 14      notes that "the  same radiation energy  absorption
 might well be less effective when distributed as  a series  of  "hot spots'
 than when uniformly distributed."  While there  is uncertainty regarding bio-
 logical effects from lung irradiation,  it  appears on the basis  of present
 evidence that for the  particular  particle  size  and activity distributions
 expected from reactor  engines, exposure to the  skin is  more limiting than
 exposure to the lung.    '   '

 Prediction techniques  such  as  those of  the eye  model for predicting cataract
 probability have not been developed for the lung.  Studies are  in progress
 to better define dose-effect relationships for  the lung.   These studies
 include projects specifically  dealing with reactor engine  effluent such as
                          (122)
 that of Stanley at NERC-LVV    where activated UCL particles are implanted
                                     (123)                      (77)
 in rat lungs.   The studies  of  Langham      and  Sanders, et_ al_. ,     are
 concerned with alpha and x -radiation from  plutonium particles.  Sanders,
        f Rfi*\
 et_ al_. ,      summarized a number of lung radiological bio-effects studies and
 evaluated the hazard of particles from  nuclear  rocket engine  tests.

 Deposition of Particles in  the Respiratory System.

 Several  models  for prediction of  particle  deposition in the respiratory
 system have  been proposed.  The detailed description and comparison of these
models  is  beyond the scope  of this  appendix.  Perez and Coleman reviewed
 and  compared  five  of these  models,  and  further  information can be obtained
 from  their work and references 59,  83,  88, 90,  124.

Coleman  and  Perez ^      developed  a mathematical representation of the most
comprehensive deposition model, that of the Task  Group  on  Lung Dynamics of
                                                                         f 83^
Committee  II  of the  International Commission  for  Radiological Protection. l
This model is distinct from the ICRP 2l  J lung model.

                                   118

-------
On the basis of purely geometrical considerations,  the  respiratory system
acts like a multicompartment selective sampler which filters  out  most  of
the larger particulate material in the upper respiratory tract.   The mech-
anisms and efficiencies of dust or particle clearance differ  considerably
for various regions of the respiratory tract.   Consequently the various
models for particle deposition generally separate the respiratory system
into three compartments for purposes of estimating  particulate deposition
and movement.  Coleman and Perez's^   ' adaptation  of the ICRP Lung Dynamics
Task Group model uses the following separation scheme:   Compartment I  in-
cludes the nasopharynx and oral pharynx to the larynx;   Compartment II
includes the oral pharynx starting at the larynx, trachea,  bronchus, and
connecting and terminal bronchiole; and Compartment III includes  respira-
tory bronchiole, alveolar duct and alveolar sac.

The model      considers only the entrance of particles through  the nose,
ignoring mouth breathing.  It assumes that all particles, regardless of
size, have some probability of entering the system  and  that the  size range
available for entrance may be approximated from inertial properties of the
particles.

One of the problems involved in evaluating biological hazards from inhaled
particles is that even though the probability of inhalation of particles
with aerodynamic diameters greater than approximately 10 vim may  be very
small, the consequences of deposition of particles  this large and containing
the associated quantities of radioactivity in the lung  are so serious  that
even this small probability should not be neglected.

The raction of particles deposited in each of the various compartments is
calculated from an empirical equation which Coleman and Perez fitted to
                                                                 f 83)
deposition data reported by the ICRP Task Group on  Lung Dynamics.      The
model also attempts to incorporate data presented by the ICRP Task Group on
clearance of dust and particles from the various respiratory compartments.
Clearance actions by the blood, lymph system, and ciliary-mucus  transport
to the stomach are estimated by the model, based on the assumption that

                                   119

-------
 material available for clearance  is  cleared  according to  first-order
 kinetics (the rate of clearance is assumed to  be proportional  to the
 amount of material present).   The output  of  the deposition and clearance
 models is used to integrate  the lung activity  burden with respect to
 time,  yielding a figure in curie-days or  equivalent units.

 Estimation of Dose to the  Lung from  Deposited  Material

 Doses  to the lung from radioactive particles are usually  computed using
 either of two approaches.  One approach is to  assume that the  energy from
 particle radioactivity is  deposited  uniformly  throughout  the lung; this
 is  referred to as the "smeared dose" concept.  The other  basic approach
 is  to  calculate the dose to  the relatively small quantity of tissue near
 the particle.   Some combination of these  two approaches may also be used,
 analogous to the  Krebs1 depth  dose concept used for the skin.

 Coleman and Perez use the  smeared dose concept.  The estimated time-integrated
 organ  activity burden is multiplied  by a  dose  conversion  factor; this factor
 depends on  (1)  radiation type  and average energy; (2) physical properties of
 the particle material  when activity  is associated with a  particle, since
 self-absorption must  be considered;  and (3) physical properties of the
 organ.   This process  yields what  the  authors describe as  an average dose
 which  is satisfactory if the number  of particles per person is large.  That
 is,  if the  number of  particles inhaled is large, then the fraction of each
 size range  deposited  in each region  of the lung can be estimated with satis-
 factory accuracy  from  the  ICRP Task Group data.  However, most cases
 encountered in  estimating  hazards from nuclear rocket effluent involve
 probable deposition of a very few particles or of only a  fraction of a.
 single  particle per person.  In such  a case the NUS model gives an average
 dose for a  number of  individuals.        To overcome this  shortcoming, the
 authors  also developed a method of generating dose distribution, using
 the deterministic or average-dose model as a basis.   Using this approach
 estimates can be made of the probability of an individual receiving a
particular  dose.

                                   120

-------
The model by Coleraan and Perez      yields dose estimates in terms of the
"Smeared dose" to the lung.  Mikhail!?116-) Mikhail and Collinsf76^ Ulberg
and Kochendorfer,  -1 and Pestaner, et_ al_. ,   -* developed techniques for
computation of point doses to tissue from deposited particles.   Mikhail
and Collins^  J calculated energy deposition in the lung by integrating
the beta dose rate from each particle with respect to volume (equivalent
to mass-integration, since they assumed a lung density of 1 gram/cc).   The
integration is performed by summing the dose rates absorbed in successive
differential volume shells.  Dividing this mass integrated dose rate
(rad-g/sec) by the total mass of the lung and integrating over the particle
lung residence time produces the smeared dose to the lung.

Biological Effects of Doses to the Lung from Particulates

Two primary points of contention remain concerning the lung models.  First,
which is appropriate, the smeared dose concept or the point dose concept?
If the point dose concept is selected, then the tissue volume of interest
                                             (77")
must be defined.  Sanders, Thompson, and Bair^  J indicate that most studies
have used, as a standard, the dose at 100 ym from the particle.  Second, the
effect or biological endpoint must be defined (e.g., scar tissue or cancer).
The dose-effect relationship then determines what volume of tissue must
receive what dose to produce a given probability of incidence for this end-
point.

Sanders, et_al.,  '  ' indicate that non-uniform irradiation of the lung
from deposited particles is clearly more carcinogenic than uniform exposure
to the entire lung.  ICRP Publication 14*-   ' formally indicates that, based
on general considerations and limited experimental data, localized "hot spot"
doses are probably not as deleterious as average lung doses  (based on gram-
rad integral doses).

Sanders, et al.,     summarized most of the pertinent literature and developed
a model for evaluation of pulmonary carcinogenesis from inhaled radioactive
particulates.  They also pointed out that the necessary data for precise
evaluation of the hazards do not exist.  They further state, however, that

                                   121

-------
 the doses required for  an  observable tumor incidence are very high, on the
 order of several  thousand  rads  if measured in tissue very close to the
 particle.  There  are  no data to establish the low incidence end of a dose-
 effect curve  and  extrapolation  of high-incidence data would be of ques-
 tionable validity.  While  there is apparently no basis for postulating a
 threshold dose, the doses  apparently required for observable tumor inci-
 dence (several thousand rads) could be delivered only by particles so
 large (aerodynamic diameter greater than 10 ym) that their probability
 of  being respired would be extremely small.   '

 Several  dose  calculation approaches have been proposed, notably that of
                  (791
 Dean and Langham,     which was based on the observation that tumor inci-
 dence exhibits a  non-linear response with increasing dose, there being
 an  optimum tumorigenic  dose beyond which tumor incidence decreases because
 higher doses  simply kill the cells, preventing cell mitosis and tumor for-
 mation.   Another  recent  paper by Richmond, Langham, and Stone      reports
 the  results of experiments which indicate that biological response to
 doses from highly radioactive particles is definitely influenced by the
 number of cells at  risk.

 APPENDIX  B -  4.  Model Used for Calculation of Probability of Cataract
                  from Deposition of Particle in Eye.

 Coleman  and Perez      developed a mathematical model for computing the pro-
 bability  of cataract production by radioactive particles deposited in the
 eye.   Use  of  the model was described by Altomare, et al.       Only the
 physical  dimensions and  the basic dose-response relationships will be
 described  here.

 Figure B-l, views a and b, are schematic representations of the eye assumed by
 the model.  Coleman and Perez      selected the values for anatomical con-
 stants for the eye given in Table B-l as composites of compromises from
 four medical references.   In addition,  they assumed that the eyelids could
be described by ellipsoidal surfaces with a thickness of approximately 1 mm
at the free margin when closed and that the conjunctiva fornix is completely
symmetrical at a distance of approximately 8 mm from the corneal limbus.

                                   122

-------
      OVERALL LENGTH^
            (A) SIDE VIEW
                   ASSUMED LIMIT OF FORNIX
                   APPROXIMATELY 8mm FROM LIMBUS

                   SURFACE OF GLOBE OF THE EYE
                   RADIUS^12.1mm

                   ANTERIOR SURFACE OF UPPER LID

                   LENS:  RADIUS OF CURVATURE
                   ANTERIOR«10mm
                   POSTERIOR«6mm

                   LENS EPITHELIUM ONE CELL THICK
                   (ASSUMED 12  MICRONS)

                   ANTERIOR SURFACE OF CORNEA
                   RADIUS OF CURVATUREaSmm

                   ANTERIOR SURFACE OF LOWER LID
                                      CORNEA RADIUS«6.3mm

                                      LENS RADIUS w 4.36mm

                                      ANTERIOR BORDER OF UPPER LID

                                      ANTERIOR BORDER OF LOWER LID

                                      SURFACE OF GLOBE OF EYE
            (B) FRONT VIEW
Figure B-l
Schematic Drawings  of the  Model  Eye120
                                123

-------
          TABLE B-l.  ANATOMICAL CONSTANTS FOR MODEL EYE(120)
               (all dimensions are given in millimeters)
Eye Area
       Measurement
Eyeball
Cornea
Lens
anterior-posterior length
radius of curvature
radius of curvature
radius in vertical plane
radius of curvature anterior
   surface
radius of curvature posterior
   surface
radius in vertical plane
distance anterior cornea to
   anterior lens
epithelium thickness, single
   cell
25.5
12.1
 8.0
 6.3
10.0

 6.0

 4.4

 3.5

 0.012
                                  124

-------
Apparently the lens epithelium of the lens equator is  the location of
most cell mitosis within the lens and is consequently  more radiosensitive
than the rest of the lens.        Coleman and Perez accordingly incorporated
a weighting function into the model such that the epithelium at the lens
equator is considered to be 10 times more radiosensitive than epithelium  at
the lens center.  The figure of 10 for the relative radiosensitivity was
based on clinical observations.

A dose-response relationship was assumed such that the probability of
cataract formation with 150 rads uniform dose to the lens is 0.01% (essen-
tially zero) while 620 rads uniform dose to the lens produces a cataract
formation probability of 99.99% (essentially unity).  Coleman and Altomare
then performed calculations assuming both normal and log-normal dose-response
curves between these limits and concluded that the log-normal distribution
more accurately represented reality.

Residence time of particles in the eye is another variable of importance  to
the eye model.  Opthalmologists consulted by Coleman and Perez recommended
use of a residence time of 5 to 15 minutes.       The  final form of the
model assumed residence times of 4 hours and 24 hours  for particles on the
lid, 24 hours in the corner of the eye, and 5 minutes  on the limbus.

From the physical model of the eye represented by Figure B-l, views a and b,
Table B-l, and the dose-response relationships outlined above, the probability
of cataract production as a function of total particle activity at the time  of
deposition can be computed.  Figures B-2 and B-3    '  show the computed pro-
babilities for particles resulting from a 30-minute reactor run and transport
times of 30 minutes and 2 hours.

For purposes of pre-run prediction, the ARL-LV scaling model described by
Henderson     has been used with estimated particle fall velocities to
predict air concentrations of particles as a function of distance downwind
from the test point.  Particle activity distributions are estimated for
various distances downwind, and the activity distribution is broken into
activity groups or ranges.   For a representative activity within each group,
                                   125

-------
 UJ
 _i
 o
 h-
 cc
 <
 o.

 cc
 UJ
 Q.

 \-
 o

•2
 <
 I-
 <
 O

 LL
 O
 DQ

 <
 CD

 O
 CC
 CL
                   *
                  /
        CORNER

        24 MRS
               U-
           LIMBUS

            5 MIN
                                 i   I    i
                  10
   10-3
10-2
KT1
10'
101
                      ACTIVITY PER  PARTICLE,  CURIES
      Figure B-2
Probability of Cataract Formation as
a Function of Particle Activity (Based
on 30-minute reactor run and 30-minute
transport time)120
                                 126

-------
      t-1 II llfl
   KT1
   h-   LID  24HRS.
LLJ
_l
o
1-
cc
DC
LJJ
Q.
O
<
CL
o
u_
o
DO
<
GO
O
CC
CL
,o2
io3
   104
IO5
   ,o6
  10
   ,r7
I Illllll
                                          1\ i  i i mil]  |  i i HIW
               LID 4HRS.
                                 CORNER 24HRS.
                                              LIMBUS 5 MIN. J
                                              SINGLE POINT
           ii
                                iiiil i  i mini   iimiiil
                                                       i 11
     io6
          io5
fo4
                             io2
io1
iov
10
                   ACTIVITY PER PARTICLE, CURIES
Figure  B-3
                Probability o£ Cataract Formation as  a
                Function of Particle Activity  (Based  on
                30-minute reactor  run  and 2-hours trans-
                port time)120
                              127

-------
 the probability of cataract formation, Pi, for a particle of that group
 deposited  in the eye  is determined from curves such as Figures B-2 and
 B-3.  The  total probability, P, of cataract formation for a particle at
 some  location in the  eye is then
               P  =  Z P N                       Eq. B-l
                     i  i i
WHERE
     N.   is the fraction of the particles in activity group i.

                                                   f 881
The NRDL  deposition model for particle deposition,     assuming a 5 square cm
area for  the eye, is used to generate a curve such as Figure B-4, giving the
average number of particles deposited in the eye region per unit integrated
air concentration as a function of wind speed.  These results are used to
estimate  the average number of particles in the eye region, X , as a func-
tion of distance downwind.  Assuming a Poisson distribution, the probability
of one or more particles being deposited in the eye, K, is given by

               K  =  1 - e~Ae                    Eq. B-2
The probability of cataract formation, P , is
               Pc =  (P)(K)                      Eq. B-3
                                   128

-------
                          (2 gm/cc density)
 CO
  ft   To2
  op

  LU

  O
  H-
  DC
  LLJ
  z
  O

  a:
  LU
  o_

  z
  O
  O
  LU
  DC

  LU
  >
  LU
  C/5
  LU
  _l
  u
  DC
  <
  D_

  U.

  O

  DC
  LU
  CQ
  LU
  O
  <
  DC
  LU
fo3
      fo4
                                          I
                                                I
                  10        20        30        40        50


                          WIND SPEED, MPH
Figure B-4
              Potential Number of Particles  Deposited
              In Eye120
                                 129

-------
Figure C-l
Routine TLD Dosimetry Stations
                             130

-------
     "^   XILT
         J tJA^Q 1        •BtLLic,
                 »ovo  °o

                 UTAH f
                                             CANADA
                                        M°NTANA
                                                   {  NORTH DAKOTA  *
                                     .ITI  WYOMING    J
                                                      SOUTH DAKOTA
                                                    • RAPID CITV
                                                      NEBRASKA
                                                         • NORTnPtAT
          So,        H         •MNVEF,
   %        I ."«-'<»o    '.  COLORADO   !
  *\ „«££&:"••   s-^^^sr10"
««  \ 0"'"»»,s?:V»  .     .'MONT.CE     •-WO I
-CEc^, \     l£^l:s"^ ? ""°        I
   •
                                                                           •
                                                                  W ----- Y
                                                             — - \.STJOSEPM V
                                                                    X       V
                                                            KANSAS    1    STLOOISI
                                                                              »
                                                                     !  MSSOURI
                                                                  	'. J0«.~       \"'

                    *£??••  *\|.  .S£IPOA,.N   /            I	1  OKLAHOMA  \        If'"
                       - •-,»•!"*«*«.  .   j            I .MABIUJ I    -"=«">«•  \ ARKANSAS  /
                    W   **"° f   ARIZONA    I             J      I N°RM*N«      |  "TTLE^   /
                    5a     / "x>e^».      I             I      ^X^         •       /
                    £\—  _i            I             i       ^^^   _ —.I       I
                    sa^  "3C           f  NEW MEXICO   i              ~"  ^      I
                    ^   C^-.         ;     CA       I           .	I	\
                                       • ___1T_S1A1'—|  *B"-£~E-
                                                       TEXAS
                                                                        I LOUISIANA V   ALE' )N, K|LOMETREs
                                         MEXICO     V
Figure  C-2
               Air  Surveillance Network  Stations
                                                131

-------
                                    APPEND IX-D

 TABLE U-l.   REACTOR ENGINE  TESTS AT NRDS  FROM WHICH AIRBORNE RADIOACTIVITY WAS
             DETECTED OUTSIDE THE TEST RANGE COMPLEX(5)*.
Reactor/
Engine
Kiwi A
Kiwi A1
Kiwi A3
Kiwi B-1A
Kiwi B-1B
Kiwi B-4A
Kiwi B-4D
Kiwi B-4E
Kiwi B-4E
NRX-A2
NRX-A2
Kiwi
NRX-A3
NRX-A3
NRX-A3
Phoebus -1A
NRX-A4/EST
NRX-A4/EST
NRX-A4/EST
NRX-A4/EST
NRX-A5
NRX-A5
Phoebus -IB
Phoebus -IB
NRX-A6
Phoebus -2A
Phoebus -2A
Phoebus -2A
Pewee-I
XE Prime
XE Prime
Experimental
Plan
XVI
VII-116-B
VII-216-B
VI/A
IV
VI
IV
V
VI
IV
y***
(TNT)
IV
V
VI***
IV
IIB***
III
IV
IVA
III
IV
III
IV
IIIA
III
IV
V/ASB
III
V/C
IXA
Date
07/01/59
07/08/60
10/19/60
12/07/61
09/01/62
11/30/62
05/13/64
08/28/64
09/10/64
09/24/64
10/15/64
01/12/65
04/23/65
05/20/65
05/28/65
06/25/65
02/03/66
03/03/66
03/16/66
03/25/66
06/08/66
06/23/66
02/10/67
02/23/67
12/15/67
06/08/68
06/26/68
07/18/68
12/04/68
06/11/69
08/28/69
Maximum
Chamber
Tempera-
ture (°R)
—
--
--
--
--
—
4280**
4240**
4000**
3600
—
—
4900
3940

4370**
2576
4100
4000
4150
4000
4100
2900**
4500**
4150
2680**
4060**
3900**
4600**
4200
4200
Nominal
Power
(Mw)
70
85
100
300
800
500
915
914
882
1100

--
1110
1080

1070
442
1140
1100
1200
980
1030
588
1340
1140
1930
4010
3430
503
1070
680
Integrated Power
(106 Mw-sec)
0.02
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.11
0.5
0.18
0.3
-0.3
0.009
0.32
0.84
-0.5
0.74

0.88
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.0
0.14
2.6
4.5
0.63
4.5
2.5
1.5
0.42
0.34
  * Data for experiments prior to 1964 are not included
    unofficial estimates.
 ** Average maximum fuel temperatures.
*** Data not given in Reference 5.

                                        132
in Reference 5 and are thus

-------
             WINNEMUCCA
           BAKERSFIELD
 ND: Not Detected
 TOP NUMBER:
   Hypothetical whole-body gamma
 BOTTOM NUMBER:
   Hypothetical infant thyroid dose in mrad
Figure D-l
Off-Site Whole-Body  Gamma Exposures  and
Infant Thyroid Doses Resulting from
Reactor/Engine Tests from CY 1959 to 1963  50
                                 133

-------
              WINNEMUCCA
                               100_MIIES
                           TONOPA
                                                         St. GEORGE

                                                              90°
                    LONE PINE/-N
            BAKERSFIELD
  NDr Not Detected
  TOP NUMBER:
   Hypothetical whole-body gamma exposure in mR
  BOTTOM NUMBER.
   Hypothetical infant thyroid dose in mrad
Figure D-2
Off-Site Whole-Body Gamma Exposures and
Infant Thyroid Doses Resulting from
Reactor/Engine Tests During CY 1964 50
                                  134

-------
                          BEATTY
                            /
                     IVLONE RINE
             BAKERSFIELD
                  o  BARSTOW
   ND: Not Detected
   TOP NUMBER:

     Hypothetical whole-body gamma exposure
   BOTTOM NUMBER

     Hypothetical infant thyroid dose in mrad
   ISTIMAIEO INFANT INHALATION DOSE
   WHl >l BOD" (HUNT OF > f'* PERSONNEL INDICATED 3
Figure D-3
Off-Site Whole-Body Gamma  Exposures  and
Infant Thyroid Doses Resulting  from
Reactor/Engine Tests During CY  1965  50
                                   135

-------
               WINNEMUCCA
                                                         St. GEORGE

                                                              90°
FRESNO ion
                    V-LONE PINE^-X
                                  VI
                                   LAS VEGAS
            BAKERSFIELD
  ND: Not Detected
  TOP NUMBER:
    Hypothetical whole-body gamma exposure in mR
  BOTTOM NUMBER:
    Hypothetical infant thyroid dose in mrad
Figure D-4
            Off-Site  Whole-Body Gamma Exposures and
            Infant Thyroid  Doses Resulting from
            Reactor/Engine  Tests During  CY 1966 50
                                  136

-------
                              100_MltES  3mrod
                          TONOPA
 ND: Not Detected
 TOP NUMBER:
   Hypothetical whole-body gamma exposure in mR
 BOTTOM NUMBER:
   Hypothetical infant thyroid dose in mrad
Figure D-5
Off-Site Whole-Body Gamma Exposures  and
Infant Thyroid Doses Resulting from
Reactor/Engine Tests During CY 1967  50
                                 137

-------
              WINNEMUCCA
      \	I...
            BAKERSFIEUD
                \
                - o  BARSTOW
  ND: Not Detected
  TOP NUMBER.
   Hypothetical whole-body gamma exposure in mR
  BOTTOM NUMBER
   Hypothetical infant thyroid dose in mrad
Figure D-6
Off-Site Whole-Body Gamma Exposures and
Infant Thyroid Doses Resulting  from
Reactor/Engine Tests During CY  1968 50
                                138

-------
             WINNEMUCCA
                       BEATTY
                         I
                    LONE PINE
           BAKERSFIELD
 NO: Not Detected
 TOP NUMBER:
   Hypothetical whole-body gamma expos
 BOTTOM NUMBER.
   Hypothetical infant thyroid dose in mrad
Figure D-7
Off-Site Whole-Body  Gamma  Exposures and
Infant Thyroid Doses Resulting from
Reactor/Engine Tests During CY 1969 50
                                 139

-------
                        Warm Springs
               Vegetation Arc -
                                                   Approximate Hotline
                                                   (As determined by
                                                   vegetation samples)
                 Tonopah to Coyote Summit |
                            350
              -N-
                  SCALE IN KILOMETRES
                   O   5   10
                    SCALE IN MILES
             Phoebus 1B EP IV
               Reactor Test
             4tO   Locations surveyed
             for particles. Number
             indicates  particles found
             normalized to 1OO m2.

             S/S/S/Ss  Vegetation Arcs
             Beatty
                                                          Highest A
                                                      O   Sample Result
                                                     Yucca A.S.
                            Test Cell "C"
Figure E-l
Particle  Deposition Measurements,
Phoebus 1B-EPIV1*
                                         140

-------
NOTE: Dose rates shown
  are net increase above
  background.


Isodose Contours
 (measured)

Isodose Contours
 (interpolated)

Aircraft Flight
 Path
                                                              .04 MR/HR
                                                           O4-.O8 MR/HR
                                                            .08-.12 MR/HR
                                                           .12-.2O MR/HR
                                                           .2O-.28 MR/HR
                                                            .2S-.4 MR/HR
                                                              .4-1 MR/HR
                                                              1-2 MR/HR
                                                              2-4 MR/HR
                                                              4-5 MR/HR
Figure E-2
                Reactor  Test Ground  Depositon  Pattern
                for  Phoebus IB,  EPIV
                (Data used by  permission  from
                                 141

-------
KJ
        (W
        C
        *i
        (D

        W
        i
                  0.20
               232°  230°  228° 226°  224°  222°  220°  218°  216°  214°   212°  210°  208°  206°  204°  202°
                                       Three-Dimensional Representation of
                                       Particle  Survey Results  for NRX-A6,  EPIIIA109

-------
c
H
CD
ta
i
        at
        0)
        O
        D.
       Z
       O
        U
        Z
        O
        u
       u
                                                                                             15 MILES
                                                                                      23 MILES
                                                                           40 <
                                      Three-Dimensional Representation of
                                      Particle  Survey Results for
                                      Phoebus  2A,  EPIV8"

-------
H-
OP
c
H
CD

W
 i
Cn
        CN
         E
        ^s

         M
        _«
         W

         w
         o
        a.
        O
        U
        z
        o
        u
              0.2
  15 Miles
25 Miles
            30°   28°   26°   24°   22°   20°   18°    16°   14°   12°   10°   8°

                                         AZIMUTH  FROM FROM TEST CELL 'C


                               Three-Dimensional Representation of
                               Particle  Survey Results  for
                               Phoebus 2A,  EPV8<*

-------
                                    APPENDIX-F




        TABLE F-l.  MAXIMUM PARTICLE CONCENTRATIONS AT INDICATED DISTANCES






Reactor Run                       Arc Distance (miles)/Particles/m2





Phoebus-IB, EP-IV             2.5/2.4   5.0/3.3   15.0/1.1   25.0/1.4   40.0/1.2




NRX-A6, EP-III      1.5/0.6   3.0/0.9   6.0/0.9   10.0/1.4   25.0/0.9   40.0/0.2




Phoebus-2A, EP-IV   1.5/0.3   3.0/0.4   7.5/1.3   15.0/0.3   23.0/0.2   40.0/0.2




Phoebus-2A, EP-V    1.5/0.6   2.5/0.4   6.0/0.6   15.0/1.1   25.0/0.2   50.0/0.1




Pewee-I, EP-III     1.5/8.5   3.0/3.6   5.0/3.8   10.0/1.7   20.0/1.1   60.0/0.2
                                        145

-------
                               APPENDIX-F

                  TABLE F-2.  NORMALIZATION PARAMETERS
Reactor Test
Source
   Q
(grams)
Cloud height
     h
 (feet MSL)
Mean Layer Wind
       u
    (knots)
Hodograph Shear
       a
   (degrees)
Phoebus-IB, EP-IV     450

NRX-A6, EP-III        210

Phoebus-2A, EP-IV      70

Phoebus-2A, EP-V       55

Pewee-I, EP-III       103
               13,000

                9,500

               18,000

               13,500

               11,500
                        10

                        25

                         5

                         8

                         8
                        25

                        10

                        20

                        25

                        10
                                   146

-------
                      DISTRIBUTION

1-15  National Environmental Research Center,  Las Vegas, NV
    16  Mahlon E.  Gates,  Manager,  AEC/NV,  Las Vegas, NV
    17  Robert H.  Thalgott,  AEC/NV,  Las Vegas, NV
    18  David G. Jackson, AEC/NV,  Las Vegas,  NV
    19  Arthur J.  Whitman, AEC/NV, Las Vegas, NV
    20  Robert R.  Loux,  AEC/NV, Las  Vegas, NV
    21  Mail g Records,  AEC/NV, Las  Vegas, NV
    22  Technical  Library, AEC/NV, Las Vegas, NV
    23  Chief, NOB/DNA,  AEC/NV, Las  Vegas, NV
    24  P.  J. Mudra,  AEC/NV, Las Vegas, NV
    25  B.  W. Church, AEC/NV, Las  Vegas, NV
    26  Harold F.  Mueller, ARL/NOAA, AEC/NV,  Las Vegas, NV
    27  Howard G.  Booth,  ARL/NOAA, AEC/NV, Las Vegas, NV
    28  D.  T. Schueler,  AEC/NV, Las  Vegas, NV
    29  C.  P. Bromley, AEC/NV, Las Vegas,  NV
    30  K.  M. Oswald, LLL, Mercury,  NV
    31  James E. Carothers,  LLL, Livermore, CA
    32  Ernest A.  Bryant, LASL, Los  Alamos, NM
    33  Harry S. Jordan,  LASL, Los Alamos, NM
    34  Charles I. Browne, LASL, Los Alamos,  NM
    35  Jerome E.  Dummer, LASL, Los  Alamos, NM
    36  Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility, EPA,
        Montgomery, AL
    37  Donald R.  Martin, AEC/NV,  Las Vegas,  NV
    38  Martin R.  Biles,  DOS, USAEC, Washington, DC
    39  F.  K. Pittman, WMT,  AEC, Washington,  DC
    40  J.  Doyle,  EG?TG,  Las  Vegas, NV
    41  Richard S. Davidson, Battelle Memorial Institute,
        Columbus,  OH
    42  Carter D.  Broyles, Sandia Laboratories,  Albuquerque, NM

-------
    43   Maj. Gen. Ernest Graves, AGMMA, USAEC, Washington, DC
    44   Albert C. Trakowski, Act. Ass't Administrator for
         Research $ Development, EPA, Washington, DC
    45   William D. Rowe, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
         Radiation Programs, EPA, Washington, DC
    46   Ernest D. Harward, Act. Dir. of Technology Assessment,
         Office of Radiation Programs, EPA, Washington, DC
47 - 48  Charles L. Weaver, Dir., Field Operations Div., Office
         of Radiation Programs, EPA, Washington, DC
    49   Gordon Everett, Dir., Office of Technical Analysis,
         EPA, Washington, DC
    50   Library, EPA, Washington, DC
    51   Kurt L. Feldmann, Managing Editor, Radiation Data §
         Reports, Office of Radiation Programs, EPA, Washington, DC
    52   Regional Radiation Representative, EPA, Region IX,
         San Francisco, CA
    53   Arden E. Bicker, REECo, Mercury, NV
    54   John M. Ward, President, Desert Research Institute,
         University of Nevada, Reno
55 - 56  Technical Information Center, USAEC, Oak Ridge, TN
         (for public availability)

-------