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
                  
-------