United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Radiation Proijtams
Washington DC 20460
ORP Contract
Report 80-1
Radiation
Cost-Risk Analysis of
Protective Actions for a
Low-Level Deposition of
Radionuclides
Final Report
-------
NOTICE
This report was prepared by Science Applications, Inc., for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Radiation
Programs (ORP) under Contract No. 68-01-3549. ORP has reviewed it,
and the contractor has responded to our comments. We are publishing
this report because of its useful information. We have not verified
all of the results ourselves, however; nor have we applied our own
editorial standards to the text. ORP does not necessarily publish all
of the contractor reports it receives.
-------
ORP Contract
Report 80-1
Cost-Risk Analysis of Protective
Actions for a Low-Level Deposition
of Radionuclides
Final Report
November 1979
S. Finn
V. Dura
G.L. Simmons
Prepared under Contract No. 68-01-3549
May 1980
Project Officers
C. G. Amato, H.W. Galley, Jr., and J. Hardin
Office of Radiation Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
FOREWORD
The Office of Radiation Programs carries out a national program
designed to evaluate the exposure of man to ionizing and nonionizing
radiation and to promote the development of controls necessary to
protect the public health and safety and assure environmental
quality.
Office of Radiation Programs technical reports allow
comprehensive and rapid publishing of the results of intramural and
contract projects. The reports are distributed to groups who have
known interests in this type of information such as the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, and State radiation
control agencies. These reports are also provided to the National
Technical Information Service in order that they may be readily
available to the scientific community and to the public.
Comments on this report, as well as any new information, would
be welcomed; they may be sent to the Director, Surveillance and
Emergency Preparedness Division (ANR-461), Office of Radiation
Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
20460.
Floyd L. Galpin
Acting Director, Surveillance
and Emergency Preparedness Division
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Pat
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT 1
1.1 Phase III - Non-Occupied Land 4
1.1.1 Results of Phase III 10
1.2 Phase IV - Property 10
1.2.1 Results of Phase IV 14
1.3 Phase V - Water Supplies 14
1.3.1 Results of Phase V 21
1.4 Phase VI - Personnel
1.4.1 Results of Phase VI 25
1.5 Phase VII - Biota 25
1.5.1 Results of Phase VII 30
2. RISK ANALYSIS 31
3. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 49
4. CRITICAL PATHWAYS 55
4.1 Critical Pathway for Contaminated Land Types .... 56
4.2 Critical Pathway for Contaminated Property
Types 57
4.3 Critical Pathway for Contaminated Water
Supplies 57
4.4 Critical Pathway for Contaminated Personnel 57
4.5 Critical Pathway for Contaminated Biota 58
5. ERROR ANALYSIS 59
5.1 Description 59
REFERENCES 67
BIBLIOGRAPHY 69
APPENDIX A Al
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1A
IB
2
3
4
5
Orchard Pathway Model for First Crop
Orchard Pathway Model for Subsequent Crops
Model for Describing Ground Surface Nuclide Density . . .
Basic Model for the Calculation of Dose Commitments from
the Consumption of Contaminated Reservoir Water
Model for the Accumulation of Radioactivity on Skin . . .
Model Describing Nuclide Quantity in Edible Portions
of Biota
6
7
12
18
23
28
Normal Distribution 63
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Source Term Radionuclides and Their Relative
Abundances at t = 0 3
2 Protective Actions for Contaminated Land Types .... 9
3 Protective Actions for Contaminated Property Types . . 15
4 Protective Actions for Contaminated Water Supplies . . 22
5 Protective Actions for Contaminated Persons 26
6 Protective Actions for Contaminated Biota 30
7 Health Effect Conversion Factors 32
8 Health Effects for Phase III 34
9 Health Effects for Phase IV 39
10 Health Effects for Phase V 42
11 Health Effects for Phase VI 45
12 Health Effects for Phase VII 47
13 Cost-Effectiveness Rankings of Protective Actions. . . 50
14 Percent Errors 66
vn
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the help provided by various
people in the preparation of this report. In particular, the
guidance provided by the three Environmental Protection Agency staff
members, J. Hardin, H. Galley, and C. G. Amato, was found to be
invaluable. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance of the
technical editors, K. Nicholaw and P. Martin, in preparation of the
draft and final documents.
vm
-------
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
This report summarizes the results of a cost-effectiveness analysis of
protective actions following a low-level deposition of radionuclides. The media
contaminated were land, property, water supplies, persons, and biota. This work
has been funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Radiation
Programs (ORP), under Contract EPA-68-01-3549. The material generated in the
five major investigative portions, Phases III through Vir1'2'3'4'5' of the
study, are summarized and subject to critical analysis in this report. Each
phase was independent of the other phases.
The end products of each phase are dose and costs associated with dose
reduction techniques. The mechanisms by which radionuclides may be taken up by
humans were modelled, and control technologies (protective actions) which result
in a reduction in the dose were defined. With the exception of Phase VI, the
consequences were expressed as the 100-year collective dose commitment
equivalent, in person-rem. In Phase VI, the dose calculated was the dose
equivalent, also expressed in person-rem. The dose commitment is defined as the
(1) V.P/ Dura, G. L. Simmons, S. K. Julin, S. P- Meyer, Costs and Effective-
ness of Protective Actions for six Generic Land Times Contaminated with a
Radlonucloide Deposition, SAI-77-539-LJ/F, August 1977.
(2) S. K. Julin, V. P. Dura, G. L. Simmons, Radiological Dose Assessment and
the Application and Effectiveness of Protective Actions for Major Property
Types Contaminated by a Low-Level Radionuclide Deposition,SAI-77-883-LJ/
F, October 1977.
(3) S. P. Finn, V. P. Dura, G. L. Simmons, Protective Actions, Costs and Cost
Effectiveness for Contaminated Water Supplies, SAI-78-523-LJ/F, August
wrw.
(4) S. P- Finn, V. P. Dura, G. L. Simmons, Protective Actions, Costs and Cost
Effectiveness for Personnel Contamination, SAI-78-712-LJ/F, October 1978.
(5) S. P. Finn, V. P. Dura, G. L. Simmons, Protective Actions,-Costs and Cost
Effectiveness for Contaminated Biota, SAI-78-721-LJ/F, October 1978.
-------
sum of all doses to individuals over the entire time period that radioactive
material persists in the environment in a state available for interaction with
humans^. There are two time periods involved, (1) the intake period, during
which radionuclides are taken up by humans, in this study taken to be 100 years,
as recommended by EPA in Contract EPA-68-01-3549, and (2) the time interval over
which the dose rate is integrated, which was seventy years. The collective dose
commitment is obtained by integrating the individual dose commitments over the
affected population.
For the sake of brevity, hereafter in this report the term dose will
mean 100-year dose commitment equivalent. When population dose is calculated
this will be denoted by collective dose.
Two types of source terms for the dose calculations were used. One
consisted of 1 pCi (37 kBq) per unit area or unit volume, depending on the type
of problem, of each of the 24 radionuclides listed in Table 1, provided by EPA.
The second source term was based on a unit deposition, totalling 1 pCi, of a
mixture of the 24 nuclides in the relative abundances listed in Table 1. This
mixture is designed to simulate the relative amounts of various fission products
likely to be released following a nuclear incident at a commercial power plant.
It is assumed that these contaminants are in aerosol form, as opposed to
particulate form. This assumption is considered conservative because it is felt
that aerosols would be more readily dispersed than particulates, resulting in a
wider affected area. It is also felt that aerosols would be more resistant to
protective action than particulates.
For each pathway investigated, protective actions (PA's) were devised
and analyzed as to their effectiveness in reducing the collective dose. Each PA
also has associated with it a cost of implementation. The cost-effectiveness of
a particular PA is determined by dividing the cost of application by the
reduction in the collective dose brought about by the PA, relative to the case
where no PA is applied; and is given as:
Cost Effectiveness ($/person-rem)
Cost of PA ($)
Dose w/o PA (person-rem) - Dose with PA (person-remj
(6) "Environmental Radiation Dose Commitment: An Application to the N"clear
Power Industry," EPA-520/4-73-0021, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C., 1974.
-------
Table 1. Source Term Radionuclides and Their
Relative Abundances at t = 0.
Radionucl ide
Sr89
Sr90(Y90}
91
Y
Zr95(Nb95)
99
Mo y
r^ 103
Ru
106
P. -L W W
Ru
r.L105
Rh
Te129M
Te131M
132
Te
I131
Cs134
r* 136
Cs
137
Cs
Ba140(La140)
141
/•v J. I X
Ce
^ 143
Ce1 J
144
/•» J. 1 T
Ce
Pr143
Nd147
Pm147
Pu
Pu239
Radioactive
Half Life
(days)
50.6
10,500
59.0
65.5
2.8
40.0
368
1.5
34.1
1.2
3.25
8.05
752
12.9
11,000
12.8
32.8
1.37
285
13.6
11.0
960
32,000
8,700,000
Rel ative
Abundances
at t = 0
2.6
0.012
0.082
0.094
0.094
117
223
68
5.9
8.8
70
17
0.29
1.05
1.00
4.1
0.094
0.088
0.065
0.088
0.035
0.010
5.0E-5
6.0E-6
Normal ized
Rel ative
Abundances
(pCi/rri )
5.01E-3
2.31E-5
1.58E-4
1.81E-4
1.81E-4
2.25E-1
4.29E-1
1.31E-1
1.14E-2
1.69E-2
1.35E-1
3.27E-2
5.58E-4
2.20E-3
1.93E-3
7.89E-3
1.81E-4
1.69E-4
1.25E-4
1.69E-4
6.74E-5
1.93E-5
9.63E-8
1.16E-8
-------
Each phase of the study utilized an abundance of reference material.
Some of these references are denoted in this report where applicable. The entire
body of source material used in this study is listed in the bibliography.
It should be noted that proposed guidance regarding contaminated
foodstuffs were published in the Federal Register in December, 1978^7'. The
present study was completed prior to the release of these protective action
guides.
1.1 PHASE III - NON-OCCUPIED LAND
The work of Phase III identified five generic land types: field crop
lands, orchard crop lands, vegetable crop lands, grazing lands, and recreational
lands such as State and National parks. For this phase, the principal concern is
the ingestion pathway, with the exception of recreational lands, where
resuspension of radionuclides due to recreational activities causes inhalation to
be the principal pathway. For grazing lands, transfer of radionuclides can
result via both the grass-beef and grass-milk pathways.
* ?
Doses were calculated on a per 100 ha (1 km ) basis using a source
2
term of 1 yCi/m (370 MBq/ha) of each of the 24 radionuclides listed in Table 1.
Using the appropriate agricultural statistics from Reference 8 the average amount
of each type of crop grown per 100 ha of farm land, and average per capita
consumption rates were determined. Given these data, the resultant collective
dose is readily calculated.
The pathway models developed for each generic land type are similar.
Each model describes the movement of nuclides from the point of deposition to
human consumption. A representative example, that of the orchard crop pathway
(7) Accidental Radioactive Contamination of Human and Animal Feeds and
Potassuim Iodide as a Thyroid - Blocking Agent in a Radiation Emergency,"
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Food and Drug Administration
in Federal Register, Friday, December 15, 1978, Part VII.
(8) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1975,
Washington, D.C., 1976.
*
ha is the abbreviation for hectare. 1 hectare = 2.47 acres.
-------
model, is shown in Figures 1A and IB, and described below. The principal
partitioning is between fruit, soil and market usages. All fruit is considered
to enter either the fresh fruit market or the process fruit market. Significant
decontamination occurs during the normal commercial processing of the process
market fraction of the harvested crops. Removal efficiencies for such processing
were estimated by comparison with removal of pesticide residues from vege-
tables^ '. It is believed that the sorptive mechanisms associated with the adhe-
sion of pesticides and the mechanisms associated with the adhesion of aerosols
are similar^10'.
The following is a summary of the assumptions used in the orchard crop
model, based upon an extensive review of the available lierature. In some cases
engineering judgement was used to consolidate this information into a
representative approximation.
1. Deposition partitioning is 20% and 80% between the fruit tree and
soil, respectively, at time of harvest. Half of exposed fruit
tree foliage is orchard fruit.
2. All of the deposition remaining on the foliage at harvest is
eventually "weathered," and becomes part of the soil source term.
3. Fresh market and process market usage fractions are determined
(O \
for each fruit from U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics .
4. No decontamination factor (DF) is credited to commercial or home
processing of internally contaminated (by uptake) crops.
5. Ninety percent of the fresh market fraction is washed and
19)National Canners Association Research Foundation, Investigation
on the Effects of Preparation and Cooking on the Pesticide Content
of Selected Vegetables, Final Report, March 13. 1965 to November 13,
1967, Prepared for Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
(10) Dennis, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Aerosols U.S. Energy, Research and
Development Administration, TID-26608 (1976).
-------
INITIAL DEPOSITION
PI
P2
i
n\
FOLIAGE
i
SOIL FRUIT j
| SOIL
P4
FRESH
FRUIT MARKET
P5
HUMAN
CONSUMPTION
1-P5
i >
LOSS
P8
EDIBLE
BEEF
P6
ANIMAL
FEED
1-P4
PROCESS
FRUIT MARKET
P7
HUMAN
CONSUMPTION
1-P8
NONEDIBLE
BEEF PRODUCTS
1-P6-P7
LOSS
Figure 1A. Orchard Pathway Model for First Crop.
-------
SOURCE IN SOIL
Pll I
FRESH FRUIT
MARKET
P12
HUMAN
CONSUMPTION
P10
UPTAKE IN
FRUIT
1-P12
LOSS TO
SINK
P15
EDIBLE
BEEF
P9
Il-Pll
PROCESS FRUIT
MARKET
P13|
ANIMAL
FEED
PI 4
HUMAN
CONSUMPTION
1-P15
NONEDIBLE
BEEF PRODUCTS
LOSS TO
SOIL SINK
1_P13_P14
LOSS
Figure IB. Orchard Pathway Model for Subsequent Crops.
-------
eaten, while the remaining 10% of process market fraction
is diverted to agricultural feed as byproduct.
6. The concentration of nuclides in beef flesh, resulting from diver-
sion of contaminated orchard crops to animal feed, is determined
according to NRC guidance
7. Nuclide uptake in fruit is assumed to be 2%/year of the quantity
in the soil, while loss to soil sink is assumed to be 4%/year.
The orchard crop pathway model, as described above and in Figures 1A
and IB, may be compared with other food pathway models in the literature '
Protective actions (PA's) chosen for study with regard to crop lands
are those which either reduce the level of contamination in food destined for
human consumption or reduce the quantity of contaminated food to be consumed, or
both. For grazing lands, PA's were chosen which result in a reduction in the
contaminated feed intake of the cattle. The only PA investigated for
recreational lands was that of temporary interdiction. Further study of
recreational lands was made in Phase IV- Table 2 summarizes protective actions
for Phase III. A more detailed description of some PA's appears below.
Onsite disposal of contaminated soil and crops consists of forming a
pile on the 100 ha of affected land. In addition, a catchment pond is required
for runoff from the disposal pile. The entire disposal area is assumed to cover
4.05 hectares (10 acres). Offsite disposal involves shipment of contaminated
soil and crops to an authorized low level radwaste disposal area. Interdiction
consists of designating the contaminated land as appropriate for production of
(11) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.119 (March 1976).
(12) D. L. Brenchley, et al, "Environmental Assessment Methodology for the
Nuclear Fuel Cycle", BNWL-2219, Battelle Northwest Laboratories,
Richland, Washington, July 1977.
(13) J. F. Fletcher and W. L. Dotson, HERMES - A Digital Computer Code for
Estimating Regional Radiological Effects from the Nuclear Kower Industry,
HEDL-TME-71-168, Hanfor d Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland,
Washington, December 1971.
-------
Table 2. Protective Actions for Contaminated Land Types.
PROTECTIVE
ACTION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
GRAIN
CROPS
Restrict contaminated
crop to use as animal
feed.
Restrict contaminated
crop and all subse-
quent crops to use as
animal feed.
Plow contaminated
crop.
Offslte disposal of
contaminated crop.
Offsite disposal of
contaminated crop,
subsequent crops to be
used as feed.
'low contaminated
crop, subsequent crops
to be used as feed.
3eep plow contaminated
crop.
Plow contaminated crop
interdict land.
3urchase land.
Remove topsoll, on-
site disposal .
Remove topsoil, off-
site disposal.
ORCHARD
CROPS
Commercial processing
of contaminated crop
and all subsequent
crops .
Commercial processing/
augmented wash.
Interdict land.
'urchase land.
Remove topsoil, on-
site disposal.
Remove topsoil, off-
site disposal.
VEGETABLE
CROPS
Commercial processing
of contaminated crop
and all subsequent
crops.
Restrict contaminated
crop to use as animal
feed.
'low contaminated crop
nto ground.
Offsite disposal of
contaminated crop.
Contaminated crop and
all subsequent crops
used as feed.
Offsite disposal of
contaminated crop,
subsequent crops to
be used as feed.
Deep plow contaminatec
crop.
Plow contaminated
crop, interdict land.
Purchase land.
Remove topsoil, on-
site disposal.
Remove topsoil, off-
site disposal.
GRAZING
LAND
Plow and reseed.
Deep plow and reseed.
Interdict land.
Use stored feed.
Purchase land.
Remove topsoil, on-
site disposal.
RECREATIONAL
LAND
Interdict land.
-------
non-food crops only, such as cotton, flax, or timber. This restriction may be
eased later if radiological surveys and transfer test results indicate a
significant reduction in activity. Purchasing land refers to the purchase of the
affected land by the cognizant government agency and removing it from
productivity. This is also considered to be a temporary measure.
1.1.1 Results of Phase III
The critical pathway for contaminated crop and grazing lands is the
ingestion pathway. For recreational lands it is the inhalation pathway. The
major results of the Phase III study can be summarized as follows:
' A major fraction of the dose commitment is due to a small number
of radionuclides.
* The relative hazard of a particular radionuclide depends, in
part, upon the generic land class in which the deposition takes
place. The greatest hazards for a unit deposition are due to
Sr and Ru for grain, vegetables, and fruit crops; Sr and
I131 for the grass-milk pathway; Ru103 and Ru106 for the
238 239
grass-beef pathway; and Pu and Pu for recreational lands.
' The first crop causes the greatest single radionuclide input to
the population.
A greater hazard is associated with fruits and vegetables than
with grains. This is due to less severe processing of fruits and
vegetables, and shorter harvest-consumptions delay times.
1.2 PHASE IV - PROPERTY
The Phase IV(2)portion of the study involved the calculation of doses
due to radioactive contaminants adhering to the surfaces of various types of
property. Certain generic property types are grouped together in order to more
realistically simulate existing neighborhoods, or composite land use areas. The
four neighborhoods analyzed can be generally defined as: (1) single unit
10
-------
residential; (2) multiple unit residential (apartments); (3) commercial/community
use; and (4) recreational lands. Property use features such as occupancy
factors, representing the fraction of time the population occupies or utilizes a
specific property, and effective shielding factors are employed to completely
describe each neighborhood. The values for these factors were those recommmended
by WASH-140CT14'. As an illustration, the single unit residential neighborhood
is described below; the characteristics of the 100 hectares are those presented
*
in WASH-1400 for medium dwelling density at approximately twelve units per
hectare (five units per acre).
The single unit residential neighborhood consists of 1237 houses, each
? p
occupying 186 m (2000 ft ), which is assumed to be the equivalent roof surface
area. Twenty-five percent of the houses are brick, the rest are made of wood.
Structures comprise 23% of the surface area of the neighborhood, while 57%
consists of lawns or open areas and 20% is paved. There are 3958 people in the
neighborhood (3.2 per house), and cars totalling 1979 in number. The fractions
of time that people spend inside their home, outside, and commuting are 69.2%,
6.2%, and 5%, respectively.
Three primary pathways were considered: direct exposure from gamma and
beta radiation (so-called surface shine), inhalation of and immersion in
resuspended contaminants resulting from activities associated with occupancy of
contaminated neighborhoods. Each neighborhood is 100 ha in area, and is
2
contaminated by 1 yCi/m (370 MBq/ha) of each of the nuclides listed in Table 1.
The behavior of the radiation source term as a function of time is
characterized by the same depletion mechanisms for all three exposure path ways.
A simple proportional transfer model describing the ground surface nuclide
2
density with time, Q(t) in pCi/m , as shown in Figure 2, is sufficient for
describing the source term for all three pathways. Both the inhalation and
immersion pathways depend on the air concentration of contaminants as a function
of time x(t) as follows:
x(t) = k(t) • Q(t),
TT4~)DTT7 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study, WASH-1400,
Washington D.C., 1975.
WASH-1400, Appendix VI, Section 11.
11
-------
SURFACE WITH
DEPOSITION
Q(t); yCi/m2
0.75T
NUCLIDE DECAY
SURFACE LOSS
RATE CONSTANT
INHALATION
Q(t) = Q exp[-(A+a+0.75i)tJ
Q0 = 1
Figure 2. Model for Describing Ground Surface Nuclide Density.
-------
where k(t) is the time dependent resuspension factor in nf1.
The model used for characterizing the surface concentration source term
depletion with time is shown in Figure 2. Three mechanisms are available for
nuclide activity depletion, they are: (1) radionuclide decay, U), (2)
resuspension-inhalation loss, (0, and (3) surface loss rate, (a) from soil
fixation, runoff, erosion, and all other loss paths. Tau, (T) represents both
the depletion of the source term, Q(t), as well as the redeposition of suspended
particles. Depletion occurs as a result of the inhalation of a certain fraction
of the resuspended radionuclides. Redeposition is accounted for by the
assumption that whatever fraction is not depleted by inhalation is
instantaneously redeposited on the surface. The surface concentration level is
then described by:
Q(t) = Q0 exp[-(x+a+0.75i)tj
where
QQ = 1 uCi/m2
The factor 0.75 in the above equations and in Figure 2 is derived from the
assumption, taken from the ICRP standard person model1 ', that 75 percent of the
activity inhaled by an individual is retained in the body, and the other 25
percent is exhaled. Therefore, the air concentration level is described
similarly by
x(t) = k(t) Q(t) = QQ k(t) exp[-(x+o+0.75T)tJ. (i_i)
The inhalation pathway depends upon the amount of resuspended contami-
nants available for inhalation. At a given time, the activity accumulation rate
due to inhalation by the people occupying a specific neighborhood, I(t)
(yCi/day), is given by the product of the air concentration and the volumetric
inhalation rate:
{15)Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection, ICRP Publication 2, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1959.
13
-------
I(t) = x(t) • P • A • Ir • Of (1_2)
ry
where p = population density of neighborhood (persons/m )
P
A = area of neighborhood (m )
o
I = 20 m /day-person, standard ICRP person volumetric inhalation rate
0. = average fraction of the time that the population occupies the
area (occupancy factor)
The 100-year collective dose commitment equivalent due to inhalation is
then the time integral, over 100 years, of the product of the volumetric
inhalation rate, given by Equation 1-2, and the appropriate inhalation dose
conversion factor (rem/uCi). Doses for air immersion and surface shine are based
on similar analyses.
Protective actions for each neighborhood were developed as combinations
of sixteen protective measures (PM's) designed to be applied to specific property
classes within the neighborhood. Examples of protective measures are firehosing
(hosing with large volumes of water under high pressure) surfaces, sodcutting
lawns, sandblasting, and paving (covering with asphalt). Protective actions for
Phase IV are listed in Table 3.
1,2.1 Results of Phase IV
Inhalation of resuspended radioactivity is the critical pathway when
contaminated property is considered. Doses for the inhalation pathway are
greater than those for air immersion and surface shine. Doses due to surface
shine are approximately equal for all organs. The nuclide giving the highest
dose for a unit deposition are Pu and Pu239 for inhalation, Cs134 for air
immersion, and Cs and Cs for surface shine.
1.3 PHASE V - WATER SUPPLIES
Water supplies contaminated with radionuclides were subject to analysis
in Phase V^ '. Water supplies considered were drinking water taken from
reservoirs or rivers, water consumed by animals destined for human consumption
(meat and milk pathways), and water supplies used in irrigation.
14
-------
Table 3.
Protective Actions for Contaminated Property Types.
PA
I
11
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
Residential:
Single Family Units
Flrehoc* Pavement (PM-1)
Firehose Houses (PM-1)
Gypsum-Water Leach (PM-7)
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Paint Houses (PM-3)
Mow Lawn (PM-8)
Pave Pavement (PM-2)
Paint Houses (PM-3)
Pave Lawn (PM-2)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Pave Pavement (PM-2)
Remove-Replace Roof (PM-4)
Sodcut Lawn (PM-15)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Paint Pavement (PM-3)
Paint Houses (PM-3)
Cover Lawn with 6" of Dirt (PM-10)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Pave Pavement (PM-2)
Firehose Houses (PM-1)
Cover Lawn with 6" of Dirt (PM-10)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Remove-Replace Roofs (PM-4)
Cover Lawn with 12" of Dirt(PM-U)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Mechanized Flush Pavement (PM-6)
Pave Roofs (PM-2)
Mow Lawn (PM-8)
Sandblast Pavement (PM-5)
Remove and Replace Roofs (PM-4)
Sodcut Lawn (PM-15)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Sandblast Pavement (PM-5)
Paint Houses (PM-3)
Cover Lawn with 12" of Dlrt(PM-U)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Residential:
Apartments
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Firehose Buildings (PM-1)
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Pslnt Buildings (PM-3)
Pave Pavement (PM-2)
Paint Buildings (PM-3)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Pave Pavement (PM-2)
Pave Roofs (PM-2)
Wash Care (PM-16)
Paint Pavement (PM-3)
Paint Building (PM-3)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Pave Roofs (PM-2)
Mechanized Flush Pavement (PM-6)
Pave Roofs (PM-2)
Sandblast Pavement (PM-5)
Paint Buildings (PM-3)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Sandblast Pavement (PM-5)
Pave Roofs (PM-2)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
_^^^
(."oramt'rc lal :
Pub! k- Use
Firehose Pavtmtnt (PM-1)
Firehose Buildings (PM-1)
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Paint Buildings (PM-3)
Pave Pavement (PM-2)
Paint Buildings (PM-3)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Pave Pavement (PM-2)
Pave Roofs (PM-2)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Paint Pavement (PM-3)
Paint Building (PM-3)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Pave Roofs (PM-2)
Mechanized Flush Pavement (PM-6)
Pave Roofs (PM-2)
Sandblast Pavement (PM-5)
Paint Buildings (PM-3)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
Sandblast Pavement (PM-5)
Pave Roofs (PM-2)
Wash Cars (PM-16)
^^-^
Recreational Land
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Pave Open Area (PM-2)
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Cover Open Area with (PM-10)
6" of Dirt
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Cover Open Area with (PM-14)
12" of Dirt
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Plow Open Area (PM-9)
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Scrape Topsoil (PM-12)
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Oil Open Area (PM-11)
Firehose Pavement (PM-1)
Oil and Scrape
Open Area (PM-13)
Pave Pavement (PM-2)
Pave Open Area (PM-2)
^^^
^^^
-------
Drinking water supplies were assumed to pass through a distribution
system which includes a water treatment plant, prior to consumption. A "base"
plant was defined consisting of a pumping station and chlorinator, with no
removal of radionuclides. In addition, five model water treatment plants were
defined, based upon common practices , as follows:
Plant #1: Coagulation and settling, rapid-sand filtration.
Plant #2: Lime-soda softening, coagulation and settling, rapid sand
filtration.
Plant #3: Rapid-sand filtration, ion exchange.
Plant #4: Evaporation.
Plant #5: Reverse osmosis.
The design of a particular water treatment facility depends upon the
intake water quality. Radionuclides are not usually a concern, although some
treatment facilities are geared to the removal of radium-226^ ' '. However,
each of the processes mentioned above in the description of the five model
treatment plants are capable, to some extent, of removing radionuclides from
water. Decontamination factors for each nuclide of interest and each model plant
were estimated.
(16) The American Water Works Association, Water Quality and Treatment,
Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.
(17) D. L. Bennett, C. R. Bell, and I. M. Markwood, Determination of Radium
Removal Efficiencies in Illinois Water Supply Treatment Processes^
Technical Note ORP/TAD-76-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C, May 1976.
(18) R. J. Schliekelman, Determination of Radium Remova"1 Efficiencies 1'n Iowa
Water Supply Treatment Process, Technical Note ORP/TAD-76-1. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs,
Washington D.C., June 1976.
16
-------
In addition to decontamination by the water treatment plant, radionu-
clide levels in reservoir water will be reduced due to turnover of the contents
of the reservoir. The turnover rate for a reservoir is defined as the fraction
of the total volume that is replaced by incoming water, per unit time, if the
rate of inflow is equal to the rate of outflow. This turnover concept is not to
be confused with the concept of turn-over as applied to the transfer of water
between two layers of a stratified reservoir, caused by seasonal differences in
temperature. The Phase V study considered three reservoir turnover rates, which
are representative of high, intermediate, and low turnover rates in the United
States.
The basic model for the calculation of doses from the consumption of
contaminated reservoir water is shown in Figure 3. The quantity of nuclide, Q(t)
o
(pCi), in a reservoir of volume V (m ) is described by
= C,
in • (R+r) - C • (R+r) - XQ(t) - 0Q(t)
where C- is the concentration of nuclide in the inflow (pCi/m )
•5
C is the concentration of nuclide in the reservoir (pCi/m )
R is the outflow rate (nr/day)
O
r is the intake rate to the water treatment facility (nr/day)
X is the radiological decay constant (day )
a is the scavenging or surface loss rate constant (day" )
Assuming Cin = 0 and C = Q(t)/V, then
The quantity (R+r)/Y (day"1) is the turnover rate for the reservoir, T.
Integrating the above equation, using the initial condition that at t = 0, Q=Q
yields
Q(t) = Qo e"(x+0+T)t (1-3)
17
-------
INFLOW R+r
00
MODEL WATER
TREATMENT AND
DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
HUMAN CONSUMPTION
OUTFLOW
\YEAR/
Figure 3. Basic Model for the Calculation of Dose Commitments
from the Consumption of Contaminated Reservoir Water.
-------
Annual population doses for an invariant concentration of radionuclides
in water were calculated with the LADTAP computer code, with a source term of 1
uCi/liter (1 mCi/m3) of each of the nuclides listed in Table 1. Since the
concentration is considered constant, conversion to a daily basis is simply a
matter of division by 365 days/year. The 100-year collective dose commitment
equivalent is determined from the following expression
0
where PVipi is the 100-year collective dose commitment equivalent due
to nuclide i through pathway p to organ j (person-rem)
LTP. . is the annual collective dose commitment equivalent due to
an invariant concentration of nuclide i through
pathway p to organ j obtained from LADTAP
(person-rem/year)
36525 is the number of days in 100 years
The analysis for river water was somewhat different from that for res-
ervoir water. The radionuclide concentration in a river is not likely to remain
elevated for very long due to the cleansing action of the river water flow. The
river was considered to be non-tidal. This was accounted for by considering
intake by the water treatment plant for only seven days, as recommended by EPA in
Contract EPA-68-01-3549. By contrast, reservoir water was considered to contain
some radionuclide contamination during the entire 100-year period over which the
dose commitment was calculated. Also, when considering water supplies consumed
by animals and water supplies used in irrigation, the radionuclide source term
was integrated for only seven days.
'"Liquid Annual Doses To All Persons," NRC Radiological Assessment Branch
Code, Revised 7/10/77. This code incorporates the calculations model and
parameters that are presented in Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Reference 8).
19
-------
Included in the Phase V study was a model describing the transport of
radionuclides from a watershed to a reservoir. The model considered runoff only-
Percolation into aquifers and feeding of the reservoir by the aquifers were
neglected. The primary motive mechanism for the radionuclides is sorption to
soil sediment particles and subsequent movement into hydro!ogic systems as a
result of erosion during periods of runoff. In addition, a small percentnage,
approximately 5%, moves in solution in the runoff waters. The model describes
the fraction of a radionuclide concentration deposited on a watershed at time
t=0, which is present in the reservoir at time t=T, and is based upon a nuclide's
solubility, its ability to be absorbed by the soil, the soil's susceptibility to
erosion, and the turnover rate of the reservoir.
Protective actions for contaminated drinking water supplies involved
augmenting the model water treatment plants with various chemical processes
designed to increase the effectiveness of contaminant removal. Plants 4 and 5
are not suited to the addition of chemicals, however, and because of the rela-
tively high degree of decontamination associated with evaporation and reverse
osmosis, the application of protective actions to Plants 4 and 5 was deemed
unnecessary. The base plant is also not suited to the addition of chemicals.
PA's for the base plant involved its replacement by constructing a new treatment
facility which would be effective in removing radionuclides from water, with
construction being completed within one year. Each of the five model plants were
studied as possible replacements for the base plant. However, for drinking water
taken from rivers, this approach is not recommended because radionuclide
concentrations in river water are expected to be elevated only for a few days.
Therefore, for river water, no PA's were studied for the base plant.
For water supplies consumed by animals, the protective actions chosen
were those which would be applied to the animals themselves, such as delaying the
time when the animals become available for human consumption to allow for
additional radiological decay and biological removal, and condemnation
(destruction). For water supplies used in irrigation, the sole PA investigated
was condemnation, a more detailed study of contaminated vegetables having already
been accomplished in Phase III. In the case of both animals and plants,
sacrifice and impoundment includes compensation to the owners for the destroyed
goods. In the analysis of botn of these pathways, uptake of radionuclides for
seven days was considered.
20
-------
Doses were calculated for a concentration of 1 mCi/m^ (1 yd/liter) of
each of the radionucl ides listed in Table 1, on the assumption that the water
supplies affected by the contamination serve a population of 100,000 persons.
Protective actions for Phase V are summarized in Table 4.
1.3.1 Results of Phase V
Ingestion is the critical pathway for radionuclides in water supplies.
The nuclides giving the highest dose, based on a unit concentration, are Sr for
drinking water, Sr90, Ru106, and Te129m for meat consumption, Sr90 and I131 for
milk consumption, and Sr for irrigated vegetables.
1.4 PHASE VI - PERSONNEL
The pathway considered in Phase Vr ' was the deposition of
radionuclides directly on persons resulting from physical contact with airborne
radionuclides. A model describing the rate at which radionuclides are deposited
on and eliminated from the surface of the skin was developed. Because the time
during which contamination is accumulated is short, on the order of hours or
days, and because most of this contamination is removed within a few months due
to the normal biological process of skin regeneration, the 100-year dose commit-
ment has no meaning for this pathway. Instead, the quantity calculated was the
dose equivalent, the product of a dose rate and a time. The time involved is the
time required for complete regeneration of surface skin cells.
Figure 4 depicts the basic model for the accumulation of radionuclides
on the skin. Nuclides are added by deposition from the radioactive cloud and
removed by radioactive decay and skin regeneration. The activity present on the
skin, as a function of time, is described by
= Q(t) VA _ xN(t) . XN(t) (1-5)
where N is the number of microcuries on the individual at time t
Q is the concentration of radionuclides in the cloud at time t,
r- / 3
yCl/m
2]
-------
Table 4. Protective Actions for Contaminated Water Supplies.
t-o
ho
PA'S
i
ii
in
IV
V
VI
JVII
DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
BASE*
PLANT
Build model
treatment
plant il
Build model
treatment
plant 12
Build model
treatment
plant 13
Build model
treatment
plant 14
Build model
treatment
plant *5
MODEL
PLANT #1
Add Clay
Add
KH2P04
Add lime
and soda
ash
PLANT 112
Add Clay
Add
KH2P04
PLANT //3
Add lime
and soda
ash
Add Alum
PLANT tit
None
PLANT #5
None
WATER SUPPLIES FOR ANIMALS '
MEAT
PATHWAY
Quarantine
for 1 week
Quarantine
for 2 weeks
Quarantine
for 3 weeks
Quarantine
for 4 weeks
Quarantine
for 3 months
Quarantine
for 6 months
Sacrifice
Animals
MILK
PATHWAY
Divert milk to
other dairy uses
Impound Milk
WATER SUPPLIES
FOR IRRIGATION
Impound
Vegetables
Plant II:
Plant #2-
Plant 13;
Plant 14:
Plant #5;
Coagulation and settling, rapid-sand filtration.
Lime-soda softening, coagulation and settling, rapid-sand filtration.
Rapid-sand filtration, ion exchange.
Evaporation.
Reverse osmosis.
Applicable only to reservoir water; no PA's for Base Plant with river water.
The model plants are built to replace the existing Base Plant.
-------
AN + X N
o
0
N(t:
Figure 4. Model for the Accumulation of Radioactivity on Skin
23
-------
v. is the velocity of deposition of radionuclides from the cloud,
in/day
2
A is the area of deposition on the individual , m
A is the radioactive decay constant, day~
A is a factor describing the rate at which skin surface cells are
5 _1
replaced by normal biological processes, day
The cloud concentration, Q(t), decreases exponentially from an initial
value of Q due to radioactive decay.
Q(t) = Q0e'xt
Therefore,
-(x+x )t
N(t) = QovdAe s (1-6)
The dose equivalent is obtained by taking the product of the appropri-
ate conversion factor (rem/uCi) and the time integral of Equation 1-6.
The dose equivalent in the scenario postulated is strongly dependent
upon the times at which certain events occur. The three time intervals involved
are: T., the time between the occurrence of the release of radionuclides and the
beginning of deposition on persons; T^, the time at which deposition ends; and
T-^, the time at which protective action is taken.
For the purposes of this study, it was sufficient to divide the surface
of the human body into three sections: clothed areas, exposed skin, and hair.
Protective measures were devised for treatment of each of these three areas.
Protective actions were then developed as combinations of protective measures.
Protective actions may be implemented by the individual at home or at a
decontamination station. Such a facility will be established and operated by the
Civil Defense or Emergency Service Staff as part of a sound public domain
emergency plan, such as described in Reference 19. The site chosen would be an
(19)Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Response Plan, Unified San Diego County
Emergency Services Organization, 1976.
24
-------
existing facility containing showers. Schools and fire stations are examples of
such facilities. Decontamination stations would not be special facilities
maintained in stand-by status or imported from outside the affected area.
Stations will be staffed by trained personnel who can instruct indiv-
iduals in effective decontamination techniques. It is assumed that radiation
detectors will also be available for monitoring people on arrival and prior to
release.
PA's for contaminated persons are summarized in Table 5. After appli-
cation of protective action, individuals may resume normal functions, but should
continue to listen to their radios for further instructions from Civil Defense.
1.4.1 Results of Phase VI
Dose equivalents from radionuclides adhering to people's skin were
calculated given a radioactive cloud concentration of mixed radionuclides
totaling 1 uCi/m in the relative abundances indicated in Table 1. The
population at risk was assumed to be 100,000 persons. The nuclides that produce
the highest dose equivalents, based on a unit deposition, are Y and Ru .
1.5 PHASE VII - BIOTA
Phase VII analyzed protective actions for biota contaminated by a
low-level radionuclide deposition. Here biota is defined as farm animals
destined for human consumption, with the contamination occurring through the
consumption by these animals of contaminated feed. Four generic classes of farm
animals were studied: hogs, sheep, turkeys, and chickens.
The feed-animal-people pathway of Phase VII is similar to the
grass-beef-people pathway investigated in Phase III. Therefore, cattle were
omitted from the Phase VII study. Crops -- fruits, vegetables, and grains -- may
also be defined as biota; however, these were also omitted here because they were
studied in Phase III.
25
-------
Table 5. Protective Actions for Contaminated Persons,
PA 1: Actions to be taken at home:
Remove clothing — clothing to be dis-
posed of by cognizant civil
authorities.
Wash skin with soap* and water.
Shampoo hair.
PA 2: Same as PA 2 except wash skin with
detergent* instead of soap.
PA 3: Actions to be taken at a public
decontamination station:
Wash skin with soap and water.
Shampoo hair.
No treatment of clothing. Clothing is
to be worn home where removal and
disposal, as in PA 1, is accomplished.
PA 4: Same as PA 3, except clothes are
laundered at the station. Ultimate
removal and disposal of clothing occurs
at home.
* In this table, the term "soap" means ordinary
bath soap, which is a detergent of natural
origin, or natdet. The term "detergent"
means a detergent of synthetic origin, or
syndet.
26
-------
The quantity of nuclide carried by the edible portions of the biota was
estimated using a single compartment proportional transfer model, shown in Figure
5, in which nuclides are added by consumption of contaminated feed and removed by
biological elimination and radioactive decay. The effects of transportion delay
and of non-contaminated feed consumption following cessation of contaminated feed
intake were also considered. Transportation delay refers to the time between
processing of the animal and consumption by people. Equation 1-7 describes the
nuclide burden carried by the animal's edible flesh at the time of consumption by
humans. The equation does not allow for nonattainment of saturation and decay
during intake, and therefore yields conservative results. Therefore,
f -U-CF
q(T3) = x [exp(-xT1) - expt-x^)] • exp(-xeT2) • exp(-xT3) (1-7)
where q(T~) is the nuclide burden carried by the animal at time T~ (yCi/head)
%J J
f is the fraction of the nuclides taken into the body by ingestion
w
that is retained in the organ (edible flesh) of concern (dimen-
sionless)
U is the biota dry weight feed consumption rate (kg ash/day-head)
CF is the initial dry weight concentration of nuclide in the feed
(yCi/kg ash)
x, is the biological elimination constant (day~ '
x is the radiological decay constant (day" )
x is the effective elimination constant (day~ )
T-, is the period of contaminated feed intake (day)
T~ is the period following T, of non-contaminated feed intake (day)
To is the period of time between processing and consumption of the
biota (day)
A population transfer function (P) of unity for the transfer of
radionuclides from biota flesh to the population was assumed. That is, all of
the edible flesh of each animal, and all of the nuclides in the flesh, is
consumed by humans. The consumption of each contaminated animal was considered
to take place entirely at time T3. Therefore, the 100-year collective dose
commitment equivalent (D) 1s given simply by
27
-------
rx>
CD
BIOTA EDIBLE
FLESH
Q(t)
q(t) IS THE NUCLIDE QUANTITY IN FLESH (pCl)
I(t) IS THE NUCLIDE INTAKE RATE (pCl/DAY)
E(t) IS THE NUCLIDE ELIMINATION RATE (yCl/DAY)
Figure 5. Model Describing Nuclide Quantity in Edible Portions of Biota,
-------
<.
-------
Table 6. Protective Actions for Contaminated Biota.
PA 1: Reduce contaminated feed intake by one-
half.
PA 2: Freeze biota for six months.
PA 3: Extend non-contaminated feed time by
10%.
PA 4: Extend non-contaminated feed time by
15%.
PA 5: Extend non-contaminated feed time by
20%.
PA 6: Sacrifice animals. Animals are
disposed of properly.
30
-------
2. RISK ANALYSIS
Risk to the population may be expressed in terms of health effects.
Health effect factors, supplied by the EPA,* convert dose or dose commitment to
health effects. The units for health effect factors are effects per million
person-rem (10 kSv).
In this report the health effects are fatal and non-fatal cancers. A
fatal health effect is defined as a cancer which results in death within 10 years
of the first confirmed diagnosis. Non-fatal health effects are cancers which
result in death occurring in a time period greater than 10 years after first
confirmed diagnosis.
In each phase, doses were calculated for as many as eight organs: bone,
liver, total body, thyroid, kidney, lung, G.I. tract, and skin. Health effect
conversion factors, fatal and non-fatal, as provided by the EPA for each of these
organs, are listed in Table 7. A health effect factor for the G.I. tract was
not available.
A weighted sum of the doses from each of the 24 radionuclides of
interest was obtained by summing the products of the dose and the relative
abundance of each nuclide. That is,
24
Total Dose = ^ (Dose)i • (Relative Abundance^ (2-1)
i = l
Equation 2-1 gives the dose for a unit concentration consisting of each of the 24
nuclides in the relative abundances given in Table 1.
Letter from Mr. C.G. Amato, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C., June 8, 1978, transmittal of
Table of Health Effects Factors supplied by Dr. N. Nelson, Criteria and
Standards Division of ORP, dated June 5, 1978. Values in Table 7 are
taken verbatum from Dr. Nelson's Table.
31
-------
Table 7. Health Effect Conversion Factors.
Organ
Bone
Liver
Total Body
Thyroid
Kidney
Lung
Skin
Health Effects Per M Person-rem
Fatal
6
25
240
10
10
80
1
Non-Fatal
6
1
200
100
0
0
10
32
-------
Once the total dose is obtained for each of the eight organs, the
number of committed health effects can be calculated
8
HE = Y (Total Dose). • HEF, (2-2)
^"^ J J
where HE is the number of health effects and HEF, is the health effect conversion
J
factor for the jth organ.
In this way the number of health effects for each exposure pathway and
each pathway component (e.g., ingestion of specific fruits and vegetables), with
the application of each protective action, was calculated. For Phases III and
IV, contaminated land and property, the basis of the calculations was an affected
area of 100 ha. For Phases V and VI, contaminated water supplies and persons,
the basis of the calculations was a population potentially at risk of 100,000
persons. For Phase VII the bases were 1 kg ash of contaminated feed and one (1)
affected farm animal, i.e., head.
Tables 8 through 12 summarize the results of the calculations. The
term "cost of PA" refers to the present worth cost incurred as a result of
applying each protective action. This concept is explained in greater detail in
the next section. The number of health effects averted by each PA is also
listed. This is defined as
HE Averted = (HE) no pA - (HE) with RA
This difference gives the number of health effects potentially saved by each PA,
and is therefore an indication of PA effectiveness.
33
-------
Table 8. Health Effects for Phase III
OJ
PATHWAY COMPONENT
MHEAT CROP
WHEAT CROP
WHEAT CHOP
WHEAT CROP
WHEAT CROP
WHEAT CROP
WHEAT CROP
WHFAT CHOP
WHEAT CROP
WHEAT CROP
WHEAT CHOP
WHEAT CROP
RYE CROP
BYE CROP
RYE CRJP
RYE CROP
RYE CROP
RYE CROP
HYE CHOP
RYE CROP
RYE CROP
RYE CROP
RYE CROP
RYE CHOP
RICE CROP
RICE CROP
RICF, CHOP
RICE CROP
RICE CROP
RICE CROP
RICE CROP
RICE CHOP
RICE CROP
aice CROP
RICE CHOP
RICE CROP
CORN CHOP
COHN CHOP
CORN CROP
CORN CROP
CORN CROP
CORK CROP
COHN CHOP
CORN CROP
CORN CROP
COHN CHOP
CORN CROP
CORN CROP
OATS CHOP
OATS CROP
P. A.
MOMS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
BONE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
DONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
•ONE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
NUMi
1
COST OF P.A.
(S1000)
67
437
81
87
457
451
119
395
385
2410
13561
67
437
81
87
457
451
119
395
385
2410
13561
67
437
81
87
457
451
119
395
31)5
2410
13561
67
437
81
87
457
451
119
395
385
2410
13561
67
HEALTH
FATAL
3.32E-04
8.43E-05
1.36E-05
8.91L-05
6.H4E-05
3.67E-07
3.67E-07
6.65E-05
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOLtOO
1.52E-04
4.66E-05
1.36E-05
4.13E-05
4.10E-05
3.67E-07
3.67E-07
3.09t-05
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
o.ooetoo
3.16E-04
7.14E-05
1.36E-05
7.26E-05
7.23E-05
3.67E-07
3.67&-07
5.45E-05
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
2.17E-05
1.85E-05
1.36E-05
6.54E-06
6.51E-06
3.67E-07
3.67E-07
4.92b-06
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
C.OOEtQO
O.OOE+00
4.59E-05
2.H9E-05
EFFECTS
NON-FATAL
2.1RE-04
5.47E-05
7.75E-06
5.91E-05
5.H6E-05
2.30E-07
2.30E-07
4.41E-05
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
9.75E-05
2.97fc-05
7.75E-06
2.74E-05
2.72E-05
2.30E-07
2.30E-07
2.05E-05
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOttflfl
2.09E-04
4.61E-05
7.75E-06
4.82E-05
4.79E-05
2.30E-07
2.30E-07
3.62E-05
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
1.33E-05
1.10E-05
7.75£-06
4.33E-06
4.31E-06
2.30E-07
2.30E-07
3.26E-06
O.OOEtOO
O.OOfctOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
2.86t-05
1.79E-05
HEALTH EFFECTS
A»EBT^D
FATAL MON-KATAL
2.47E-04
3. 18E-04
2.43E-04
2.43f-04
3.31E-04
3.31E-04
2.65E-04
3.32E-04
3.32E-04
3.32E-04
3.32E-04
l.OSE-04
1.38^-04
1.11E-04
1.11E-04
1.52E-04
1.52E-04
1.21E-04
1.52E-04
1.52E-04
1.52E-04
1.52F-04
2.44E-04
3.02E-04
2.43E-04
2.43E-04
3.15E-04
3.15E-04
2.61F.-04
3.10E-04
3.16E-04
3.16E-04
3.16C-04
3.21E-06
8.10E-06
1.52E-05
1.52E-05
2.13E-05
2.13E-05
1.68E-05
2.17E-05
2.17E-05
2.17E-05
2.17K-OS
l.VOE-05
1.63E-04
2.10E-04
1.59E-04
1.59P-04
2.18E-04
2.18F-04
1.74E-04
2.1t*E-04
2.18E-04
2.18E-04
2.18E-04
6.78F-05
8.98E-05
7.01E-05
7.03E-05
9.73E-05
9.73E-05
7.70E-05
9. 75^-05
9.75E-05
9.75E-05
9.75F.-05
1.63E-04
2.01E-04
1.61E-04
1.61E-04
2.09E-04
2.09E-04
1.73E-04
2.09E-04
2.09E-04
2.09E-04
2.09E-04
2.30E-06
5.55E-06
8.97E-06
8.99E-06
1.31E-05
1.31E-05
l.OOE-05
1.33E-05
1.33E-05
1.33E-05
1.33E-05
1.07E-05
• - FOR DESCRIPTION OK PROTECTIVE ACTIONS SE£ TAHLE 2
•• - HEALTH EFFECTS DUE T3 A I HICKOCURIE/100 HECTARES DEPOSITION
-------
Table 8.
Health Effects
(Continued)
for Phase III
• COST OF P.
COMFONSNT P.I. ($1000)
OITS CROP 2 437
OITS CROP 3 81
OITS CROP 4 07
OITS CHOP 5 457
OITS CROP 6 451
OITS CHOP 7 119
OATS CwOP 8 395
OATS CROP 9 385
OITS CHOP 10 2410
OITS CROP 11 13561
BIRLEV CROP NONE
BIKLET CKOP 1 67
BIRLtT CHOP 2 437
BIRLEV CROP 3 81
BIHLET CHOP 4 87
BIRLEV CROP 5 457
BIRLET CROP 6 451
SAMLET CHOP 7 119
BIRLEV CROP 8 395
BIRLET CKOP 9 385
BIRLET CROP 10 2410
BIRLET CKOP 11 13561
ivc. CHUN CKOP NGN?
AVC. CRilN CHOP 1 67
IVC. CRIIN CkOP 2 437
IVC. CKlIN CROP 3 81
IVC. CRIIN CROP 4 87
IVC. CRIIN CKOP 5 457
IVC. CHUN CHOP 6 451
AVG. CRilN CROP 7 119
IVC. CKlIN CKOP 8 395
IVC. CHIIH CHOP 9 385
IVC. CkllN CROP 10 2410
IVC. CKlIN CKOP 11 13561
TOMITO CROP NONE
TOMiTO CKOP 1 524
TOMITO CHOP 2 220
TOMITO CROP 3 313
TOMiTO CHOP 4 319
TOMITO CROP 5 1000
TOMiTO CkOP 6 1099
TOMITO CKOP 7 351
TOMITO CROP 8 1497
TOMITO CHOP 9 1626
TOMITO CROP 10 2377
TOMiTO CHOP 11 13793
BEIN CKOP NONE
BEIN CHOP 1 524
BEIN CkOP 2 220
BEIN CKOP 3 313
HEALTH
FITiL
1.36E-05
1.94E-05
1.93E-05
3.67E-07
3.67E-07
1.46E-05
O.OOE+00
O.OOL+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOt+00
2.27t-05
1.86E-05
1.36K-05
6.57E-06
6.54E-06
3.67t-07
3.67E-07
4.93t-06
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOt+00
O.OOE+00
8.91E-05
3.30t-05
1.36E-05
2.20E-05
2.4HL-05
3.67E-07
3.67E-07
l.«7E-05
O.OOE+00
O.OOE. + 00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.39S-03
1.15E-03
1.3-5E-03
1.40E-03
1.12E-03
2.32E-04
2.H9E-06
1.06E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
0.00t»00
1.81E-03
1 . 7 BE -0 3
1.36E-03
1.42E-03
*•
EKKKCTS
HUM- FITIL
7.75E-06
1.29t-05
1.2HE-Ob
2.30E-07
2.30E-07
9.68E-06
O.OOE+00
O.OOt+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.3HE-05
1.10E-OS
7.75E-06
4.3SE-06
4.33E-06
2.30fc-07
2.30E-07
3.26E-06
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
5.76E-05
2.07E-05
7.73E-06
1.64E-05
1.64E-05
2.30E-07
2.30E-07
1.24E-05
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.55E-03
7.57E-04
8.65E-04
9.31E-04
7.45E-04
1.22E-04
1.H1E-06
7.04E-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.1HE-03
1.16E-03
8.67E-04
9.39E-04
HEILTd EFFECTS IVEKTED
FITiL
3.23f-05
2.65E-05
2.66E-05
4.56P-05
4.b6E-05
3.13E-Ob
4.59E-05
4.59E-05
4.59E-05
4.!>9E-05
4.14E-06
9.0UE-06
1.61E-05
1.62E-05
2.23E-05
2.23E-05
U78E-05
2.27E-05
2.27E-05
2.27E-05
2.27E-05
5.60E-05
7.55F!-05
6.71E-05
6.43E-05
8.H7E-05
8.H7E-05
7.04E-05
8.91E-05
8.91E-05
B.91E-05
8.91E-05
1.24E-03
1.04E-03
9.85E-04
1.27E-03
2.16E-03
2.39E-03
1.33E-03
2.39E-03
2.39E-03
2.39E-03
2.39E-03
3.62E-05
4.b6E-04
3.95E-04
NON-FITIL
2.0SP-05
1.57E-05
1.5HF-05
2.83K-05
2.83E-05
1.89E-05
2.86E-05
2.H6E-05
2.8bE-05
2.86E-05
2.7<)«:-06
6.05E-06
9.4SE-06
9.47E-06
1.36E-05
1.36C-05
1.05E-05
1.38FI-05
1.3d*>05
1.38E-05
1.38E-05
3.69E-05
4.99E-05
4.12E-05
4.12E-05
5.74E-05
5.74E-05
4.53E-05
5.76F-05
5.76E-05
5.76E-05
5.76E-05
7.89F-04
6.81E-04'
6.15E-04
8.01^-04
1.42E-03
1.54E-03
B.42E-04
1.55E-03
1.55F-03
1.55E-03
1.55F-03
2.40E-05
3.14E-04
2.42E-04
- FOR DESCRIPTION Of PUOTECMVE ACTIONS SEE TIHLE 2
• - HEALTH EFFECTS DUE TO I 1 MlCROCORIt/100 HECTIRES DEPOSITION
-------
Table 8. Health Effects for Phase III
(Continued)
OJ
CTi
MTHMAT COKPOSEKT
BEAN CHOP
BEAN CKOP
BCAN CHOP
BEAN CROP
BEAK CKOP
BEAM CROP
0EAN CROP
BEAN CKOP
SPINACH CHOP
SPINACH CROP
SPINACH CROP
SPINACH CROP
SPINACH CROP
SPINACH CROP
SPINACH CROP
SPINACH CROP
SPINACH CROP
SPINACH CROP
SPINACH CROP
SPINACH CROP
BROCCOLI CROP
BROCCOLI CROP
BROCCOLI CROP
BBOCCOLI CHOP
BROCCOLI CROP
BROCCOLI CROP
BROCCOLI CHOP
BftOCCOLI CROP
BROCCOLI CROP
BHOCCOLI CROP
BROCCOLI CROP
BROCCOLI CHOP
POTATO CROP
POTATO CROP
POTATO CHOP
POTATO CROP
POTATO CROP
POTATO CHOP
POTATO CKOP
POTATO CROP
POTATO CROP
POTATO CROP
POTATO CHOP
POTATO CHOP
A»C. VEGT. CROP
VEOT.
P.I.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
NO»-:
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
80 ME
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
AVC.
AVG.
AVC.
AVC.
CHOP
VEGT. CROP
V£CT. CHOP
VECT. CROP
»VC. VEGT. CROP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
HJNE
1
2
3
4
5
COST OF P.*.
($1000)
319
1000
1099
351
1497
1626
2377
13793
524
220
313
319
1000
1099
351
1497
1626
2377
13793
524
220
313
319
1000
1099
351
1497
1626
2377
13793
524
220
313
319
1000
1099
351
1497
1626
2377
13793
524
220
313
319
1000
HEALTH
FATAL
1.13E-03
2.32E-04
2.89E-06
1.06E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOt+00
O.GOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.37E-03
1.87E-03
1.36E-03
1.40E-03
1.13E-03
2.32E-04
2.89t-06
1.06E-03
o.oot+oo
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
3.97E-03
1.20E-03
1.3flt-03
1.45E-03
1.16t-03
2.32E-04
2.89E-06
1.09E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.85E-03
l.iflt-03
1.38E-03
1.44fc.-03
1.15E-03
2.32E-04
2.89E-06
1.09E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOt+00
2.04E-03
1.20E-03
1.37E-03
1.43t-03
2.34E-03
2.32L-04
EFFECTS
HEALTH EFFECTS
AVERTED
BON-PATAL FATAL NON-KATAL
7.47E-04
1.22E-04
1.81E-06
7.0bE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOt+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.53E-03
1.22E-03
B.67E-04
9.31E-04
7.47E-04
1.22E-04
1.81E-06
7.04E-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.55E-03
7.91E-04
8.86e>04
9.61E-04
7.68E-04
1.22E-04
1.81E-06
7.26E-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.21E-03
7.78E-04
8.86E-04
9.55E-04
7.64E-04
1.22E-04
1.81E-06
7.23E-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.33E-03
7.9IE-04
8.80E-04
9.46E-04
1.76t-OJ
1.22E-04
6.H6E-04
l.5dE-03
1.81E-03
7.47E-04
1.H1E-03
1.81E-03
1.81E-03
1.81P:-03
4.93E-04
1.01E-03
9.64E-04
1.24E-03
2.14E-03
2.36E-03
1.31E-03
2.37E-03
2.37F.-03
2.37E-03
2.37E-03
2.77E-03
2.59E-03
2.52F.-03
2.81E-03
3.74E-03
3.97E-03
2.88E-03
3.97E-03
3.97E-03
3.97E-03
3.97E-03
6.73F-04
4.67E-04
4.10E-04
6.9bF>04
1.62E-03
1.H5E-03
7.60E-04
1.B5E-03
1.H5E-03
1.85F.-03
1.85E-03
8.43E-04
6.68E-04
6.lbE-04
-3.00E-04
1.H1E-03
4.34F.-04
1.06F-03
1.18E-03
4.75E-04
l.lbE-03
1.18E-03
1.18F.-03
1.18E-03
3.12E-04
6.66E-04
6.02E-04
7.86E-04
1.41E-03
1.53E-03
8.29E-04
1.53E-03
1.53F-03
.53E-03
.53E-03
.76E-03
.67E-03
.59F.-03
.78E-03
2.43E-03
2.55E-03
1.H3E-03
2.55F-03
2.55E-03
2.55F-03
2.55E-03
4.29F-04
3.20E-04
2.52E-04
4.42F-04
1.08E-03
1.20F-03
4.83F-04
1.21E-03
1.21E-03
1.21E-03
1.21E-03
5.36E-04
4.47F-04
3.H1E-04
4.3JE-04
1.21F-03
• - FOR DESCRIPTION OF PROTE CTIVL ACTIONS SEE TAHLK 2
•• - HEALTH EFFECTS DUE T3 A 1 * 1CROCUHIE/100 HECTARES DEPOSITION
-------
Table 8.
Health Effects
(Continued)
for Phase III
oo
—I
PATHWAY COMPOISIIT
A*C. fECT. CROP
A»C. fECT. CHOP
AVC. ȣGT. CROP
AVC. *EGT. CHOP
AVC. »EGT. CROP
AVC. VLCT. CROP
APPLE CROP
APPLE CROP
APPLE CROP
APPLE CROP
APPLE CROP
APPLE CROP
APPLE CROP
APRICOT CROP
APRICOT CROP
APRICOT CROP
APRICOT CROP
APRICOT CROP
APRICOT CROP
APRICOT CROP
ORANCE CROP
ORANGE CROP
OKANCE CROP
ORANGE CROP
ORANGE CROP
ORANGE CHOP
ORANGE CROP
GRAPEFRUIT CHOP
CMAPEFrilUT CROP
GRAPEFRUIT CROP
CHAPEFKOIT CROP
CRAPEFKlMT CROP
GRAPEFRUIT CROP
CHAPEFHUIT CHOP
LEMON CROP
LEMON CROP
LEMON CROP
LEMON CROP
LEMON CROP
LEMON CROP
LEMON CROP
TANGERINE CROP
TANGERINE CROP
TANGERINE CROP
TANGERINE CROP
TANGERINE CROP
TANGERINE CROP
TANGERINE CROP
GRAPE CROP
CRAPE CROP
*
P. A.
6
7
8
9
10
11
MONK
1
2
3
4
5
6
NUN!
1
2
3
4
5
6
• ONE
1
2
3
4
5
6
HUNE
1
2
3
4
5
6
HOME
1
2
3
4
5
6
NONE
1
2
3
4
5
6
HONE
1
COST OK P.*
($1000)
1099
351
1497
1626
2377
13793
369
468
1754
658
5185
15798
369
468
1754
658
5185
15798
369
468
1754
658
5185
15791
369
468
1754
659
5185
15798
369
468
1754
658
5185
15798
369
468
1754
658
5185
15798
369
HEALTH
FATAL
2.B9E-06
1.0 BE -03
O.OOE+GO
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE»00
O.OOE+OO
4.99E-03
1.46E-03
1.39E-03
O.OOE+OO
O.OOt+00
O.OOE*00
O.OOE+OO
1.B9E-03
1.39E-03
1.32E-03
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
O.OOt+00
O.OOE+OO
2. 616-03
1.41E-03
1.35E-03
O.OOE+OO
0.00h»00
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
4.08E-03
1.43t-03
1.37E-03
O.OOE»00
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
4.60E-03
1.45E-03
1.38E-03
O.OOt+00
o.ooe+oo
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
5.4->E-03
1.47E-03
1.40E-03
O.OOE+OO
O.OOt+00
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
2.02E-03
1.40E-03
EKFECTS
NON-FATAL
l.blE-06
7.17E-04
O.OOE»00
O.OOt+00
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
3.31E-OJ
9.66E-04
9.23E-04
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+00
1.26E-03
9.21E-04
8.78t-04
O.OOt+00
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
1.73E-03
9.36E-04
8.93E-04
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OU
O.OOE+OO
2.70E-03
9.51E-04
9.0RE-04
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
3.05E-03
9.60E-04
9.16E-04
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
3.61E-03
9.75E-04
9.31E-04
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE+OO
1.34E-03
9.27E-04
HEALTH EFFECTS AVtHTEU
FATAL
2.04E-03
9.61E-04
2.04?:-03
2.04E-03
2.04E-03
2.04E-03
3.54E-03
3.60F-03
4.9VE-03
4.99E-03
4.99E-03
4.99h-03
5.06E-04
5.70E-04
1.M9E-03
.89E-03
.H9E-03
.H9E-03
.20E-03
.26E-03
2.61E-03
2.61E-03
2.61E-03
2.61E-03
2.64E-03
2.71E-03
4.08E-03
4.08E-03
4.08E-03
4.08E-03
3.15F-03
3.22E-03
4.60E-03
4.60E-03
4.60E-03
4.60E-03
3.97E-03
4.04E-03
5.45E-03
5.45E-03
5.45E-03
5.45E-03
6.25E-04
KON-FATAL
1.33F-03
6.10E-04
\.33r.-03
1.33R-03
1.33E-03
1.33E-03
2.34E-03
2.3BF-03
3.31E-03
3.31E-03
3.31E-03
3.31R-03
3.35E-04
3.78E-04
1.26F-03
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
1.26E-03
7.91E-04
8.34E-04
1.73E-03
1.73K-03
1.73E-03
1.73E-03
1.75E-03
l.HOE-03
2.70E-03
2.70E-03
2.70E-03
2.70E-03
2.09E-03
2.13E-03
3.05F-03
3.05E-03
3.05E-03
3.05E-03
2.63E-03
2.6HE-03
3.61E-03
3.61E-03
3.ME-03
3.61E-03
4.14E-04
• - rOH DESCRIPTION Of PROTECTIVE ACTIONS SFE TABLE 2
•* - HEALTH EFFECTS DUE T3 A 1 HICHOCURIE/100 HECTARES DEPOSITION
-------
Table 8. Health Effects for Phase III.
(Continued)
GO
co
P&THHAf COHPOBEIT
CHIPE CROP
CRAPS CROP
CRAPE CROP
CHAPE CROP
CRAPE CROP
PEACH CRUP
PEACH CROP
PEACH CRUP
PEACH CROP
PEACH CROP
PEACH CROP
PEACH CRUP
PEAR CROP
PEIH CHOP
PEAR CROP
PEAR CROP
PEAR CHOP
PEAR CROP
PEAR CROP
AVG. OUCH. CROP
AVC. OkCH. CROP
AVC. OUCH. CHOP
AVG. ORCH. CROP
AVC. OKCH. CROP
AVC. OKCH. CHOP
AVC. ORCH. CROP
RECREATIONAL
RECREATIONAL
MILK
MILK
MILK
MILK
MILK
MILK
MILK
BEEF
BEEF
BEEF
BEEF
BEEF
BEEF
BEEF
P. A.
2
3
4
5
6
NONE
1
2
3
4
5
6
HOME
1
2
3
4
5
6
»QBi
1
2
3
4
5
6
BOSS
1
• ONE
1
2
3
4
5
6
NONE
1
2
3
4
5
6
COST or f, A.
($1000)
468
1754
658
5185
15798
369
468
1754
658
5185
15798
369
468
1754
658
5185
15798
369
468
1754
658
5185
15798
156
201
250
223
2092
259
2361
201
250
223
2092
259
2361
HEALTH
FATAL
1.32E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
0. OOfc »00
O.OOE+00
3.76£-03
1.43K-03
1.37E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.15E-03
1.40E-03
1.33E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
3.13E-03
1.42E-03
1.35E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.78E-04
O.OOE+00
1.4RE-07
1.33E-07
l.HE-07
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
9. 316-07
8.38E-07
6.98E-07
O.OOE+00
O.OOE + 00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
EFFtCTS
NON-FATAL
B.78E-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.49E-03
9.51E-04
9.0RE-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.43E-03
9.27E-04
8.84E-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.07E-03
9.40E-04
B.97E-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
9.81E-07
O.OOE+00
1.01E-07
9.06E-OB
7.55E-08
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
5.27E-07
4.73E-07
3.94E-0/
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
HEALTH EFFECTS
AVEPT10
F»TAL hON-FATIL
6.im:-04
2.02E-03
2.02E-03
2.02E-03
2.02E-03
2.32E-03
2.39F-03
3.76E-03
3.76R-03
3.76E-03
3.I6E-03
7.53E-04
8.17E-04
2.15E-03
2.15E-03
2.15E-03
2.15E-03
1.71F-03
1.7BE-03
3.13E-03
3.13E-03
3.13E-03
3.13E-03
2.78E-04
1.48E-OB
3.70E-08
1.48E-07
1.48E-07
1.48E-07
1.48E-07
9.38E-08
2.33E-07
9.31E-07
9.31E-07
9.31E-07
9.31E-07
4.64K-04
1.34E-03
1.34E-03
1.34E-03
1.34E-03
1.54E-03
1.5BE-03
2.4*E-03
2.49E-03
2.49E-03
2.49E-03
4.99^-04
5.42E-04
1.43E-03
1.43E-03
1.43E-03
1.43E-03
1.13E-03
1.18E-03
2.07E-03
2.07E-03
2.07E-03
2.07E-03
9.81E-07
l.OOF-08
2.52E-08
1.01E-07
1.01E-07
1.01E-07
1.01E-07
5.36E-OH
1.33E-07
5.27E-07
5.27E-07
S.27E-07
5.27E-07
* - rOW DESCRIPTION OF PROTECTIVE ACTIONS SEE TA8LL 2
•* - HEALTH EFFECTS DUE TO A 1 HI CROCUK IE/100 HECTARES DEPOSITION
-------
Table 9. Health Effects for Phase IV.
CO
MTHUtV PHOPKITV TYPE P. A.
INHALATIOI SINiLS UHIT RESIDENTIAL HUHL
INHALATION S1NCLI UNIT RESIDENTIAL 1
INHALATION SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 2
INHALATION SINGLS UNIT RESIDENTIAL 3
INHALATION SINGLI UNIT KESIUENTIAL 4
INHALATION SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 5
INHALATION SINGLE UNIT KESIDFNTIAL 6
INHALATION SINGLJ UNIT RESIDENTIAL 7
INHALATION SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 8
INHALATION SINCLI UNIT RESIDENTIAL 9
INHALATION SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 10
INHALATION MULTIPLE UNIT KESIDENTIAL NONE
INHALATION HULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL i
INHALATION MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 2
INHALATION MULTIPLE UNIT KESIDENTIAL 3
INHALATION MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 4
INHALATION MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 5
INHALATION MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 6
INHALATION MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 7
INHALATION MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 6
INHALATION MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 9
INHALATION COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE HONE
INHALATION COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE i
INHALATION COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE 2
INHALATION COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE 3
INHALATION COWMEKCIAL/COHHUNITY USE 4
INHALATION COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE 5
INHALATION COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE 6
INHALATION COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE 7
INHALATION COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE 8
INHALATION CJMMEDCIAL/COMMUNITY USE 9
INHALATION URBAN/SUBURBAN REC. USE NONE
INHALATION UHbAN/SUBUHBAN REC. USE 1
INHALATION UwBAN/SUBDNBAN KEC. USE 2
INHALATION UR ttAN/SUBURHAN REC. USE 3
INHALATION URBAN/SUBURBAN REC. USE 4
INHALATION URBAN/SUBURBAN REC. USE 5
INHALATION URHAN/SUHUKHAN REC. USE 6
INHALATION UK BAN/SUB 0KflAN KEC. USE 7
INHALATION URBAN/SUBURBAN REC. USE H
AIR IMMERSIOI SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL NONE
AIH IMMFKSIDN SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 1
AIR IMMERSION SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 2
AIR IMMFKSION SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 3
AIK IMMERSION SINGL: UNIT RESIDENTIAL 4
AIR IMMERSION SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL s
AIR IMMERSION SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 6
AIR IMMERSION SINuLJ UNIT RESIDENTIAL 7
AIR IMMERSION SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL B
AIK IMMEHSION SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 9
COST OF H.I.
($1000)
2427
4423
4120
16221
7167
2727
1R061
1018
17587
6743
4012
7251
6446
194
16611
2597
2252
10691
6149
5192
12665
14182
4449
21515
2259
2190
17406
7282
1900
7846
9957
6259
14769
2034
15924
1533
2427
4423
4120
16221
7167
2727
18061
1018
17587
HEALTH
FATAL
4.46F.-03
9.44E-04
9.13E-04
5.12E-04
1.90E-04
4.02E-04
5.15F-04
1.16E-04
1.17F-03
8.08F-05
8.93F-05
2.7UE-02
1.39E-U3
1.14E-03
2.94E-03
3.97E-03
5.55F-04
2.16E-03
5.0BE-03
5.5iF-04
l.bSE-03
7.30E-02
3. 65E-03
2.55E-03
5.94E-03
1.04E-02
1.46E-03
7.04E-03
1.25E-U2
1.46E-03
5.94E-03
3.20E-03
3.97E-04
3.97E-04
H.31E-05
8.84E-04
2.02E-04
2.BBF.-04
8.31E-05
4.57E-04
2.22E-07
4.69t>0t)
4.54t-OB
2.54E-08
9.46t-09
2.00E-08
2.56F-08
5.76E-09
5.B3E-08
4.01E-09
tFFFCTS
NON-FATAL
4.49F-06
9.50K-07
9.19F-07
5.15F-07
1.92E-07
4.04E-07
5.m-07
1.1 VE-07
1. 18^-06
8.13K-Od
B.9HE-08
2.79F-OS
1.40E-06
1.15F-06
2.V6F-06
3.99E-06
5.59E-07
2.18E-06
5.11E-06
5.59F-07
1.59E-06
7.35E-05
3.67=:-06
2.57E-06
5.9BF-06
1.05E-05
1.47E-06
7.08F-06
1.26E-05
1.47F.-06
5.98F.-06
3.22E-06
4.00F-07
4.00E-07
8.36E-08
8.90E-07
2.04E-07
2.89F-07
8.36F-08
4.60E-07
1. 88^-07
3.9dE-08
3.85F-OB
2.I6F.-08
8.03E-09
1.69E-08
2.17F-08
4.89E-09
4.95E-0«
3.41E-09
HEALTH EFFtCTS AVERTED
FATAL
3.52E-03
3.55F-03
3.95t-03
4.27E-03
4.06E-03
3.95E-03
4.3St-03
3.29E-03
4.3«E-03
4.37E-03
2.64E-02
2.66E-02
2.48E-02
2.3HE-02
2.72E-02
2.56E-02
2.27E-02
2.72E-02
2.62E-02
6.93E-02
7.04E-02
6.70E-02
6.26E-02
7.15E-02
6.60E-02
6.05E-02
7.15E-02
6.7CE-02
2.BOE-03
2.80E-03
3.11E-03
2.31E-03
2.99E-03
2.91E-03
3.11E-03
2.74E-03
1.75E-07
1.76E-07
1.96E-07
2.12E-07
2.02E-07
1.96E-07
2.16E-07
1.63E-07
2.18E-07
NON-FATAL
3.54E-06
3.57E-06
3.98E-06
4.30L-06
4.09E-06
3.i»7t-06
4.3Hc:-06
3.31t-06
4.41E-06
4.40E-06
2.65c-0b
2.6BE-05
2.50E-05
2.40i-05
2.74E-05
2.bMt-05
2.2BE-05
2.74E-OS
2.64I.-05
6.994.-05
7.09e.-05
6.75E-05
6.30E-35
7.20E-05
6.64E-05
6.09t-05
7.20E.-05
6.75t-OS
2.B2E-06
2.B2E-06
3.13E-06
2.33E-06
3.01E-06
2.93E-06
3.13E-06
2.76E-06
1.48L-07
1.50i.-07
1.6/E-07
1.80E-07
1.71E-07
1.66E-07
l.S3t-07
1.39E-07
1.B5E-07
* - FOB DESCRIPTION OF P83TECT1TE ACTIONS SEE TABLE 3
*• - HEALTH EFFECTS DUE TO A 1 MICBOCUHIK/100 HECTARES DEPOSITION
-------
Table 9. Health Effects for Phase IV.
(Continued)
PATHWAY
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIH IMMEblSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERS'ION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR INHESION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
IIP IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIH IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
AIR IMMERSION
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SUHFACK SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINE
SURFACE SHINt
PROPERTY TYPE p.A.
S1NULS UNIT RESIDENTIAL 10
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL NUNE
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 1
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 2
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 3
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIIILMT1AL 4
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 5
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 6
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 7
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 8
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 9
COM«RCI AL/COMMUNITT USE NONE
COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE 1
CUMMt^CIAL/COMKUNITY USE 2
COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE 3
COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE 4
COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE 5
COMSERCIAL/COMMUNITV USE 6
CJMNEHCIAL/COMHUNITY OSE 7
COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE 8
COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE 9
URBAN/SUBURBAN Rtc. USE NONE
USBAN/SUHURHAN REC. USE 1
UHBAN/SUBURRAN REC. USE 2
URBAN/SUBURBAN REC. USE 3
URBAN/SUBUHBAN REC. USE 4
UKBAN/SUBURBAN REC. USE 5
UKBANf SUBURBAN REC. USE 6
UrfBAN/SUBURBAN REC. USE 7
URBAN/SUBURBAN REC. USE 8
SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL HONE
SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 1
SlfciiLJ UNIT ilESlDENTIAL 2
SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 3
SINCL* UNIT RESIDENTIAL 4
siNuLt UNIT RESIDENTIAL s
SINGH UNIT RESIDENTIAL 6
SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 7
SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 8
SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 9
SINGL; UNIT RESIDENTIAL 10
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL NONE
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 1
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 2
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 3
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 4
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 5
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 6
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 7
MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL 8
COST OF P. A.
($1000)
6743
4012
7251
6446
194
16631
2597
2252
10691
6149
5192
12665
141R2
4449
21515
2259
2190
17406
7282
1900
7846
9957
6259
14789
2034
15924
1533
2427
4423
4120
16221
7167
2727
18061
1018
17587
6743
4012
7251
6446
194
16631
2597
2252
10691
HEALTH
FATAL
4.43E-U9
1.3HF-06
6.89F-OB
5.6bt-08
1.4bF-07
1.97K-07
2.76t-0«
1.07F-07
2.52E-U7
2.76F-08
7. 84^-08
3.62E-06
1.B1E-07
1.27E-07
2.95E-07
5.1bE-07
7. 25E-08
3.50E-07
6. 21E-07
7.25E-OB
2.95E-07
1.59E-07
1.97E-08
1.97E-08
4.13E-09
4.39E-08
l.OOE-08
1.43E-08
4.13E-09
2.27E-08
4.25E-04
7.10E-OS
2.86E-04
2.b5E-04
1.04E-05
2.54K-04
3.94E-OS
9.09E-06
9.53E-05
7.89E-06
2.31E-04
1.12E-03
5.61E-05
2.66E-04
3.49E-04
1.60F-04
9.49E-04
7.71E-05
2.HE-04
2.39E-04
EFFECTS
NON-FATAL
3.76E-09
1.17E-06
5.85E-08
4.80E-08
1.24E-07
1.67E-07
2.34E-OM
9.11F-08
2.14E-07
2.34E-08
6.65E-08
3.08E-06
1.S4FT-07
1.00E-07
2.50E-07
4.39E-07
b.l^r.-OU
2.97E-07
5.2UE-07
6.15E-08
2. 50E-07
1.35E-07
1.67E-08
1.67»-08
3.50E-09
3.73E-08
8.53E-09
1.21E-08
3.50E-09
1.92E-08
3.44E-04
5.75E-Ob
2.32E-04
2.07E-04
8.43E-06
2.06E-04
3.19E-05
7.36E-06
7.72E-05
6.39E-06
1.B7E-04
9.08E-04
4.54K-05
2.16E-04
2.83E-04
1.29E-04
7.69E-04
6. 24F-05
1.71E-04
1.94E-04
HFALTH EFFECTS
AYEkTEO
FATAL NON-FATAL
2.17E-07
1.3IE-06
1.32E-06
1.21E-06
1.1WE-06
1.35E-06
1.27E-06
1.13E-06
1.3SE-06
1.30E-06
3.44E-06
3.50E-06
3.33E-06
3.1IE-06
3.55E-06
3.27E-06
3.00E-06
3.55E-06
3.33E-06
1.39E-07
1.39E-07
1.55E-07
1.15E-07
1.49E-07
1.44E-07
1.55E-07
1.36E-07
3.54E-04
1.38E-04
1.70E-04
4.14E-04
1.71E-04
3.85E-04
4.15L-04
3.29E-04
4.17E-04
1.94E-04
1.07E-03
8.56E-04
7.73E-04
9.62E-04
1.73E-04
1.04E-03
9.10E-04
8.83E-04
1.84E-07
1.11E-06
1.12t-06
1.05E-06
l.OOt-06
1.15E-06
1.08E-06
9.56t-07
1.1SE-06
1.10t-06
2.92E-06
2.97E-06
2.83E-06
2.64E-06
3.01L-06
2.7BE-06
2.55E-06
3.01L-06
2.U3E-06
1.18E-07
1.18E-07
1.31C-07
9.74E-08
1.26E-07
1.23t-07
1.31E-07
1.15E-07
2.86E-04
1.12E-04
1.37E-04
3.35E-04
1.3HL-04
3.12E-04
3.37K-04
2.67t-04
3.3BE-04
1.57E-04
8.63E-04
6.93L-04
6.26E-04
7.79E-04
1.39t-04
8.46E-04
7.37E-04
7.14E-04
- KOR DESCRIPTION OK PRDTECTIfE ACTIONS SEE TABLE 3
* - HEALTH EFFECTS bUE T3 A I MICHOCURl£/100 HECTARES DEPOSITION
-------
Table 9.
Health Effects
(Continued)
for Phase IV.
PATH* AY PROPERTY r»Pt
SURFACE SHIRK MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL
SURFACE SHINE CJM>
-------
F-ATNMtr - RISBRVOIR tUTJR
Table 10. Health Effects for Phase V.
IN)
TREATMENT
PLAiT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
BASE PLANT
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT MO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO,
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO. 1
PLANT HO. 1
PLANT NO. 1
PLANT NO. 1
PLANT NO. 2
PLANT NO. 2
PLANT NO. 2
PLANT NO. 2
PLANT NO. 2
PLANT NO. 2
PLANT NO. 2
PLANT NO. 2
PLANT NO. 2
PLANT NO. 3
PLANT NO. 3
PLANT NO. 3
PLANT NO. 3
PLANT NO. 3
PLANT NO. 3
PLANT NO. 3
PLANT NO. 3
PLANT NO. 3
ruH«o»ER
BATti »R-1)
2.0
2.3
2.0
2.)
2.3
2.0
.}
.0
.0
.)
.0
.9
50.3
50.0
SO.)
50.9
50.0
50.}
2.3
2.)
2.3
2.0
6.3
6.9
6.0
6.3
50.0
50.3
50.3
50.0
2.3
2.3
2.0
6.9
6.9
6.3
50.3
50.0
50.)
2.3
2.0
2.3
6.9
6.3
6.3
50.0
50.3
53.3
CUWTHU1.
TECHNULOC*
HO CNTR TECH
PLANT NO. 1
PLANT NO. 2
PLANT NO. 3
PLANT NO. 4
PLANT NO. 5
NO CNTU TECH
PLANT NO. 1
PLANT NO. 2
PLANT NO. 3
PLANT NO. 4
PLANT NO. 5
NU CNTR TECH
PLANT NO. 1
PLANT NO. 2
PLANT NO. 3
PLANT NO. 4
PLANT NO. 5
NO CNTR TECH
PLUS CLAY
PLUS KH2H04
PLUS LIKE
NO CNTR TECH
PLUS CLAY
PLUS KH2P04
PLUS LIME
NO CNTR TECH
PLUS CLAY
PLUS KH2PQ4
PLUS LINF.
NU CNTR TECH
PLUS CLAY
PLUS KH2P04
NO CNTR TECH
PLUS CLAY
PLU3 KH2P04
NO CNTR TECH
PLUS CLAY
PLUS KH2P04
NO CNTR TECH
PLUS LIME
PLUS AI.UM
NU CNTR TtCH
PLUS LIME
PLUS ALUM
NO CNTP TECH
PLUS LIME
PLUS ALUH
COST Or C.f
($1000)
18230
19610
50420
32750
17540
18230
19610
50420
32750
17540
18230
19S10
50420
32750
17540
1524
18550
1300
1524
18550
1300
1524
18550
1300
1524
1S550
1524
18550
1524
18550
1300
1825
1300
1825
1300
1825
HEALTH
FATAL
3.97E+00
3.85E*00
3. 82K»UO
3.76E»00
3.76E»00
3.77E»00
2.20F*00
2.20E»00
2.20F.+00
2.20E»00
2.20E»00
2.20E*00
5.94E-01
5.94E-01
5.94E-01
5.94E-01
5.94E-01
5.94E-01
2.27E»00
1.92E+00
1.41E»00
1.89E+00
1.45E*00
1.32E*00
1.04E»00
1.27E»00
4.46E-01
4.29E-01
3.51E-01
4.17E-01
1.89E+00
1.55E»00
1.33E*00
1.27E»00
1.15E4-00
1.01E+00
4.17E-01
4.01E-01
3.46E-01
6.93E-02
6.91E-02
5.32E-02
5.26E-02
5.25E-02
4.23E-02
1.99E-02
1.99F.-02
1.63E-02
EFFECTS
NON-» ATAL
V.5«F»00
9.50E»00
9.47E»00
9.44E»00
9.44E«00
9.44E»00
7.62E»00
7.62E»00
7.62E*00
7.62E»00
7.62E»00
7.62F+00
3.20E»00
3.20F»00
3.20F»00
3.20E»00
3.20E+00
3.20E*00
7. 12F»00
6.90E+00
5.42E*00
6.79E*00
5.92E+00
5.84E+00
4.66E»00
5.77E*00
2.55E»00
2.54E+00
2.04L*00
2.52E»00
6.79K»00
6.57E»00
5.35E»00
5.77E*00
5.69F,»00
4.63F»00
2.52E*00
2.51F,»00
2.03E»00
3.87E-01
3.87E-01
3.09E-01
3.39E-01
3.3VF-01
2.72E-01
1.52f:-01
1.52F-01
1.22E-01
HEALTH tVTt
FATAL
1. 23E-01
1.52E-01
2.10E-01
2. llt-01
1.99E-01
l.OHt-03
1.08E-03
1.68E-03
1.68E-03
1.44E-03
O.OOE + 00
O.OOE»00
0.00t»00
O.OOE*00
0.00t»00
3.46E-01
8. b9E-01
3.76E-01
1.26E-01
4. 06E-01
1.72E-01
1.69E-02
9. 44E-02
2.83E-02
3.46E-01
5.59E-01
1.26E-01
2.69E-01
1.68E-02
7.17E-02
1. 95E-04
1.61E-02
9. 18E-05
1.03E-02
1.49E-05
3.631-03
;CTS AYEMTEd
•UN-FATAL
7.93E-02
1.04E-01
1.42E-01
1.42E.-01
1.34E-01
6.63E-04
6.63S-04
1.13E-03
1.13E-03
9.25E-04
0.00£»00
o.oos»oo
o.oot»oo
O.OOE*00
O.OOE+00
2.26E-01
1.71t:»00
3.28E-01
8.22t-02
1.26E*00
1.52E-01
1.11E-02
b.ll£-01
2.52E-02
2.25E-01
1.44E»00
0.20E-02
1.14E»00
1.10E-02
4.91E-01
1.70E-04
7.79E-02
8.10E-05
6.70E-02
1.33E-05
3.01E-02
* - rON DESCRIPTION OP MU3EL THEATMENT PLANTS SEE TABLE 4
*• - HEALTH KrPECTS INDUCED IN A POPULATION AT RISK UF 100/000 ADULTS AND A CONCENTRATION OF 1 HILLICURIE/CUB 1C METER
-------
Table 10. Health Effects for Phase V.
(Continued)
PATHWAY - ItfER MATER
TREATMENT
PLANT
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PATHWAY -
TREATMENT
PLANT
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT NO.
PLANT MO.
1
1
1
I
2
2
2
3
3
3
RIVEK
•
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
C3NTRQL
TECHNOLOGY
NO CNTU TECH
PLUS cur
PLUS KH2P04
PLUS LIME
NO CNTR TECH
PLUS CLAY
PLUS KH2H04
NO CNTK TECH
PLUS LIKE
PLUS ALUM
HATEU, 30 DAY DECAY
C3NTU3L
TECHNOLOGY
NO CNTR TECH
PLUS CLAY
PLUS KH2P04
PLUS LIME
NU CNTil TECH
PuUS CLAY
PLUS KH2P04
NJ CNTU TKCd
PLUS LIME
PLUS ALUM
COST or C.T.
(S)
2923
3358
2*93
2923
3S58
2493
3500
COST OF C.T.
(S)
2923
3558
2493
2923
3558
2493
3500
HEALTH
FATAL
4.98E-01
4.81E-01
3.95E-01
4.70E-01
4.70K-01
4.53E-01
3.t)9t-0l
2.2HE-02
2.28E-02
1.87E-02
HEALTH
FATAL
2.10E-01
1.87E-01
1.46E-01
1.76E-01
1.76E-01
1.52E-01
1.39E-01
5.80E-03
5.78E-03
4.68E-03
* •
EFFtCtS
NJN-FATAL
2.«7t»00
2.96E»00
2.3'/E»00
2.94f*00
2.«>4t»00
2.93E+00
2.37L+00
1.7HE-01
1.78L-01
1.44L-01
**
EFFECTS
NON-FATAL
4.dlE-01
4.66E-01
3.70E-01
4.51E-01
4.51E-01
4.36E-01
3.64E-01
2.39E-02
2.39£-02
1.93E-02
HMLTH EFFECTS AYbRTEU
FATAL MOM-FATAL
1.66E-02
1.03F-01
2.82E-02
1.63F-02
8.03E-02
2.94F-05
4.07E-03
1.09E-02
5.96E-01
2.51E-02
1.06E-02
5.76E-01
2.54E-05.
3.44E-02
HEALTH EFFECTS AYEHTED
FATAL MOM-FATAL
2.33E-02
6.41F-02
3.44E-02
2.33E-02
3.67E-02
1.74E-05
1.12E-03
1.52E-02
1.11E-01
3.04E-02
1.52E-02
8.66E-02
1.54E-05
4.63E-03
• - FOB DESCRIPTION OF N03CL TREATMENT PLAMTS SEE TABLE 4
" - HEALTH EFFECTS INDUCED II A POPULATIOM AT RISK (JF 100,009 ADULTS AND A CONCENTRATION OT I MILL ICUR IE/CUBIC METER
-------
Table 10. Health Effects for Phase V.
(Continued)
PATH*IT COMPONENT
MEAT CONSUMPTION
MEAT CONSUMPTION
MEAT CONSUMPTION
MEIT CONSUMPTION
MEAT CONSUMPTION
MEAT CONSUMPTION
HEAT CONSUMPTION
MEAT CONSUMPTION
MILK CONSUMPTION
MILK CONSUMPTION
MILK CONSUMPTION
IRRIGATED VEGETABLES
IRRIGATED VEGETABLES
IRRIGATED LEAFY VEGETABLES
IRRIGATED LEAFY VEGETABLES
CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
NO CNTR TFCH
gUAR. 1
UUAR.
9UAK.
QUAR.
flUAR.
QUAR.
COST
or C.T.
<$)
UK.
2 UK.
3 UK.
4 UK.
3 MR.
MO.
CONDEMNATION
NO CNTR TECH
DIV TO DAIMV
CONDEMNATION
NO CNTH TFCH
CONDEMNATION
NO CNTR TF.CH
CONDEMNATION
1099
2198
3297
4396
14130
26260
2573000
8331
50670
1234000
1234000
HEALTH
FATAL
7.«8E»00
4.20t»00
2.26E»00
1.23E+00
6.8S.E-01
2.45E-02
«. 9JE-03
o.ooe»oo
1.22E-01
5.02E-03
O.Out+00
3.98E-01
O.OOE»00
5.11E-G3
EFFECTS
NON-FATAL
5.81K»00
3.12t»00
l.69t*00
9.32E-01
b.21 E-01
1.73E-02
6.25t-03
o.oot»oo
8.34E-01
4.08t-03
O.OOE^OO
3.33L-01
O.UOE«-00
4.22E-03
HEALTH EFFECTS AVERTED
FATAL NON-FATAL
3.68E»00
5.62F*00
6.65E*00
7.20E»00
7.86E»00
7.87E»00
7.8t)E»00
1.17E-01
1.22E-01
3.98E-01
5.11E-03
2.69f*00
4.12F»00
4.8BE+00
S a 29 E * 00
5« 60 F *00
5.81E»00
5.81E»00
8.30E-01
B.34E-01
3.3JE-01
4.22E-03
•• - HEALTH EFFECTS INDUCSD IS A POPULATION AT RISK OF 100,000 ADULTS AND A CONCEWfHATION OF 1 MILLICUR!E/CUBIC METEN
-------
Table 11. Health Effects for Phase VI.
TIHES(HRS)
Tl
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
T2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
8
8
B
8
8
T3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
6
12
12
12
12
12
6
6
6
6
6
9
9
9
9
9
15
15
15
15
15
6
6
6
6
6
9
9
9
9
9
15
15
15
15
15
9
9
9
9
9
P. A.
NO
1
2
3
4
NONS
1
2
3
4
NUNE
1
2
3
4
NONE
1
2
3
4
NONE
1
2
3
4
NONE
1
2
3
4
NONE
1
2
3
4
NONE
1
2
3
4
NONE
1
2
3
4
NONE
1
2
3
4
COST OF P.i.
($100,000)
244
244
322
324
244
244
322
324
244
244
322
324
244
244
322
324
244
244
322
324
244
244
322
324
244
244
322
324
244
244
322
324
244
244
322
324
244
244
322
324
HEALTH
FATAL
6.71E-01
3.52E-03
3.36E-03
4.5St-03
3.58E-03
6.71E-01
6. BSE -03
6.70E-03
7.B8E-03
6.92E-03
6.71E-D1
1.34E-02
1.32E-02
1.44E-02
1. J4E-02
2.67E+00
2.07E-02
2.00E-02
2.47E-02
2.09E-32
2.67E+00
3.38E-02
3.31E-02
3.78E-02
3.40E-02
2.67E+00
5.93E-02
5.B9E-02
6.31E-02
5.97E-02
6.68E-&1
3.47E-03
3.30E-03
4.48t-03
3.52E-03
6.68E-01
6.76E-03
6.60E-03
7.74E-03
6.BOE-03
6.68E-01
1.32E-02
1.30E-D2
1.41E-02
1.32t-02
2.66E+00
2.03E-02
1.97E-02
2.42E-02
2.05E-02
EFFECTS
NON-FATAL
6.U6E-01
3.86t-03
3.67E-03
4.93E-OJ
3.43E-03
6.86E-01
7.36L-03
7.1HE-03
8.41E-OJ
7.41E-03
6.8f,E-Ol
1.42E-02
1.40E-02
1.52E-02
1.42t-02
2.73E+00
2.23E-02
2.161-02
2.65E-02
2.25E-02
2.73E»00
3.60E-02
3.53E-02
4.02E-02
3.62E-02
2.73£*00
6.27E-02
6.2IE-02
6.67E-02
6.30E-02
6.B3E-01
3.BOE-03
3.61E-03
4.65E-OJ
3.85E-03
6.83L-01
7.24E-OJ
7.06E-OJ
8. 27E-03
7.29E-03
6.83E-01
1.39E-02
1.37E-02
1.49E-02
1.40E-02
2.72E*OD
2.19E-02
2. 12E-02
2.60E-U2
2.21E-02
HEALTH EFFECTS AVERTED
FATAL
6.6UE-01
6.68F.-01
6.67E-01
6.6UE-01
6.64E-01
6.64E-01
6.63E-01
6.64E-01
6.58E-01
6.58F-01
6.57E-01
6.58E-01
2.65E»00
2.65E»00
2.65E»00
2.65E*00
2.64F»00
2.64E*00
2.64F»00
2.64E*00
2.62E+00
2.62E»00
2.61E»UO
2.61E»00
6.64E-01
6.64E-01
6.63E-01
6.64E-01
6.61E-01
6.61F.-01
6.60E-01
6.61E-01
6.54E-01
6.55E-01
6.53E-01
6.54E-01
2.64E»00
2.64E»00
2.64E»00
2.64E»UO
NON-FATAL
6.82E-01
6.B2F--01
6.81E-01
6.H2E-01
6.78E-01
6.78E-01
6.77E-01
6.7BE-01
6.71E-01
6.72F-01
6.70F.-01
6.71E-01
2.71E*00
2.71E»00
2.71F»00
2.71E»00
2.70E+00
2.70E»00
2.69^+00
2.70E»00
2.67P»00
2.67E*00
2.67f»00
2.67F*00
6.79E-01
6.79F-01
6.7BE-01
6.79E-01
6.75F.-01
6.76F-01
6.74E-01
6.75E-01
6.69E-01
6.69E-C1
6.6bE-01
6.69E-01
2.70E»00
2.70E»00
2.70F*00
2.70E»00
• - FOM DFSCKIPTIOM OF PKOTECTI»E ACTIONS SF.E TABLE 5
•• - HEALTH EFKF.CTS DUE T3 DEPOSITION UN PERSONNEL FROH A CLOUD CONC. OF 1 HICRtKUR I t/CUBlC NETER
FUR A POPULATION AT RISK OF 100,000 ADULTS
-------
Table 11. Health Effects for Phase VI.
(Continued)
IMES(HRS)
1 T2
8
e
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
T3
12
12
12
12
12
18
18
18
19
18
a
P. 4.
NONE
1
2
3
4
NONE
1
2
3
4
COS? OK P.4.
($103,000)
244
244
322
324
244
744
322
324
HEALTH
FATAL
2.6«£*00
3. J3E-02
3.26E-02
3.71E-02
3.34t-02
2.66E»00
5.86E-92
5.79t-02
6.21E-02
5.86E-02
EKKECTS
WON-FATAL
2.72E*00
3.54K-02
3.47E-02
3.9SE-02
3.56E-OJ
2.T7E»00
6.18E-02
6.10E-02
6.55E-02
6.18E-02
HEALTH EFFECTS
AVEHTEU
FATAL BOfe-?ATAL
2.63E + 00
2.«>3F»00
2.63F.»00
2.63E»00
2.61E»00
2.61E»00
2-bOF+OO
2.61E*00
2.69E»00
2.6-*F,»00
2.68E»00
2.69E»00
2.66E*00
2.66F,»00
2.66F.»00
2.66E»00
• - ran DESCRIPTION OF PIOTKCUVE ACTIONS SEE TABLE 5
»• - HEALTH EFFECTS DUE T3 DEPOSITION ON PERSONNEL FROM & CLOUD CONC. 0? 1 «lCROCURIK/CUE!C HETEK
FUR A POPUL&TIOH it RISK OF 100,000 ADULTS
-------
Table 12. Health Effects for Phase VII.
T»iL£ 12.
HEALTH irreCTS FOR PHASE 7
PATHWAY CONPUNENT
HOCS
HOGS
HOGS
HOCS
HOCS
HOCS
HOCS
SHEEP
SHEEP
SHEEP
SHEEP
SHEEP
SHFEP
SHEEH
TURKLYS
TURKEYS
TURKEYS
TURKEYS
TUHKEYS
TUB KEYS
TUKKEYS
CHICKFNS
CHICKENS
CHICKENS
CHICKENS
CHICKENS
CHICKENS
CHICKENS
CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY
BASE CASE
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
BA
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
HA
P.
P.
P.
p.
P.
P.
BA
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
. 1
. 2
. 3
. 4
. 5
. 6
E CASF.
. 1
. 2
. 3
. 4
. 5
. 6
E CASE
. 1
. 2
. 3
. 4
. 5
. 6
E CASE
. 1
. 2
. 3
. 4
. 5
. 6
COST UF C.T.
(S)
65.30
18. 4b
6.54
9.80
13.06
160.60
114.81)
7.56
114.80
17.2^
22.96
60.80
0.54
1.87
0.05
O.OB
0.11
21.58
0.40
0.37
0.04
0.06
0.08
3.48
HEALTH
FATAL
2.76i-09
1.35E-U9
2.66.C-09
1.93E-09
1.64E-09
1.41t>u9
O.OOE»OO
2.76IC-09
1.35E-09
2.bbE-09
1.93E-09
1.64E-09
1.41E-09
o.oot»oo
1.H4E-OB
1.49E-08
1.69E-08
1.62E-OB
1.52S-UB
1.44E-08
0.00e>00
2.98E-08
2.74e>08
2.75E-08
2. HOE-Od
2.74E-08
2.65E-08
o.ooe*co
• *
EFtTCTS
HOM-FATAL
2.00P-09
1.0bE-09
1.93E-09
1.44E-09
1.2SK-09
I.10f-09
O.OCI^ + OO
2.00E-09
1.06E-09
1.9JF-09
1 .44E-09
1.25E-09
1.10E-09
0.00t>00
1.27F-OB
1.04E-U8
1. 15E-08
l.UE-Ot)
1.05E-Oti
9.93E-09
O.OOF»00
2.06E-OB
l.09
9.SUE-11
M.31t>10
1.12E-09
1.35E-09
2.76E-09
1.41r>09
9.91E-11
K.31E-10
1.12t-09
1.35E-09
2.76E-09
3.45E-09
1.5?t-09
2.20E-09
3.15t-09
4.03L-09
1.84E-08
2.46E-09
2.33E-09
1.85E-09
2.42E-01
3.28E-09
2.98c.-08
9.46E-10
7.04t-ll
5.5Ht-10
7.52E-10
9.04L-10
2.00L-09
9.46t-10
7.04E-11
5.58E-10
7.52L-10
9.04E-10
2.00E-09
2.32E-09
1.22E-09
1.52E-C9
2.17E-09
2.76E-C9
1.27E-08
1.63E-09
1.89E-09
l.26i-09
1.67E-09
2.25E-09
2.06E-08
• - KOR DESCRIPTION Or PROTECTIVE ACTIONS SEE TABLE 6
•• - HEALTH EFFECTS PER KC ASH PER ANIMAL FOR 1 MICROCURIE/KC ASH FEED
-------
3. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
If an actual deposition of radionuclides were ever to take place, the
accident manager or decision maker given the prevailing conditions would effect
protective actions to control doses to the members of the general public. This
would be done by selecting from available protective actions those which would be
the most effective as well as those which would be most cost effective. A
protective action in this sense may be described by a "cost effectiveness ratio",
defined as the cost of the PA divided by the reduction in the number of health
effects (HE) brought about by the application of the PA.
Cost Effectiveness f- * fc \ = Cost of PA ($) (3_-|
I health effect / HE w/o PA - HE with PA
The cost of a protective action is the present worth cost, consisting
of first (immediate) costs combined with any associated annual costs using an
appropriate annuity present worth factor. First costs may include capital costs,
if capital equipment is required. Annual costs usually refer to continued
application of the PA, and general operation and maintenance.
In order to facilitate the decision-making process, the protective
actions investigated in this study have been ranked in Table 13 according to
decreasing cost-effectiveness. In each case, the first PA listed is the most
economical.
The cost-effectiveness ratio, as defined above, may be a misleading
indication of the economic value of a protective action if the cost and the dose
reduction associated with a particular protective action do not vary in direct
proportion to each other. This may be illustrated by an analysis of a
contaminated property. A particular PA may have a total cost of $1000, and have
a decontamination factor (DF) of 10. Let it be assumed that only $500 is spent,
resulting in only one-half the area of the property being treated. To find the
49
-------
Table 13. Cost-Effectiveness Rankings of Protective Actions.
Pathway Component
Order of PA's By Number
Phase III
Ingestion of Grain Crops
Ingestion of Vegetable Crops
Ingestion of Orchard Crops
Grass - Milk
Grass - Beef
Recreational Land
1,3,4,7,9,8,6,5,2,10,11
2,7,3,6,5,1,8,9,10,11,4
4,1,2,3,5,6
3,5,2,1,4,6
3,5,2,1,4,6
1
**
Phase IV
Single Unit Residential
Multiple Unit Residential
Commercial/Community Use
Recreational
8,1,6,3,2,10,5,4,9,7
4,7,6,1,9,3,2,8,5
6,7,4,1,9,2,3,8,5
8,1,6,4,2,3,5,7
Phase V - Reservoir Water
Base Plant, Turnover Rate - 2.0 yr
Plant #1, Turnover Rate = 2.0 yr"1
Plant #2, Turnover Rate = 2.0 yr"1
Plant #3, Turnover Rate - 2.0 yr"1
Plant #4
Plant #5
-1
5,2,1,4,3
3,1,2
1,2
2,1
None
None
Phase V - River Water
Plant #1
Plant #2
Plant #3
2,3,1
2,1
2,1
50
-------
Table 13 (Continued)
Pathway Component
Phase V - Others
Meat
Milk
Vegetables
Phase VI
Al 1 Val ues of T, ,
Phase VII
Hogs
Sheep
Turkeys
Chickens
***
Order of PA's By Number
1,2,3,4,5,6,7
1,2
1
2,1,3
3,4,5,6,2,1
3,4,5,6,2,1
3,4,5,1,2,6
3,4,5,6,2,1
* See Tables 2-6 for description of PA's.
^ For inhalation, air imnersion, and surface shine.
*** T, is the time between occurrence of the release of radionuclides and
the beginning of deposition on persons. T^ is the time at which
deposition ends. T^, is the time at which protective action is taken.
51
-------
DF for this PA, in relation to the entire property, the individual DFs for each
area of the property are combined as follows
where A. is the fraction of the total area to which the decontamination factor
DF. is applied
n is the number of divisions of the total area
Therefore, the DF for the above example is
DF = [ ITT + ^T ] = 1>82
Therefore, reducing the cost by a factor of two reduced the benefits of the PA by
more than a factor of five.
The costs developed in this study are pertinent to a specific level of
treatment depending on the size of the contaminated area or volume. Varying the
amount of money spent by a certain factor will not result in a change in benefits
of the same factor.
In view of the above, it is felt that a more meaningful criterion for
judging the effectiveness of a protective action is the number of health effects
averted. These quantities appear in Tables 8-12, with values of health effects
incurred if no PA were taken. The decision maker may wish to implement the PA
which, within a given budgetary framework, yields the greatest reduction in
health effects, although another PA might have a higher cost-effectiveness ratio.
By examining the information in Tables 8-12, the most effective PA fot a
particular monetary commitment may be identified.
Cost is not the only criterion for judging the efficacy of a protective
action. Convenience of application and incremental risk associated with the PA
itself should also be considered. For instance, fot contaminated personnel,
52
-------
washing with detergent and water as opposed to soap and water provides a greater
reduction in dose for essentially the same cost. However, use of detergent may
defat and abrade the skin. Breaking the skin may result in increased risk, due
to infection or worsened contamination, thereby reducing the desirability of this
particular PA.
53
-------
4. CRITICAL PATHWAYS
In each phase of this study, several pathways by which radionuclides
may be transported to and taken up by people were investigated. Of these
pathways there is one that can be termed the "critical" pathway because it is the
mechanism of principal exposure to individuals . In this study the critical
pathway for a given type of deposition of radionuclides is defined as the pathway
which results in the greatest number of health effects when no protective action
is taken. It is the purpose of this section to identify the critical pathway for
each phase, and to provide detailed information regarding the costs and
effectiveness of protective actions for that path.
In order to facilitate the analysis, three sets of graphs have been
formulated for each phase. These graphs appear in Appendix A. The first graph,
denoted by a suffix "a" on the figure identification number, is a plot of number
of health effects for no protective action versus pathway component for each
pathway and each generic unit within a given phase. From this graph, or from the
tables of health effects (Tables 8-12), one can identify the critical pathway for
that phase. The critical pathway is the subject of the second graph, denoted by
suffix "b". This plot shows the numbers of health effects averted (WHE) by each
protective action (PA) versus the present worth cost of each PA for the critical
pathway. This plot should help decision makers choose the appropriate protective
action within a given budgetary framework. The convention used for drawing the
line between points was to keep the line moving upward and to the right (i.e.,
positive slope) at all times. This serves to isolate those protective actions
which are uneconomical due to a combination of high cost and reduced
effectiveness compared to other PA's. A smooth curve was not drawn between the
points in order to avoid the implication that there is a functional relationship
(20) International Committee on Radiological Protection, Principles of
Environmental Monitoring Related to the Handling of Radioactive Materials,ICRP
Publication 7, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1965.
55
-------
between the points when in fact no such relationship exists. The third graph
plots health effects averted versus cost of PA for all pathways. However, in
some phases, there were a large number of pathways. In order to prevent the
third graph from becoming too cluttered, some condensing was done. In Phase III,
the six grain crops, five vegetable crops, and nine orchard crops were combined
into a generic grain crop, a generic vegetable crop, and a generic orchard crop,
respectively. This was accomplished using relative production factors obtained
(Q\
from U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics1 ', as described in the Phase III
report' . In Phase V, for reservoir water only the most common of the three
representative turnover rates is presented, namely the low turnover rate, 2.0
yr~ . In Phase VI, twelve combinations of the three times of interest were
looked at; however, the graph shows only the two cases which produce the greatest
and least number of health effects, thus producing an envelope into which the
other cases fall. In each graph, the value of health effects plotted is the sum
of the fatal and the non-fatal health effects.
The pathways that are detailed in the second group of graphs are
defined as the critical pathways or pathway components for their respective
phases because they produce the greatest number of health effects when no PA is
applied. However, these pathways might not be relevant to specific sites. In
this case, the accident manager can look at the first plot and identify the
critical pathway of those relevant to his site. Then, a study of the third plot,
or the health effects tables, will yield the necessary information regarding the
PA's for that pathway.
4.1 CRITICAL PATHWAY FOR CONTAMINATED LAND TYPES
Ingestion is the critical pathway for contaminated land. Figure A-la
shows that the consumption of tangerines grown on contaminated orchard lands
results in the highest risk of the potential pathway components, 9.06 x 10
health effects per 100 ha of contaminated land. There are four protective
actions (PA's 3-6) which essentially result in a 100% reduction in health
effects. Of these, PA 4, purchasing the land and removing it from productivity.
has the lowest present worth cost. PA 4 also has the lowest cost-effectiveness
ratio. PA 1, restricting the fruit to commercial processing, and PA 2,
commercial processing with augmented wash cycle, are somewhat less effective but
56
-------
are also less expensive, and may be desirable alternatives if finances are
limited.
In general, orchard crop lands and, to a lesser extent, vegetable crop
lands, produce the highest risk of the five generic land types when contaminated
by a radionuclide deposition.
4.2 CRITICAL PATHWAY FOR CONTAMINATED PROPERTY TYPES
Inhalation of resuspended radioactivity is the critical pathway for
contaminated property. The property class in which the greatest number of health
effects occurs is the commercial/community use type. The most effective
protective actions for this case are PA's 5 and 8, which involve painting
buildings, washing cars, and either painting or sandblasting pavement. However,
these PA's have the highest present worth cost and the highest cost-effectiveness
ratio. In general, for all property types, the most effective PA's are the most
expensive, while the less expensive PA's have the smallest cost-effectiveness
ratios.
4.3 CRITICAL PATHWAY FOR CONTAMINATED WATER SUPPLIES
The largest risk comes from eating animals which have consumed
contaminated water. With no protective action, the expected number of health
effects is 13.7. Sacrifice of the animals and impoundment of the remains results
in the most health effects averted; however, the cost is very high. A quarantine
period of approximately one month, prior to sending the animals to market, will
produce virtually the same results at a fraction of the cost. The PA with the
lowest cost-effectiveness ratio is PA 1, quarantine for one week. After meat
consumption, the reservoir water pathway produces the most risk.
4.4 CRITICAL PATHWAY FOR CONTAMINATED PERSONNEL
In this case, there is only one pathway to consider, deposition of
radionuclides directly on people. The sequence of events that results in the
most health effects is one that places the individual iti contact with the
radioactive cloud soon after the release occurs, with contact maintained for
several hours and protective action delayed for several hours. The most
57
-------
effective PA's are those taken by the individual at home, and involve removal and
disposal of clothing, washing skin with water and either soap or detergent, and
shampooing the hair.
4.5 CRITICAL PATHWAY FOR CONTAMINATED BIOTA
The sole pathway investigated here was the contaminated feed-farm
animal-people pathway. Of the four classes of farm animals investigated,
consumption of chickens produced the most risk. On a per-animal basis, the
protective actions for chickens all have low present worth costs, and PA 6,
sacrifice and impoundment of the remains, is the most effective at reducing the
risk.
58
-------
5. ERROR ANALYSIS
5.1 DESCRIPTION
This study calculated the risk to the public, in terms of health
effects, resulting from a low-level deposition of radionuclides. The results
have been summarized in Tables 8 through 12. These values, however, were
calculated with some degree of uncertainty. Because the risk is a computed
quantity, uncertainty in the risk is the composite effect of the uncertainties in
(21}
the component variables. This effect is called the "propagation of error" v .
The manner in which errors are propagated is discussed in this section, and the
uncertainty in the risk is estimated.
If a quantity y is a function of several independent variables x , x
..., xn, the uncertainty ^y, in y, is 1' 2'
(5-1)
For a given pathway. Equation 2-2 gives the number of health effects,
HE, in terms of the total 100-year collective dose commitment equivalent, D, and
the health effect conversion factors, HEF. Therefore, the error in HE is given
by
8
[(D.. AHEFj)2 + (HEFj AD..)2] (5-2)
where subscript j refers to the jth organ.
V. Beers, Introduction to the Theory of Errors, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co., Reading, Mass, 1953
59
-------
In order to reduce the complexity involved in applying this analysis to
the numerous pathways investigated in this study, only the critical pathway
component in each phase will be looked at. It is believed that the critical
pathway component is sufficiently representative to allow generalization of the
error analysis to other pathway components in the same phase. In addition, since
the magnitude of AHE is proportional to the size of the doses, the critical
pathway component, which has the highest doses, will have the largest
uncertainty. Therefore, generalizing the uncertainty in the critical pathway
component to the other pathway components will be conservative, given a
similarity in pathway models.
This analysis will assume that the health effect conversion factors are
known to within a factor of two . For example, the fatal health effect factor
for bone, which has a nominal value of 6 effects per million person-rem, ranges
in value from a minimum of 3 to a maximum of 12 effects per million person-rem.
Since the uncertainty AHEF, is 100% on the high side, this analysis will use a
value of AHEF equal to HE, for all organs. It will also be assumed, unless
otherwise noted, that dose conversion factors are known to within a factor of 2.
Phase III - Tangerine Crop: The 100-year collective dose commitment.
equivalent can be expressed as
D = DCF • IF (5-3)
where DCF is a dose conversion factor
IF is the 100-year integral of the function describing the rate of
uptake of radionuclides by people.
Therefore,
. /ADCF
~ -
/AIF\2
(ir)
Telephone conversation with Mr. C.G. Amato, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., September 21, 1978.
60
-------
The quantity IF is dependent upon various environmental transfer
parameters. In Reference 22, evaluations of certain transport parameters are
made, including comparisons of values in the literature, and estimations of the
range of values. For the most part, the average or recommended values have
uncertainties of less than 100% on the high side. The intake function for the
orchard crop pathway is dependent upon 15 transfer functions. The relationship
between the transfer functions is complex, however, a conservative estimate of
-jp- can be obtained by assuming that the intake function is equal to the product
of the 15 transfer parameters. If each transfer parameter is assumed to have
100% uncertainty, then
IF
• 3.37
where (^p-) is the uncertainty in the i transfer function TF.
i
Now the uncertainty in the doses can be calculated with equation 5-4,
and with ^jjj- = 1.0. Thus,
^-40
D
The following values are the total collective doses for the tangerine
pathway with no protective action, calculated in Reference 1.
Bone: 34.8 person-rem
Liver: 38.7 person-rem
Total Body: 16.8 person-rem
Kidney: 23.7 person-rem
G.I.: 275.0 person-rem
(22) The Evaluation of Models Used for the Assessment of Radionuclide Releases
to the Environment. ORNL-5382, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Health and
Safety Division, Oak Ridge, TN, 1978.
61
-------
Using these values, the values of the health effect conversion factors
in Table 7, and equation 5-2, the uncertainty in the number of health effects is
obtained.
AHE = 9.5E-4 health effects
A useful quantity is the percent error, which gives an indication of
the relative size of the uncertainty compared to the calculated risk value.
Percent error is defined as
Percent error - Va'"6 x 100%
The number of health effects calculated for the tangerine pathway is
9.06E-3. Therefore, the percent error is approximately 11%. It is believed
resonable to generalize this result to all pathways in Phase III, and say that
the uncertainty in the number of health effects due to contaminated lands is
+ 11%
When protective actions are taken, there will be an additional error
due to uncertainties in the decontamination factors (DF's) of the PA's. The
effect of errors in decontamination factors was not quantified, but is expected
to be small.
Phase IV - Inhalation: For the inhalation pathway, the dose and its
associated uncertainty can be expressed by Equations 5-3 and 5-4, respectively.
The intake function is the product of five quantities - a resuspension factor,
the population density of the neighborhood, the surface area of the neighborhood,
the occupany factor for the population, and the standard ICRP person volumetric
inhalation rate. It is assumed that possible values of these parameters form a
normal distribution whose mean value, y, is the value used in the calculations.
It is also assumed that the possible values range from zero to y, and that 2y is
four standard deviations (4o) from the mean. This implies that the probability
of the value of the parameter falling between zero and 2y is greater than 99%.
This situation is depicted in Figure 6. If the uncertainty is taken to be one
standard deviation from the mean, then the error is 1/4 of y, or + 25% of the
value used in the calculation. These assumptions result in -^- = 1.27.
62
-------
PROBABILITY
oo
0
•4o
Parameter
2y
Aa
Figure 6. Normal Distribution.
-------
The calculated collective doses for the inhalation pathway,
commercial-community use neighborhood, with no protective action, are
Bone: 1.54 person-rem
Liver: 0.353 person-rem
Total Body: 0.319 person-rem
Lung: 911.0 person-rem
G.I.: 3.06 person-rem
The uncertainty in the calculated number of health effects for this
pathway is
AHE = 0.118 health effects
The number of health effect calculated for this pathway is 0.073.
Therefore, the percent error is 162%. Generalizing this result to the other
pathways and property types in Phase IV, it can be said that the uncertainty in
the risk is equal to approximately 1-1/2 times the number of calculated health
effects.
Phase V - Meat Consumption: Equations 5-3 and 5-4 are again valid. For
the meat pathway, the intake function has an exponential dependence. The time
constant is the effective decay constant, combining radiological decay with
biological removal. These decay constants are known with a great degree of
accuracy, so that it is believed reasonable to estimate that AIF = 0. Therefore,
AD
D
Collective doses for the water-meat pathway are
Bone: 1.36E+5 person-rem
Liver: 6.83E+3 person-rem
64
-------
Total Body:
Thyroid:
Kidney:
Lung:
G.I.:
1.86E+4 person-rem
1.27E+4 person-rem
2.30E+5 person-rem
2.99E+1 person-rem
5.78E+6 person-rem
This gives AHE = 12.4 health effects. For this pathway, HE = 13.67
health effects, so the percent error for the risk from contaminated water
supplies is estimated at 91%.
Phase VI - Surface Contamination of Personnel: In Phase VI the only
pathway investigated was the deposition of radionuclides on people. The critical
time sequence was T-| = 1 hour, T2 = 5 hours, T3 = 15 hours.
In Reference 4, the percent error in the dose equivalent due to
contaminated personnel was stated to be approximately 92%. The dose equivalents
calculated were
Bone:
Liver:
Total Body:
Thyroid:
Kidney:
Lung:
G.I.:
Skin:
6.76E+3 person-rem
5.69E+3 person-rem
7.73E+3 person-rem
7.04E+3 person-rem
6.32E+3 person-rem
5.74E+3 person-rem
5.06E+3 person-rem
4.38E+4 person-rem
This gives AHE = 4.84 health effects. For this time sequence, HE = 5.4
health effects, therefore the percent error is 90%.
Phase VII - Chickens: In Reference 5, the percent error in the dose due
to the consumption of chickens which have eaten contaminated feed was stated to
be approximately 50%. The collective doses calculated were
Bone:
Liver:
Total Body:
3.52E-4 person-rem
1.98E-4 person-rem
9.16E-5 person-rem
65
-------
effects.
Kidney: 7.67E-5 person-rem
G.I.: 2.90E-4 person-rem
This results in an uncertainty of 91%; HE = 5.04E-8 _+ 4.57E-9 health
The percent error for each phase are summarized in Table 14.
Table 14. Percent Errors.
Phase III
Phase IV
Phase V
Phase VI
Phase VII
11%
162%
91%
90%
91%
66
-------
REFERENCES
1. V. P. Dura, G. L. Simmons, S. K. Julio, S. P. Meyer, Costs and Effective
ness of Protective Actions for Six Generic Land Types Contaminated with a
Radionuclide Deposition, SAI-77-539-LJ/F, August 1977.
2. S. K. Julin, V. P. Dura, G. L. Simmons, Radiological Dose Assessment and
the Application and Effectiveness of Protective Actions for Major Property
Types Contaminated by a Low-Level Radionuclide Deposition,
SAI-77-883-LJ/F, October 1977.
3. S. P. Finn, V. P. Dura, G. L. Simmons, Protective Actions, Costs and Cost
Effectiveness for Contaminated Hater Supplies, SAI-78-523-LJ/F, August
1978.
4. S. P. Finn, V. P. Dura, G. L. Simmons, Protective Actions, Costs and Cost
Effectiveness for Contaminated Personnel, SAI-78-712-LJ/F, January 1979.
5. S. P. Finn, V. P. Dura, G. L. Simmons, Protective Actions, Costs and Cost
Effectiveness for Contaminated Biota, SAI-78-721-LJ/F, January 1979.
6. "Environmental Radiation Dose Commitment: An Application to the Nuclear
Power Industry," EPA-520/4-73-0021, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C., 1974.
7. "Accidental Radioactive Contamination of Human and Animal Feeds and
Potassium Iodide as a Thyroid-Blocking Agent in a Radiation Emergency,"
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Food and Drug
Administration; in Federal Register, Friday, December, 1978, Part VII.
8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1975, Washington,
D.C., 1976.
9. National Canners Association Research Foundation, Investigation on the
Effects of Preparation and Cooking on the Pesticide Content of Selected
Vegetables, Final Report, May 13. 1965, to November 13, 1967, prepared fot
Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
10. Dennis, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Aerosols, U.S. Energy Research and
Development Administration, TID-26608 (1976).
11. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109 (March 1976).
12. D. L. Brenchley, et al, "Environmental Assessment Methodology for the
Nuclear Fuel Cycle", BNWL-2219, Battelle Notthwest Laboratories, Richland,
Washington, July 1977.
67
-------
13. J. F. Fletcher and W. L. Dotson, HERMES - A Digital Computer Code for
Estimating Regional Radiological Effects from the Nuclear Power Industry,
HEDL-TME-71-168, Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland,
Washington, December 1971.
14. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Reactor Safety Study," WASH-1400,
Washington, D.C., 1975.
15. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection, ICRP Publication 2, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1959.
16. The American Water Works Association, Watei Quality and Treatment,
Third Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.
17. D. L. Bennett, C. R. Bell and I. M. Markwood, Determination of Radium
Removal Efficiencies in Illinois Water Supply Treatment Processes,
Technical Note ORP/TAD-76-2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C., May 1976.
18. R. J. Schliekelman, Determination of Radium Removal Efficiencies in Iowa
Water Supply Treatment Processes, Technical Note ORP/TAD-76-1, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington
D. C., June 1976.
19. Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Response Plan, Unified San Diego County
Emergency Services Organization, 1976.
20. International Committee on Radiological Protection, Principles of
Environmental Monitoring Related to the Handling of Radioactive"
Material, ICRP Publication 7, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1965.
21. Y. Beers, Introduction to the Theory of Error, Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co., Reading, Mass., 1953
22. The Evaluation of Models Used for the Assessment of Radionuclide Releases
to the Environment, ORNL-5382, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Health and
Safety Division, Oak Ridge, TN, 1978.
68
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akimov, N. I. (Ed.), Civil Defense, Ministry of Agriculture, USSR, translated by Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-tr-2306, 1969.
American Public Health Association, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 14th edition, American Water Works Association,WaterPollutionControl
Federation, Washington D.C., 1975.
American Water Works Association, Water Quality and Treatment. 3rd edition, McGraw
Hill Book Company, 1971.
Anno, G. H. and M. A. Dore, "The Effectiveness of Sheltering as a Protective
Measure Against Nuclear Accidents Involving Gaseous Releases," PSR Report 515,
Pacific-Sierra Research Corp., Santa Monica, California, December 1975.
Anno, G. H. and M. A. Dore, "Evacuation and Sheltering as Protective Measures
Against Nuclear Accidents Involving Gaseous Releases", PSR Report 517, Pacific-Sierra
Research Corp., Santa Monica, California, December 1975.
Applebaun, S. B., Demineralization by Ion Exchange, Academic Press, New York, 1968.
Ayres, J. A. (Ed.), Decontamination of Nuclear Reactors and Equipment, The Ronald
Press Co., New York, 1970.
Beers, Y., Introduction to the Theory of Error. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.,
Reading, Mass., 1953.
Bennett, D. L., C. R. Bell and I. M. Markwood, Determination of Radium Removal
Efficiencies in Illinois Water Supply Treatment Process, Technical Note ORP/TAD-76-2,
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation
Programs, Washington, D.C., May 1976.
Bevis, H. A., "Significance of Radioactivity in Water Supply and Treatment", Journal
American Water Works Association, 52, No. 7, 1960.
Booth, R. S. et al, "Dynamics of the Forage-Cow-Milk Pathway for Transfer of
Radioactive Iodine, Strontium, and Cesium to Man," ANS Topical Meeting on Nuclear
Methods in Environmental Research, August 23-24, 1971.
Brenchley, D. L. et al, "Environmental Assessment Methodology for the Nuclear Fuel
Cycle", BNWL-2219. Battelle Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, July 1977.
Chamberlain, A. C., "Interception and Retention of Radioactive Aerosols by
Vegetation", Atmospheric Environment. 4, 1970.
69
-------
Chamberlain, A. C. and R. C. Chadwick, Transport of Iodine from Atmosphere to
Ground, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, Report AERE-R 4870, 1965.
Chemical Rubleer Company, Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 51st edition, 1970.
Chester, C. V. and C. H. Kearny (Ed.), Chinese Civil Defense. ORNL-tr-4171, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 1977.
Ciaccio, L. L. (Ed.), Water and Water Pollution Handbook, Volume 4, Marcel Dekker,
Inc., New York, 1973.
Cline, J. F. and W. H. Rickard, "Radioactive Strontium and Cesium in Cultivated
and Abandoned Field Plots", Health Physics, 23, 1972.
r
Clough, "R. H., "Construction Contracting", Wiley-Interscience, Divison of John Wiley
&Sons, New York, 1969.
Cobb, F. C. and R. L. Van Hemert, Source Book on Plutonuim and Its Decontamina-
tion. DNA-3272T, Defense Nuclear Agency, Kirtland Air Force Base, NM, 1973.
Dennis, R. (Ed.), Handbook of Aerosols. U.S. Energy Research and Development
Administration, TID-26608, 1976.
Dick, J. L. and T. P. Baker, Jr., Monitoring and Decontamination Techniques for
Plutonium Fallout on Large Area Surfaces, OPERATION PLUMBOB", Report WT-1512, DASA,
Sandia Base NM, DDC AD# 8103, March 1967.
Dura, V. P., G. L. Simmons, S. P. Meyer, Costs and Effectiveness of Protective
Actions for Wheat Crops Contaminated with Sr-90, SAI-76-652-LJ/F, Science
Applications, Inc., La Jolla, CA, September 1976.
Dura, V. P., G. L. Simmons, S. K. Julin, S. P. Meyer, Costs and Effectiveness
of Protective Actions for Six Generic Land Types Contaminated with a Radio nuclide
Deposition. SAI-77-539-LJ/F. Science Applications. Inc.. La Jolla. CA. August. 1977.
Eliassen, R. et al, "Studies on Radioisotope Removal by Water Treatment Processes",
Journal American Water Works Association, 43, No. 8, 1951.
Energy Resources Company, Inc., Economic Evaluation of the Promulgated Interim Primary
Drinking Water Regulations. EPA-570/9-75-003, Cambridge, MA, October 1975.
Feitknecht, W. and P. Schindler, "Solubility Constants of Metal Hydioxides and Metal
Hydroxide Salts in Aqueous Solutions", Pure and Applied Chemistry. 6, 1963.
Finn, S. P., V. P. Dura, G. L. Simmons, Protective Actions. Costs and Cost'
Effectiveness for Contaminated Water Supplies. SAI-78-523-LJ/F, Science Applications,
Inc., La Jolla, CA, August 1978.
Finn, S. P., V. P. Dura, G. L. Simmons, Protective Actions, Costs and Cost
Effectiveness for Contaminated Personnel. SAI-78-712-LJ/F, Science Applications, Inc.,5
La Jolla, CA, January 1979.
70
-------
Finn, S. P., V. P. Dura, G. L. Simmons, Protective Actions,Costs and Cost
Effectiveness for Contaminated Biota. SAI-78-721-LJ/F, Science Applications, Inc., La
Jolla, CA, January 1979.
Fletcher, J. F. and W. L. Dotson, HERMES - A Digital Computer Code for Estimating
Regional Radiological Effects from the Nuclear Power Industry. HEDL-TME- 71-168,
Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory, Richland, WA, December 1971.
Garner, R. J., Health Physics. _9, pp. 597-605, 1973.
Grune, W. N., D. A. Kearns, and H. S. Atlas, Evaluation of Fallout Contamination
from Surface Runoff, TRC-69-7, Division of Engineering, Merrimack College, North
Andover, MA, 1969.
Houston, J. R., D. L. Strenge, E. C. Watson, DACRIN - A Computer Program for
Calculating Organ Dose from Acute or Chronic Radionuclide Inhalation, Battelle
Memorial Institute, December 1974.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, Recommendations of the
International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 2, Pergamon
Press, Oxford, 1959.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, Principles of
Environmental Monitoring Related to the Handling of Radioactive Materials!ICRP
Publication 7, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1965.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 10. Pergamon Press,
New York.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, Report of the Task Group on
Reference Man. ICRP Publication 23, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1974.
International Commission on Radiological Protection, "Task Group on Lung Dynamics for
Committee II of the ICRP", Health Physics. 12., 1966.
Julin, S. K. V. P. Dura, G. L. Simmons, Radiological Dose Assessment and the
Application and Effectiveness of Protective Actions for Major Property Types
Contaminated by a Low-Level Radionuclide Deposition.SAI-77-883-LJ/F,Science
Applications, Inc.. La Jolla, CA, October 1977.
Killough, G. G. and L. R. McKay, A Methodology for Calculating Radiation Doses
from Radioactivity Released to the Environment. ORNL-4992, Oak Ridge national
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, March 1976.
Killough, G. G., P. S. Rohwer, W. D. Turner, INREM - A Fortran Code which
Implements ICRP 2 Models of Internal Radiation Dose to Man. ORNL-5003, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, February 1975.
Kocher D. C., Nuclear Decay Data for Radionuclides Occurring in Routine Releases
from Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities. ORNL/NUREG/TM-102, August 1977.
Krieger, H. L. and F. J. Burmann, "Effective Half-Times of 85Sr and 134Cs for a
Contaminated Pasture", Health Physics. 17..
71
-------
Landham, W. H., "Biological Considerations of Non-Nuclear Incidents Involving Nuclear
Warheads", UCRL-50639. University of California - Livermore, Livermore, CA, 1969.
Lauderdale, R. A. and A. H. Emmons, "A Method for Decontaminating Small Volumes of
Radioactive Water". Journal American Water Works Association, 43, No. 5, 1951.
Lindberg, R. G. et al, U. S. Atomic Energy Document WT-1177, 1959.
Martin, J. H., W. H. Leonard, D. L. Stamp, Principles of Field Crop Prduction.
Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1976.
Martin, R.O.R. and R. L. Hanson, Reservoirs in the United States. Geological
Water-Supply Paper 1838, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1966.
Martin, W. E., "Losses of 90Sr, 89Sr, and 131I from Fallout-Contaminated Plants",
Radiation Botany, 4, 1964.
McCutchan, J. W. and J. S. Johnson, "Reverse Osmosis at Coalling, California",
Journal American Water Works Association, 62, No. 6, 1970.
Menzel, R. G., "Foliar Retention of Sr90 by Wheat", Science, 134. August 1961.
Menzel, R. G., "Factors Influencing the Biological Availability of Radionuclides for
Plants", Fed. Am. Soc. Exptl. Biol. Proc. 22, 1963.
Middleton, L. J., "Radioisotopes in Plants: Practical Aspects of Aerial Contamination
with Strontuim-90 and Cesium-137", in Radioisotopes in the Biosphere. R. S.
Caldecott and L. A. Snyder, Eds., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1960.
Milbourn, G. M. and R. Taylor, "The Contamination of Grassland with Radioactive
Strontium. I. Initial Retention and Loss", Radiation Botany. 5^, 1965.
Miller, C. F., "The Retention by Foliage of Silicate Particles Ejected from the
Volcano Irazu in Costa Rica", in Proc. International Symposium, Radioecological
Concentration Processes, Stockholm, Perganon Press, Oxford, 1966.
Moore, D. H., "Greenfield, Iowa, Reverse Osmosis Desalting Plant", Journal American
Uater Works Association. 64. No. 11, 1972.
Moore, R. E., The AIRDOS-II Computer Code for Estimating Radiation Dose to Man from
Airborne Radionuclides in Areas Surrounding Nuclear Facilities, ORNL- 5245, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, April 1977.
Moselle, G. (Ed.), National Construction Estimator, 17th edition, Craftsman Book
Company, Los Angeles, 1970.
Nachod, F. C. and J. Shubert (Eds.). Ion Exhange Technology, Academic Press, Inc.,
New York, 1956.
National Canners Association Research Foundation, Investigation On the Effects of
Preparation and Cooking on the Pesticide Residue Content of Selected Vegetables. Final
Report, May 13. 1965 to November 13, 1967, prepared for Agricultural Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
72
-------
Newspaper Enterprise Associates, inc., The World Almanac of Facts. 1977, New York,
Ng, Y. C. et al , Prediction of the Maximum Dosage to Man from the Fallout of Nuclear
Devices. Part IV, UCRL-50163, Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. Lawrence, CA, May 1968.
Ng, Y. C. and H. A. Twes, "Radionuclide Body Burdens and Hazards from Ingestion of
Foodstuffs Contaminated by Fallout", in Survival of Food Crops and Livestock in the
Event of Nuclear War. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C., December 1971.
Nishita, H., E. M. Romney, K. H. Larson, Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 9, 2.
March-April 1961. -
Nosek, J. and V. Chmelar, "On the Present Possibilities of Washing Radioactive
Substances off the Skin of Animals", Health Physics. £, 1959.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Health and Safety Division, The Evaluation of Models
used for the Assessment of Radionuclide Releases to the Environment. ORNL-5382, Oak
Ridge, TN, 1978.
Owen, W. L., W. C. Cobbin, and W. E. Shelbert, Radiological Reclamation
Peformance Survey, Vol II, USNRDL-TR-68-71.
Pelletier, C. A. and J. D. Zimbrick, "Kinetics of Environmental Radionuclide
Transport Through the Milk-Food Chain", in Proc. Symp. Environmental Surveillance in
the Vicinity of Nuclear Facilities, January 24-26, 1968, Augusta, GA.
Perry. R. H. and C. H. Chi 1 ton (Eds.), Chemical Engineers Handbook, 5th edition,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1973.
Pulver, H. E., Construction Estimates and Costs, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York,
1947.
Richardson, Allan C. B., "The Historical Development of Concepts of Radiation Dose
Commitment," Office of Radiation Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D. C.
Ritchie, J. C. et al , "Distribution of Cesium-137 in A Small Watershed in Northern
Mississippi", Third National Symposium of Radioecology, Oak Ridge, TN, 1971.
Russell, R. S. (Ed.), Radioactivity and Human Diet, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1966.
Schliekelman, R. J., Determination of Radium Removal Efficiencies in Iowa Water
Supply Treatment Processes. Technical Note ORP/TAD-76-1, U.S. EPA Office of Radiation
Programs, Washington, D.C., June 1976.
Sears, Roebuck and Company Catalog, Fall/Winter 1978, Los Angeles Catalog Merchandise
Distribution Center, Los Angeles, CA.
Sienko, M. J. and R. A. Plane, Chemistry: Principles and Properties. McGraw- Hill
Book Co., New York, 1966.
Snyder, W. S. et al , A Tabulation of Dose Equivalent per Microcurie - Day for Source
an(j Target Organs of an Adult for Various Radionuclides, ORNL-5000, Oak Ridge, TN,
November i^HT.
73
-------
Squire, H. M. and L. J. Middleton, "Behavior of 137Cs in Soils and Pastures: A
Long-Term Experiment", Radiation Botany, 6, 1966.
Unified San Diego County Emergency Services Organization, Nuclear Power Plant
Emergency Response Plan, 1976.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCAR), Vol.
1: Levels, United Nations Publication, New York, 1972.
U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Center, Decontamination of
Water Containing Radiological Warfare Agents, Report 2136, Fort Belvoir, VA, March
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, ALAP-LWR Effluents, Final Environmental Statement,
WASH-1258, Washington, D.C., July 1973.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, ALAP-LWR Effluents, Draft Regulatory Guides for
Implementation, Docket No. RM-50-2, Washington, D.C., February 20, 1974.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Proposed Final Environmental Statement. Liquid Metal
Fast Breeder Reactor Program, WASH-1535, December, 1974.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1975. U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1976.
U.S. Department of the Army, Office of Chief of Engineers, National Program of
Inspection of Dams, May 1975.
U.S. Department of Commerce, "Control and Removal of Radioactive Contamination in
Laboratories", National Bureau of Standards Handbook 48, December 1951.
U.S. Department of Commerce, "Safe Handling of Radioactive Materials", National
Bureau of Standards Handbook 92, March 1964.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstracts of the United
States: 1973. 94th edition, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. Statistical Abstracts of the United
States: 1976, 97th edition, Washington, D.C., 1976.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Food and Drug Administration,
"Accidental Radioactive Contamination of Human and Animal Feeds and Potassuim Iodide
as a Thyroid-Blocking Agent in a Radioation Emergency", in Federal Register, Friday,
December 15, 1978, Part VII.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
Radiological Health Handbook, Rev. Ed., January 1970.
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, "Outdoor Radiation: A
Legacy for America", December 1973.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistice, Wholesale Prices and Price^
Indices^ Washington, D.C.
74
-------
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Final Environmental Statement.
Light Hater Breeder Reactor Program. ERDA-1541, Washington, D.C., June 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Environmental
Radiation Dose Commitment: An Application to the Nuclear Power Industry",
EPA-520/4-73-0021, Washington, D.C., 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Interim
Radiochemical Methodology for Drinking Water. EPA-600/4-75-008 (Revised),
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, March 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Costs of
Radium Removal from Potable Water Supplies. EPA-600/2-77-073 Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, April 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Supply, National Interim
Primary Drinking Water Regulations, EPA-570/9-76-003, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study. WASH-1400, Washington,
D.C., 1975.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.109, March 1976.
Van der Leeden, F., Water Resources of the World, Selected Statistics. Water
Information Center, Inc., Port Washington, NY, 1975.
David Volkert and Associates, Monograph of the Effectiveness and Cost of Water
Treatment Processes for the Removal of Specific Contaminants. PB-248-588, Bethesda,
MD, August 1974.
Wass, A., Building Construction Estimating, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1970.
Werner and Pfliderer Corp., "Radwaste Volume Reduction and Solidification Cost
Analysis", Waldwick, NJ.
Witherspoon, J. P. and F. G. Taylor, Jr., "Interception and Retention of Simulated
Fallout by Agricultural Plants", Health Physics, 19, 1970.
Woodroof, J. G. and B. S. Luh, Commercial Fruit Processing. Avi Publishing Co.,
Westport, CT, 1975.
75
-------
APPENDIX A
Al
-------
WHEAT
RYE
RICE
CORN
OATS
BARLEY
TOMATOES
BEANS
SPINACH
BROCCOLI
POTATOES
APPLES
APRICOTS
ORANGES
GRAPEFRUIT
LEMONS
TANGERINES
GRAPES
PEACHES
PEARS
REC.LAND
MILK
BEEF
10'
'7
@
II
10'
'6
ID'
'5
10'
'4
ID'
10'
,-2
HEALTH EFFECTS PER 100 HECTARES
Figure A-la.
Health Effects with No PA for Pathway Component?;
of Contaminated Land Types.
A3
-------
0.010
PATHWAY COMPONENT: TANGERINES
0.009
o.ooe
0.007
< 0.006
CO
u
<
LLJ
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
PA 4 PA 3 PA 5
PAG
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
OR LESS
10J 10H
COST OF P.A. ($1000)
10a
Figure A-lb.
Critical Pathway Component for
Contaminated Land Types.
A4
-------
10'2 pr-
10'3 =-
10'4 r-
10'G =-
10
10'1
n-5
,-7 —
I I I I I I II
LEGEND
O= GRAINS
A= VEGETABLES
B* FRUITS
• = REC. LAND
0- BEEF
V- MILK
I III Mill I I I I I I III
10'
103
COST OF P. A. ($1000)
10"
103
Figure A-lc.
Protective Actions for Pathway Components of
Contaminated Land Types.
A5
-------
10'
10
,2
10''
ej
UJ
X
ec
UJ
a.
in
I D
10'
10' E~ LEGEND
D- SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL
O* MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL
A« COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE
m* URBAN/SUBURBAN REC. USE
-7 I I I I I I
10
I
INHALATION
SURFACE SHIRE
PATHWAY
AIR IMMERSION
Figure A-2a.
Health Effects with No PA for
Contaminated Property Types.
A6
-------
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.07
PATHWAY: INHALATION - COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE
0.00
10°
OR LESS
PA 2
PAS
10*
COST OF P. A. ($1000)
10°
Figure A-2b.
Critical Pathway for Contaminated
Property Types.
A7
-------
INHALATION
SURFACE
SHINE
O- SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL
A* MULTIPLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL
D= COMMERCIAL/COMMUNITY USE
• = URBAN/SUBURBAN REC. USE
AIR
IMMERSION
I I I I I I I I I
10"
10s
COST OF P. A. ($1000)
Figure A-2c.
Protective Actions for Contaminated
Property Types.
A8
-------
10
10'
o
V)
§
£ 10°
10"
10
,2
®
O A
®
®
LEGEND
D- BASE PLANT
O- PLANT NO. 1
A* PLANT NO. 2
• » 'PLANT NO. 3
®» OTHER COMPONENTS
I
I
I
I
I
RESERVOIR WATER
TURNOVER RATE 2 YR-1
RIVER WATER
PATHWAY COMPONENT
MEAT MILK
IRRIGATED
VEG
LEAFY
VEG
Figure A-3a.
Health Effects with No PA for Pathway Components
of Contaminated Water Supplies.
A9
-------
15.0
13.5
PATHWAY COMPONENT: MEAT
PA 5 PA 6
PA 7
I I I I Mill I I i I Hill I I I I I Mil I I I I I Illl
10J
OR LESS
10"
10°
COST OF P. A. (S)
10°
10'
Figure A-3b.
Critical Pathway Component for
Contaminated Water Supplies.
A10
-------
10' f=
10
10
1 _
oc
Ul
>
ID'2 ~
10
10
,-4
10
,-5
3 —
B
LEGEND
RES. WATER, BASE PLANT
PLANT =1
PLANT =2
PLANT-3
RIVER WATER, PLANT =1
PLANT =2
PLANT =3
MEAT
MILK
IRRIGATED VEG.
IRRIGATED LEAFY VEG.
i i mill i M in
10"
OR LESS
10'
10"
10'
COST OF P. A. ($1000)
Figure A-3c. Protective Actions for Pathway Components
of Contaminated Water Supplies.
All
-------
6.0
5.0
£ 4.0
o
3.0
V)
u
x
K-
2.0
1.0
0.0
«> ••
1,2,3 1,2,6 1,2,12 1,5,6 1,5,9 1,5,15 4,5,6 4,5,9 4,5,15 4,8,9 4,8.12 4,8,18
TIME SEQUENCE (T1, T2, T3) (MRS)
Figure A-4a.
Health Effects with No PA for
Contaminated Personnel.
A12
-------
QC
LU
>
6.0
S.S
S.O
4.5
4.0
3.5
a 3.0
< 2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
TIME SEQUENCE: T1 « 1, T2 « 5. T3 = 15 (MRS)
0.0 50.0 100.0
150.0 200.0 250.0
COST OF P.A. ($100,000)
PA 3
PA 4
350.0 400.0
Figure A-4b.
Critical Pathway Component for
Contaminated Personnel.
A13
-------
6.0 i—
5.0 —
0.0
LEGEND
O • T1 » 1 HR, T2 « 5 MRS, T3 « 15 MRS
A- T1 - 4 HRS, T2 - 5 HRS, T3 - 6 MRS
50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0
COST OF P. A. ($100,000)
Figure A-4c.
Protective Actions for
Contaminated Personnel.
AT 4
-------
10
-7
®
®
V)
ts
cc 10'8
10
•9
HOGS SHEEP
PATHWAY COMPONENTS
TURKEYS
CHICKENS
Figure A-5a,
Health Effects with No PA for Pathway
Components of Contaminated Biota.
A15
-------
10
•7
a
LJJ
I-
cc
ui
>
c/j
u
LU
u. in-8
a. 10
10
,-9
- PATHWAY COMPONENT: CHICKENS
10
-2
10
10U
PA 6
I I
10'
OR LESS
COST OF P. A. ($)
Figure A-5b.
Critical Pathway Component for
Contaminated Biota.
A16
-------
to'7 p
LEGEND
O= HOGS
A» SHEEP
TURKEYS
CHICKENS
1 I I Mill I I I I Mill I I I I ll|||
OR LESS
COST OF P. A. ($)
Figure A-5c,
Protective Actions for Pathway
Components of Contaminated Biota.
A17
-------
DISTRIBUTION
Organization Copies
Authors 10
ORP Library (ORP Publications Branch) 20
State Radiological Health Programs 60
EPA Regional Radiological Representatives 20
Eastern Environmental Radiation Facility 5
ORP/Las Vegas 5
Environmental Monitoring & Support Laboratory,
Las Vegas 5
Emergency Preparedness Branch, SEPD, ORP 5
NRC State Relations Branch 10
FEMA 25
RTP Library 10
FDA 10
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations 10
Mills 1
Galpin 1
Amato 1
Galley 1
Logsdon 1
SEPD Director 1
ORNL/NSIC 2
ACRS 10
EPA Division of Water Quality, A-131 2
EPA ORIGO, A-101 2
DOE, EOC 2
FAA, Dot, A-300 3
NTIS 12
Total 234
------- |