Statement of Basis and Purpose
for the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations
RftDIONUCLIDES .
July 9, 1976
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Office of Radiation Programs
Criteria and Standards Division
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS '19710
Introduction 1
• General Considerations 2
Health Risk from Radionuclides in Drinking Water 7
The Control of Radium in Public Water Systems 13
National Cost for Radium Removal 15
Impact of Maximum Contaminant Levels for Man-made Radionuclides 19
Monitoring for Radioactivity in Community Water Systems 21
Monitoring Costs for Radium and Alpha Particle Activity 25
Monitoring Costs for Man-made Radioactivity 29
Appendix I - Policy Statement, "Relationship Between
Radiation Dose and Effect" 32
Appendix II - Environmental Data on Radioactivity in
• Community Water Systems Systems 37
A. Gross Beta, Gross Alpha, Strontium-90,
Radium-226 and Specific Gamma Activity 47
. v
B. Tritium in Drinking Water 59
Appendix III - Definitions used in the Proposed Regulations 63
Appendix IV - Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Radium Removal 66
Appendix V - Risk to Health from Internal Emitters 72
A. The Dose and Health Risk from
Radium Ingestion 72
B. The Relative Health Risk of Radium-228
as Compared to Radium-226 75
Appendix VI - Dosimetric Calculations for
Man-Made Radioactivity 80
A. Calculations Based on IffiS Handbook 69 80
-------
B. The Dose from Tritium and Strontium-90 in
Drinking Water 83
C. Average Annual Concentrations Yielding 4 Millirem Per
Year for Two Liter Daily Intake 86
(Table VI-2}.." 87
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Safe Drinking Water Act directs the Administrator to set
interim primary standards for drinking water that "shall protect
health to the extent feasible, using technology, treatment
techniques and other means, which the Administrator determines
are generally available (taking costs into consideration)." The
cost considerations referred to are limited to treatment
techniques and other means which are under the control of the
water supplier. The Agency believes that the establishment of
maximum contaminant levels for radioactivity(1) will protect
health to the extent feasible and aid achievement of the national
goal of safe drinking water.
-------
General Considerations
In determining maximum contaminant levels for radioactivity
in drinking water the Agency has given consideration to several
important factors including the diversity of sources causing
radioactivity to be present in drinking water. Radioactivity in
public water systems may be broadly categorized as naturally
occurring or man-made. Radium-226 is the most important of the
naturally occurring radionuclides likely to occur in public water
systems. Although radium may occassionally be found in surface
water due to man's activities, it is usually found only in ground
water where it is the result of geological conditions, not
subject to control. In contrast to radium, man-made
radioactivity is ubiquitous in surface water because of fallout
• ,
radioactivity from nuclear weapons testing. In some localities
this radioactivity is increased by small releases from nuclear
facilities (such as nuclear power plants), hospitals, and
scientific and industrial users of radioactive materials. The
Agency recognizes that for both man-made and naturally occurring
radioactivity a wide range of both controllable and
uncontrollable sources can influence the concentration of
radioactivity in water served by public systems.
Variability in the quality of source waters is not unique
f
for radioactive contaminants; other contaminants in drinking
water also differ widely in their occurrence. What is unique, at
the present time/ is that, for radioactivity, limits to protect
-------
public health can not be based on some proven harmless intake of
radioactive material. Rather/ maximum contaminant levels for
•
radioactivity are based on the assumption that there is no
harmless level of dose from ionizing radiation and that any
detrimental effects on health produced by the radiation will be
proportional to the dose equivalent delivered by the
radioactivity in drinking water.
The Agency recognizes that for the low doses and dose rates
expected from intakes of drinking water, the risk to am
individual is small and that the potential health effects
*
associated with the risk are no different in the types of
diseases manifested spontaneously, representing in fact only
small potential increases in the normal incidences in these
diseases. The Agency also recognizes that the number of health
effects caused by ionizing radiation at very low doses and dose
rates is presently unknown and unlikely to be quantified more
precisely in the immediate future. Therefore, the Environmental
Protection Agency has adopted a prudent policy which assumes that
any dose of ionizing radiation may produce potential harmful
effects to human health and that the extent of such harm can be
estimated from effects that have been observed at higher doses
and dose rates than are likely to be encountered from
environmental sources of radiation. Acceptance of this policy by
the Agency cannot be based solely on the scientific evidence but
must include an operational judgement, for practical reasons, in
-------
applying present knowledge to the establishment of standards. A
more detailed statement of this policy on the the relationship
between radiation dose and effects is reprinted in Appendix I.
Depending on the circumstances of the exposure/ risks from
ionizing radiation may or may not be accompanied by an offsetting
benefit. In the case of radium contaminated ground water there
is no benefit per se from the geological processes causing the
radiocontamination. On the other hand, man-made radioactivity in
public water supply systems may be deliberate due to man's use of
nuclear energy to produce electric power, or to his use of
radionuclides in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases or
research and industrial applications. Balancing the risks and
benefits from these activities and specifying appropriate
controls for the resultant liquid effluent waste streams is
required by other Federal statutes. The Administrator is limited
under the Safe Drinking Water Act to regulating the water
supplier. However, the Interim Regulations for radioactivity
take full account of the fact that control regulations
established under authority of the Atomic Energy Act as amended
(PL 83-703) and Environmental Protection Standards proposed under
this Act by EPA (Radiation Protection for Nuclear Power Reactors,
40PR 23420, May 29, 1975) as well as Federal Radiation Council
Guides are intended to limit liquid radioactive discharges into
surface waters to the extent practicable.
-------
In addition to man-made radioactivity in drinking water due
to effluents from nuclear facilities, surface waters may contain
radioactive materials from aerial effluent releases and from
nuclear weapons testing. The residual radioactivity in surface
waters from fallout due to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing is
mainly strontium-90 and tritium/ the former being the more
important in health considerations. Current data on the impact
of fallout strontium-90 on public water supplies is incomplete.
However, the available data (Appendix II) indicate strontium-90
concentrations are about 1 pCi per liter, corresponding to a dose
•
equivalent to bone marrow of less than 1/2 mrem annually.*
Tritium concentrations in surface water rarely exceed 1000 pCi
per liter, corresponding to a dose equivalent of less than 0.2
millirem per year.
Unplanned releases of radioactive materials are another
source of possible contamination. It is not anticipated that the
proposed maximum contaminant levels for radioactivity would apply
to transient situations such as might follow a major
contaminating event. In accident situations' it is necessary to
balance, on a case-by-case basis, the potential risk from
radiation exposure against the practicality and consequences of
any remedial measures taken to ameliorate that risk. In such
situations Federal guidance as•promulgated in the Federal
^Definitions of units and terms used in the proposed regulations
are given in Appendix III; dosimetry calculations in Appendix VI,
-------
Register Notices of August 22, 1964 and May 22, 1965 will apply
and the emergency plans of the States, as provided for in Section
1413 (A)(5) of the Safe Drinking Water Act should reflect this
Federal Guidance.
Radium in drinking water is primarily a problem of the
smaller public water systems. About 40 percent of the U. S.
population is served by 243 regional systems supplying large
metropolitan areas. Yet, most of the nation's 40,000 cocsnunity
water systems serve less than 500 persons. In general, the large
regional systems utilize surface water which on the whole
contains very low concentrations of radium. Small supplies
commonly use ground water, water which in some cases may contain
radium. Therefore, the impact of iMxiiman contaminant levels for
radium is more likely to fall on small supply systems which
generally have limited resources. Although one of the intentions
of the Safe Drinking Water Act is to encourage the
regionalization of these small systems, the availability of local
resources for the control and monitoring of radioactivity has
been of concern to the Agency. This concern 'is balanced by the
belief that the identification of an atypical radium
concentration and the introduction of its control is a direct
benefit to the user population. This benefit is a reduction in
any health risks due to radium in drinking water.
-------
Health Risks From Radionuclides in Drinking Water
Risk estimates from total body and to a lesser extent
partial body exposure have been made using data published in the
NAS-BEIR Report (National Academy of Sciences Report of the
Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing
Radiation)(2). Such estimates are based on the likely
conservative/ but nevertheless prudent assumption that the
radiation effects are linearly proportional to the dose* and that
the number of cancers per rem that have been observed at high
doses and dose rates is a practical predictor of the effects per
rem at the low doses and dose rates encountered from
environmental sources of radiation. The degree of conservatism
in such an approach has not been documented but it is likely to
be less for ingested alpha particle emitting radionuclides than
for those man-made sources of radioactivity which decay by beta
and gamma ray emission.
The NAS-BEIR risk estimates-are for the U. S. population in
the year 1967. For an exposed group having the same age
distribution, the individual risk of a fatal cancer from a
lifetime total body dose rate* of 10 mrem per year ranges from
about 1 to 5 x 10~6 per year depending on whether an absolute or
relative risk model is used.** The NAS-BEIR Committee does not
*For the purpose of this statement "dose" means "dose equivalent"
as defined in Appendix III.
**Absolute risk estimates are based on the reported number of
cancer deaths per rad; relative risk estimates, on the percentage
increase in cancer mortality per rad.
-------
choose between these two models but their "most likely estimates"
correspond to an average of the absolute and relative risk
estimate i.e., about twice the absolute risk. For fatal cancer
induction an individual risk of 2 x 10~6 per year from a 10 mrem.
annual total body dose is believed to be a reasonable estimate of
risk. The estimated total cancer impact from a life time total
body exposure exceeds that for fatal cancer alone. The NAS-BEIR
Committee estimates that the total of both fatal and non-fatal
cancers would be a factor of two larger (2). The incidence of
genetic effects is more difficult to estimate; but the increase,
expressed over several generations, would be comparable to the
increased incidence of fatal cancer (2).
The estimated risks of a fatal cancer due to a lifetime
exposure of ionizing radiation can be compared to the risk
without additional radiation by normalizing the NAS-BEIR data for
the 1967 population in terms of a single individual's exposure
history. Based on U. S. Vital Statistics, C 3) the probability
that an individual will die of cancer is about 0.19. This
probability may be increased by 0.1% from a lifetime dose
equivalent rate of 15 mrem per year. Maximum contaminant levels
for man-made beta and photon emitters limit the dose equivalent
from the drinking water pathway to 4 mrem per year, corresponding
to a lifetime risk increase of 0.025%.
For partial body irradiation, which is not uncommon for
ingested radionuclides since the radioactivity may be largely
-------
concentrated in a particular organ or group of organs, the
estimated risk is somewhat less than for total body exposure
where all organs are irradiated. For example, the estimated
thyroid cancer incidence rate from the thyroid gland receiving 10
mrem per year continuously ranges from about .5 to 1.3 per year
per million exposed persons (averaged over all age groups).
Fatality due to thyroid cancers varies with age, from nearly zero
for children and young adults to about 20 percent of the
incidence for persons well past middle age. Although it is noted
that estimated fatalities from thyroid exposure are at least five
times less than that from whole body exposure, other factors
bearing on the health impact are significant.
The incidence in thyroid tissue of non-cancerous neoplasm,
(benign nodules), following radiation exposures is much higher
than the incidence of thyroid cancers, particularly in the young
(2). Since the most likely treatment for such nodules is severe,
•
thyroidectomy, the medical consequences are underestimated by a
consideration of cancers only. In addition, there is clinical
evidence that the young appear to be particularly susceptible to
radiation induced cancer of the thyroid, perhaps by as much as a
factor of 10 (2,3). While'it is appropriate to calculate risks
due to the dose permitted by an ambient standard on the basis of
the average risk throughout life and not just childhood alone, as
in the Interim Regulations, the Agency recognizes a need for some
-------
10
conservatism where the major impact of the allowed radiation may
fall on a particular subgroup.
Radium locates primarily in bone where 80 to 85 percent of
the ingested radium is deposited. However/ other organs are also
irradiated to a lesser extent and the total health risk from
radium ingestion has been estimated by summing the dose and
resultant risk from all organs, Appendix V. Risk estimates
derived from the BEIR Report (2) indicate that continuous
consumption of drinking water containing radium-226 or radium-228
at the proposed maximum contaminant level may cause between 0.7
and 3 cancers per year per million exposed persons. Almost all
of these cancers would probably be fatal. Although the maximum
contaminant level for radium is much nearer Federal Radiation .
Council guides than the limit for man-made radioactivity, see
below, the estimated risks from maximum contaminant levels for
radium and for man-made radioactivity are nearly the same.
While it is incorrect to speak of safety factors in
radiation standards, since only in the complete absence of
radiation can any effects be avoided completely, some perspective
may be gained by comparing the dose due* to drinking water at
«mxJ|.Tm.'n" contaminant levels to dose levels established for
population groups by the Federal Radiation Council (4). The
radiation protection guide for all sources of total body exposure
except radiation received for medical purposes and that due to
-------
11
natural background is 170 millirem per year. At this dose rate
effects are not expected to be necessarily non-existent but
rather non-detectable, except perhaps by rigorous statistical
analysis involving a large exposed population. The annual dose
allowed by the proposed maximum contaminant levels for man-made
radionuclides is over forty times smaller (4 millirem vis-a-vis
170 millirem) for a single exposure pathway, drinking water.
Similarly, in the case of radium-226, Federal Guides for total
ingestion recommend that the daily intake not exceed to 20 pCi,*
twice that allowed by the maximum contaminant level, 5 pCi/1 and
an intake of 2 liters per day.
In addition to the maximum contaminant level for radium-226
and radium-228 of 5 pCi/1, the Interim Regulations specify a
maximum contaminant level for gross alpha particle activity of 15
pCi/1, including radium-226.* A limit is placed on gross alpha
particle activity rather than each alpha particle emitting -
radionuclide individually since it is impractical at the present
time to require identification of all alpha particle emitting
radionuclides because of analytical costs.
The maximum contaminant level for gross alpha particle
activity is based on a consideration of the radiotoxicity of
other alpha particle emitting contaminants relative to radium.
The 15 pCi per liter gross alpha particle limit (which includes
*0pper limit of Range II (5).
**Radium-228 is a beta particle emitter.
-------
12
radium-226) is based on the conservative assumption that if the
radium concentration is 5 pCi/1 and the balance of the alpha
particle activity is due to the next cest radiotoxic alpha
particle emitting chain, starting with lead-210, the total dose
to bone would be equivalent to less than 6 pCi/1 of radium-226
(6).
It should be noted that as stated in Section 141.15(b) in
the Interim Regulations* the maximum contaminant level for gross
alpha particle activity does not include any uranium or radon
that may be present in the sample. The Agency may consider
proposing maximum contaminant levels for these radionuclides at a
later date after determining the national need for such
regulations, the .cost of water treatment to remove these
radionuclides and their dosimetry and potential for causing
adverse health effects.
-------
13
The Control of Radium in Public Water Systems
In contrast to man-made radioactivity, for which the
environmental impact is controlled by a number of regulatory
agencies, the abatement of radium radioactivity in drinking water
has received little attention. Therefore, radium contamination
of drinking water is often of more concern from a regulatory
standpoint than that due to man-made radioactivity. Radium-226
is distributed widely in the U. S., and is found frequently in
ground water, particularly in the midwestem and Rocky Mountain
States. (In a comparatively few cases radium-228, a beta emitter
having a chain of daughter radionuclides which decay by alpha
particle emission, like radium-226, is also present.) Unlike the
situation for ground water/ radium is infrequently found in any
appreciable quantity in U. S. surface waters. In most of the
public supply systems utilizing surface water the radium content
is extremely low, less than 0.1 pCi per liter. In contrast to
surface waters the concentration of radium in ground waters used
by public supply systems can be appreciable, concentrations as
large as 50 pCi per liter (7) have been reported and perhaps as
many as 500 community water systems supply water that exceeds 5
pCi per liter.
Several remedial measures are applicable to radium control.
In some instances it should be possible to utilize surface or
other ground water sources containing less radium. Dilution with
less radioactive waters is an acceptable abatement technique for
-------
14
complying with the interim regulations. Depending on the quality
of the source water, such conation water treatment practice as
coagulation may remove about 25% (7) of the radium. However, in
some cases more rigorous treatments will be required to meet the
maximum contaminant level for radium-226 and radium-228. Radium
removal by means of conventional technology is feasible. A
number of public water systsms currently remove radium as part of
their water softening treatment processing. The most efficient
and in many cases the most economical treatment method for radium
removal is based on the use of zeolite as an ion exchange medium.
In this process calcium and radium are exchanged for sodium. The
Agency is aware that if the mineral content of the source water
is high, the exchange of calcium with sodium'could result in a
marked increase in the sodium content of the drinking water.
However, ingestion of sodium via drinking water in such cases
would still be lower than the normal dietary intake level. Even
so, persons on low sodium diets should be informed of any
significant changes in sodium concentration.
-------
15
National Cost For Radium Removal
In order to estimate the total national cost to remove
radium from all public water systems it is necessary to know both
the local concentration of radium and the population served by
each system. Such complete information is not available since
the majority of U.S. systems have not been analyzed for radium.
However, many systems have been radioassayed, particularly in the
Midwest where radium contamination is encountered most often.
The estimated costs of radium removal, given below, are based on
a sample of public water systems identified by Straub in his
search of the relevant literature on radium contamination (8).
Straub listed 306 community water systems serving radium-226 at a
concentration of 0.5 pCi/1 or more. While his list is probably
representative of the population size of systems serving water at
various radium concentrations, it is not of course complete and
contains some bias since radium assay has been extensive only in
areas known to have a potential for higher radium levels. A
second source of bias is that larger water systems are more
likely to be selected for study by public health authorities than
small community systems serving only a few persons. At best the
sample of 306 systems represents a minimum estimate of the total
number of impacted systems. However, in view of the extent of
national monitoring that has occured in recent years, it is
doubtful that the sample is low by an order of magnitude. For
the purpose of this analysis, EPA has estimated Straub's sample
-------
16
represents about 30% of the systems in the 0. S. having radium
concentrations greater than O.S pCi/1. This nay underestimate
the number of supplies but probably overestimates the population
impacted because of the likely bias in the sample, as outlined .
above. Since costs for radium removal are directly related to
population, the estimate of national costs developed below may be
somewhat high.
The cost of achieving various control levels and the
estimated health benefits are shown in Table 1. It is seen that
the total national cost for radium removal increases rapidly with
decreasing concentrations of radium not only because of the
increased marginal cost for treatment at low concentrations
(Appendix IV) but also because both the number of supply systems
•
impacted and the average population served becomes larger. The
Administrator believes that because of the limited data on the
cost of radium removal and the extent of radium contamination in
coonunity water supplies currently available it would be unwise
to prescribe radiua removal at concentrations lover than 5 pCi
per liter. It should be noted, however, that under the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974 (PL 93-523), States may set more
stringent standards if they so desire.
-------
Table 1
Annual National Cost and Health Savings
for Achieving Radium Control Limits
rol
t
1
5
Estimated
Number of
Systems
*
240
300
370
450
500
670
800
860
980
1100
Average
Size of
Systems
Population
4,200
5,400
5,000
7,450
8,800
9,500
12,000
12,100
18,400
20,800
Average
Cost Per
Systems
Thousands
dollars/yr.
6.0
8.0
9.2
. 12.4
17.5
21.3
30.4
41.6.
70.2
90.2
National Cost
to Achieve
Limit
Millions
dollars/yr.
1.4
2.4
3.4
5.6
8.8
14.
24.
36.
70.
100.
: Estimated Tots
Number of Liv«
Saved per yr.
*
0.6
1.1
1.6
2.5
3.7
5.5
8.2
LI
15
20
maximum contaminant level for radium.
-------
IS
At the maxt""m contaminant level selected it is estimated
that as many as 500 community water systems may need to remove
•
radium or utilize additional source waters containing a lower
radium concentration. If ion exchange were the method selected
to lower radium concentrations the average cost per supply would
be $18,000 per year or about two dollars per person served. The
estimated cost effectiveness of radium removal to avoid a
potential fatal cancer is not high, mainly because only about
one-half percent of the treated water is consumed as drinking
water. In some cases it may be possible to minimize costs by not
treating water used only for commercial purposes.
The methodology used to estimate the marginal cost of ion
exchange to remove radium and the cost-effectiveness of radium
removal to prevent health effects is outlined in Appendix IV. It
must be understood that other abatement measures such as dilution
will have lower costs than those predicted in Appendix VI and
that the effects of radium removal in terms of reducing the
predicted excess cancer incidence is uncertain by at least a
factor of four. Therefore/ the estimated cost effectiveness of
radium removal should not be given undue weight in evaluating the
proposed maytmun contaminant levels. However, the cost estimates
are not affected by the uncertainty in health effect models and
have been used by EPA to project the national cost of various
control limits considered by the Agency in its selection of a
*
maximum contaminant level for radium.
-------
19
Impact of Maximum Con^^nant Levels for Man-cade Radionuclides
Though man-made radioactivity in public water systems is
sometimes a matter of concern it is important to recognize that
unlike the case for radium, current ambient concentrations are
less than the proposed limits because of regulatory concern for
these radionuclides. Drinking water is not a major pathway for
exposure from nuclear power plants. The Agency has reviewed all
the Environmental Impact Statements for power reactors currently
available. Based on the design of these reactors the estimated
total body doses due to drinking water served by public water
systems from these facilities range from 0.00001 to 0.3 millirem
per year with 90% of the expected doses less than .04 millirem
per year. The average total body dose is 0.03 milliree per year.
Thyroid doses are somewhat larger, ranging from 0.0003 to 0.8
millirem per year, with an average annual dose of 0.08 millirem
per year.
Data on ambient levels in public water systems (Appendix II)
indicate that almost all of the radioactivity in the aquatic
environment is due to residual radioactivity from nuclear weapons
testing. The historical trend of radioactivity in the Great
Lakes and in other waterways shows this source of radioactivity
is *HMnifhin7 (9).
The rM'riT"1'™' contaminant level for man-made radionuclides is
expressed in terms of the annual dose rate (millirea per year)
from continuous ingestion. Specifying maximum contaminant levels
-------
20
in terms of radioactivity concentration CpCi per liter) was
considered but rejected in view of the short length of time such
limits would be appropriate/ since presently available dose
conversion factors for ingested radioactivity are obsolescent and
the ICBP is developing new dose models. When appropriate models
for doses due to environmental contamination become available,
the Agency will revise the Interim Regulations to permit the use
of newer data. The concentrations yielding 4 millirem annually/
given in Appendix VI, are based on NBS Handbook 69 as required by
•
the Interim Regulations/ 41 PR 133, p. 28402/ July 9, 1976. '
-------
21
Honitorinc for Radioactivity in Community Water Systems
The Agency has developed monitoring requirements for
radioactivity with two ends in view. Information snist be
available to the supplier so he can control to the extent
necessary the quality of the water he serves. However, the cost
of the monitoring should not result in an undue economic burden
in terms of other financial requirements for safe operation of
the system. To an extent these are conflicting requirements
since more information can always be purchased for more money.
•
The Agency has tried to limit the monitoring to that which is
essential for determining compliance with m«*<™** contaminant
limits under most conditions. As State capability for effective
monitoring is augmented, States are encouraged to introduce more
•
rigorous monitoring of particular supplies because of local
Jcnowledge of their potential for radiocontamination . In addition
Federal monitoring requirements for radioactivity are limited to
community water systems as defined in Section 141.2 of the
Interim Regulations.* Since the proposed limits are based on
lifetime exposure, any radiation risk to transient populations is
In general, the Interim Regulations call for quarterly
sampling. In the case of naturally occurring radioactivity it is
often thought that a single sample can be used to determine the
average annual concentrations. This is not the case for some
•See Appendix III.
-------
22
ground water sources where the annual discharge cycle of the
aquifers has a pronounced effect on radium concentration. In
such cases/ a single yearly grab sample could show a low
concentration, resulting in the acceptance of water containing
more than a maximum contaminant level. Conversely, an abnormally
high level co old lead to the institution of expensive control
measures where the annual average concentration is really
acceptable. Although sampling at monthly intervals might be
advisable in certain locations and situations (and should be
•
required by the State where necessary) the Agency believes
quarterly sampling will be sufficient to determine the average
annual concentration in most cases. Where the average annual
concentration has been shown to be less than one-half the
relevant maximum contaminant level, a yearly sampling procedure
is permitted by the regulations.
In order to reduce monitoring costs the Interim Regulations
allow composited samples to be radioassayed, usually at yearly
intervals. In such cases care must be taken to prevent the loss
of activity by means of absorption on container walls.
Acidification with 1 milliliter of 16N HN03 per liter of sample
is a method suggested in "Interim Radiochemical Methodology for
Drinking Water"(10). In the case of iodine-131, hydrochloric
rather than nitric acid should be used for acidification and
sodium bisulfite should be added to the sample. In some cases
State laboratories may prefer to count quarterly samples rather
-------
23
than keep track of quarterly aliquots. If so, the estimated
costs given below will be exceeded.
It should be noted tha t from the definition of "maximum
contaminant level" in the Interim Regulations, section 141.2(c),*
samples should be collected from free-flowing outlets, not at the
source of supply water. Since, in some cases, several sources
may contribute water to the system, samples should be taken at
representative points within the system so as to truly reflect
the maximum concentration of radioactivity received by users. In
cases where more than one source is utilized, suppliers shall
monitor s ource water, in addition to water from a free flowing
tap, when ordered by the State.
Although monitoring a typical community water system is
•
relatively inexpensive, less than five dollars per year, the
total national cost of monitoring for radium-226, radium-228, and
gross alpha particle activity is not trivial because of the large
number of supplies involved, 40,000. In order to minimize cost,
the Agency is proposing that a water supplier initially obtain a
relatively low cost analysis of gross alpha particle activity.
In most cases this test will indicate that no significant
activity is present and additional tests will not be required.
However, when the gross alpha measurement indicates the alpha
particle activity may exceed 5 pCi per liter,, a further test for
*See Appendix III.
-------
24
radium-226 is required.
Although not in the same decay chain/ radium-228 sometimes
accompanies radium-226. Only rarely, however, does the radium-
228 concentration exceed that of radium-226. Therefore, a
radium-228 analysis, which is relatively expensive, is only
required when the radium-226 concentration exceeds 3 pCi per
liter. In localities where radium-228 may be present in drinking
water, it is recommended that the State require radium-226 and/or
radium-228 analyses when the gross alpha particle activity
exceeds 2 pCi/1.
The Interim Regulations require sampling and measurement at
quarterly intervals where the limits are exceeded so that the
water supplier can follow the variation of .radium concentration
through the yearly cycle and thereby institute remedial measures,
such as additional dilution or treatment, during periods when
concentrations are unusually high. Monitoring at quarterly
intervals shall be continued until the annual average
concentration no longer exceeds the maximum contaminant level or
until a monitoring schedule as a condition to a variance,
exemption or enforcement action shall become effective.
-------
25
Monitoring Costs for Radium and Alpha jParticle Activity
Estimated monitoring costs are based on the assumption that
40,000 community water systems will initially monitor for gross
alpha particle activity as required by the regulations. If a
composite of quarterly collected samples is assayed to minimize
analytical expenses the cost for initial survey will be $400,000,
Table 2, which lists estimated monitoring costs. The Agency
recognizes that the Interim Regulations impose a national program
to determine once and for all which community water systems
require further testing for radium contamination. In order to
ameliorate the financial impact of this requirement, the Interim
Regulations allow samples to be collected over a three year
interval and the substitution of measurements made one year.
previous to the effective date of the regulations. The Agency
considered the possibility of using geological information in
selecting which systems should be tested for radium
contamination. The poor predi ctive value shown in the past by
such information, however, indicates such a procedure could fail
to identify systems which exceed the maximum'contaminant levels.
-------
Table 2
Estimated National costs for Monitoring Radioactivity
in All Community Water Systems*
lie water systems serving more than
100,000 persons
Dimity systems potentially impacted
by nuclear facilities
ss alpha particle activity in all
community water systems
ium-226 and radium-228
Estimated totals
Initial
Survey
Dollars
15,000
20,000
400,000
133,000
568,000
Annual Cost
(succeeding years
Dollars per Year
4,000
20,000
100,000
60,000
184,000
Bed on an estimated 40,000 community water systems including an
imated 60 systems impacted by nuclear facilities. The estimates
initial cost are high since States are permitted to substitute
data.
-------
27
Cost estimates for radium-226 and radium-228 analyses are
based on the assumption that/ nationally/ ten percent of the
approximately 35,000 systems using ground water will exceed the
screening level for gross alpha activity and therefore require
further te sting. The Agency recognizes that in some States a
much higher percentage of the systems will require radium
analyses and that these costs will be distributed very unevenly.
Of the 35 00 systems analyzing for radium it is assumed that about
700 will a Iso be required to as say for radium-228, Taljle 1.
After the initial survey, a subsequent gross alpha particle
analysis is required every four years both for those systems
utilizing surface water and for those using ground water.
Nationwide total annual cost in succeeding years is estimated as
$184,000, base'd on estimated assay costs of $10 for gross alpha
activity, $30 for radium-226, by the precipitation method and an
additional $15 if a subsequent radium-228 analysis is required.
The annual cost for radium assay in succeeding years is
difficult to estimate because it is highly dependent on the
findings of the initial survey. For the present the Agency has
assumed that 500 systems will continue radium-226 monitoring on a
quarterly basis. This is the number of systems thought to exceed
the maximum contaminant limit, Table 1. The frequency at which
these 500 systems are monitoisd will be reduced as they come into
compliance with maximum contaminant levels.
-------
28
The cost estimates shown in Table 2 do not make allowance
for the cost saving that will be realized by those States which
use data already collected.
-------
29
Monitoring Costs for Man-made Radioactivity
National monitoring costs for man-made radioactivity are
smaller than for natural radioactivity but costs for analysis of
individual samples are somewhat greater, Table 3.
Table 3
Estimated Assay Costs for Man-made Radionuclides
*
$ Costs per sample
Gross beta activity 10
Tritium, 20
Strontium-90 30
Iodine-131 60
Strontium-89 30
Cesium-134 30
Except for community water systems directly impacted by
nuclear facilities, only an estimated 243 systems serving more
than 100,000 persons and utilizing surface water are required to
monitor for man-made radioactivity. Since monitoring for gross
beta particle, tritium and strontium-90 activity is required, the
initial survey cost will be $15,000 and the annual cost for
resurvey every four years is $4,000.
-------
30
The Administrator is allowing wide discretion to the States
in determining where quarterly monitoring in the vicinity of
nuclear facilities will be required. Community water systems
near nuclear facilities other than power reactors and support
facilities for the Uranium Fuel Cycle may be monitored for man-
made radionuclides at the option of the State. In some local
situations a State may want to consider monitoring for
contamination from waste storage areas, and large experimental
facilities and medical centers. Monitoring is not expected at
all community water systems within an impacted water shed but
only in those systems most likely to be contaminated.
At present about 40 nuclear power reactors have a potential
for introducing man-made radioactivity into community water
systems. The estimated annual national cost for monitoring
potentially impacted community water systems is $20,000 based on
the assumption that 60 community water systems may require assay.
This cost will increase, of course, as the number of nuclear
facilities increases. The annual cost to an impacted system is
estimated as $330 per year.
-------
31
REFERENCES
1. "National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations -
Radioactivity," Federal Register. 41 FR 133, p. 28402, July 9,
1976.
2. "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of
Ionizing Radiation," Division of Medical Sciences, National
Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, November 1972,
Washington, D. C.
3. "The Evaluation of the Risks from Radiation," ICRP
Publication 8, Pergamon Press, New York, N. Y. 1966.
4. "Radiation Protection Guides for Federal Agencies," Federal
Radiation Council, Federal Register, 26FR 9057, September 26,
1961.
5. "Background Material for the Development of Radiation
Protection Standards," Federal Radiation Council, Report #2, U.
S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, USPHS,
Washington, D. C., September 1961.
6. "Maximum Permissible Body Burdens and Maximum Permissible
Concentrations of Radionuclides in Air and Water for Occupational
Exposure," NBS Handbook 69, Department of Commerce, revised 1963.
7. "Costs of Radium Removal from Potable Water Supplies," to be
published.
8. Report to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Radium-226
and Water Supplies," by Conrad P. Straub, Ph.D., Director,
Environmental Health and Research Training Center, University of
Minnesotta.
9. Health and Safety Laboratory Environmental Quarterly, HASL-
294, Energy Research and Development Administration, New York, N.
Y.
10. "Interim Radiochemical Methodology for Drinking Water,"
EPA-600/4-75-008, Environmental Monitoring and Support
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development/ USEPA,
Cincinnati, Ohio, September 1975.
-------
32
APPENDIX I
EPA Policy Statement on
Relationship'Between Radiation Dose and Effect
.March 3, 1975
The actions taken by the Environmental Protection Agency to
protect public health and the environment require that the
impacts of contaminants in the environment or released into the
environment be prudently examined. When these contaminants are
radioactive materials and ionizing radiation/ the most important
impacts are those ultimately affecting human health. Therefore,
the Agency believes that the public interest is best served by
the Agency providing its best scientific estimates of such
impacts in terms of potential ill health.
To provide such estimates, it is necessary that judgments be
made which relate the presence of ionizing radiation or
radioactive materials in the. environment, i.e., potential
exposure, to the intake of radioactive materials in the body, to
the absorption of energy from the ionizing radiation of different
qualities, and finally to the potential effects on human health.
In many situations the levels of ionizing radiation or
radioactive materials in the environment may be measured
directly, but the determination of resultant radiation doses to
humans and their susceptible tissues is generally derived from
pathway and metabolic models and calculations of energy absorbed.
It is also necessary to formulate the relationships between
-------
33
radiation dose and effects; relationships derived primarily from
tiuman epidemic logical studies but also reflective of extensive
research utilizing animals and other biological systems.
Although much is known about radiation dose-effect
relationships at high levels of dose, a great deal of uncertainty
exists when high level dose-effect relationships are extrapolated
to lower levels of dose, particularly when given at low dose
rates. These uncertainties in the relationships between dose
received and effect produced are recognized to relate, among many
factors, to differences in quality and type of radiation, total
dose, dose distribution, dose rate, and radiosensitivity,
including repair mechanisms, sex, variations in age, organ, and
state of health. These factors involve complex mechanisms of
interaction among biological, chemical, and physical systems, the
study of which is part of the continuing endeavor to acquire new
scientific knowledge.
Because of these many uncertainties, it is necessary to rely
upon the considered judgments of experts on the biological
effects of ionizing radiation. These findings are well-
documented in publications by the United Nations Scientific
Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the International Commission
on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), and have been used
-------
34
by the Agency in formulating a policy on relationship between
radiation dose and effect.
It is the present policy of the Environmental Protection
Agency to assume a linear, nonthreshold relationship between the
magnitude of the radiation dose received at environmental levels
of exposure and ill health produced as a means to estimate the
potential health impact of actions it takes in developing
radiation protection as expressed in criteria, guides or
standards. This policy is adopted in conformity with the
generally accepted assumption that there is some potential ill
health attributable to any exposure to ionizing radiation and
that the magnitude of this potential ill health is directly
proportional to the magnitude of the dose received!
In adopting this general policy, the Agency recognizes the
inherent uncertainties that exist in estimating health impact at
the low levels of exposure and exposure rates expected to be
present in the environment due to human activities, and that at
these levels the actual health impact will not be distinguishable
from natural occurrences of ill health, either statistically or
in the forms of ill health present. Also, at these very low
levels/ meaningful epidemiological studies to prove or disprove
this relationship are difficult, if not practically impossible,
to conduct. However, whenever new information is forthcoming,
this policy will be reviewed and updated as necessary.
-------
35
It is to be emphasized that this policy has been established
for the purpose of estimating the potential human health impact
of Agency actions regarding radiation protection, and that such
estimates do not necessarily constitute identifiable health
consequences. Further, the Agency implementation of this policy
to estimate potential human health effects presupposes the
premise that, for the same dose, potential radiation effects in
other constituents of the biosphere will be no greater. It is
generally accepted that such constituents are no more
radiosensitive than humans. The Agency believes the policy to be
a prudent one.
In estimating potential health effects it is important to
'recognize that the exposures to be usually experienced by the'
public will be annual doses that are small fractions of natural
background radiation to at most a few times this level. Within
the U. S. the natural background radiation dose equivalent varies
geographically between 40 to 300 mrem per year. Over such a
relatively small range of dose, any deviations from dose-effect
linearity would not be expected to significantly affect actions
taken by the Agency, unless a dose-effect threshold exists.
While the utilization of a linear, nonthreshold relationship
is useful as a generally applicable policy for assessment of
radiation effects, it is also EPA's policy in specific situations
to utilize the best available detailed scientific knowledge in
-------
36
estimating health impact when such information is available for
specific types of radiation, conditions of exposure, and
recipients of the exposure. In such situations, estimates may or
may not be based on the assumptions of linearity and a
nonthreshold dose. In any case, the assumptions will be stated
explicitly in any EPA radiation protection actions *
The linear hypothesis by itself precludes the development of
acceptable levels of risk based solely on health considerations.
Therefore, in establishing radiation protection positions, the
Agency will weigh not only the health impact, but also social,
economic and other considerations associated with the activities
addressed.
-------
37
APPENDIX II
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ON RADIOACTIVITY
IN COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS
A. National Reconnassiance Survey of Drinking Water.Systems
and
Interstate Carrier Water
(January - March 1975)
Gross Beta, Gross Alpha, Strontium-90,
Radium-226 and Specific Gamma Activity
-------
INTERSTATE CARRIER WATER
Results of Water Analyses
Indicated Activity In PCi/l (a)
Location
016532
Springfield, MA
121620
Melbourne, FL
126523
Wood River
Madison, IL
126525
Falrporc Harbor,
OH
126527
Ashcabula, OH
' 111040
Conneaut, Oil
Sample Code &
Date Collected
1H-23
1/2/75
IW-108
12/27/74 -
1/9/75
IU-150
1/9/75
IW-236
1/21/75
IU-237
1/22/75
IU-271
1/21/75
ffiR/1
96.0
132.2
.253.0
308.0
278.0
256.0
Cross Beta (c)
Date Counted
1.2 ± 361
1/10/75
4.9 ± 24*
1/29/75
2.1 ± 59Z
1/29/.75
3.3 ± 34t
2/3/75
2.6 1 48Z
2/3/75
2.1 2 56Z
2/3V75
Cross Alpha (b) '- •' • _ .
Date Counted ' "*Sr *"Ha
< 2.0
1/10/75
< 2.0
1/29/75
< 2.0
1/29/75
< 2.0
2/3/75
< 2.0
2/3/75
<'2.0
2/3/75
Specific
Gacxa Activity
(d)
(d)
(d)
i
i
(d)
(d)
(d)
03
(a) The error expressed is the percentaje relative 2-sigsa counting error.
(b) The siniaua detectable licit of gross alpha is 2.0 pCl/1.
(c) the ninlaur^ detectable llslr of gross b<-ta Is 1.0 pCi/1.
(d) Indicates specific gssata activity not detectable.
(e) Special scudy,.
(f) CooDunlcy Water Supply sacple.
-------
INTERSTATE CARRIER WATER
Results of Water Analyses
Location
126529
Loral n. OH
031157 (e)-(f)
Wami. FL
131113 (e) (£)
San Juan, PR
#16535
Springfield. HA
J3U84 (e) (f)
Chicago, IL
131161 (e) (E)
Jacksonville, FL
131129 (e) (f)
Sanple Code &
Date Collected
IW-272
1/24/75.
IH-290
1/20/75
IU-291
1/30/75
IW-344
1/30/75
IW-363
2/4/75
IW-364
2/3/75
IW-336
• 012/1
316.0
344.0
376.6
70.0
136.0
250.0
245.0
Philadelphia. PA 2/3/75
!K! Jl!6 T0/ exPre«ed ls the Percencace relative 2-slgna counting error
(b> The mininun, datec^ble limit of gross alpha is 2.0 pCl/1
(c) The cinicum detectable limit of gross beta is 1.0'pCl/l
(d) Indicates specific gaaaa activity not detectabla.
(e) Special study..
(f) CoBEuniCy Water Supply sample.
Cross Beta (c)
Date Counted
4.2 ± 31Z
2/3/75
1.7 I 63Z
2/6/75
4.3 t 33*
2/6/75
1.9 t 46Z
2/14/75
2.2 ± 55t
2/14/75
1.6 ± 61Z
2/14/75
2.9 t 38t
2/18/75
Gross Alpha (b)
Pate Counted
< 2.0
2/3/75
< 2.0
2/6/75
< 2.0
2/6/75
< 2.0
2/14/75
< 2.0
2/14/75
. < 2.0
2/14/75
< 2.0
2/18/75
' "Sr '
•
< 0.5
3/3/75
0.7 1 73Z
3/3/75
0.9 i 33Z
3/3/75
< 0.5
3/3/75
< 0.5
3/3/75 '
21«
• ' •
0.50 t 5Z
3/18/75
0.10 t 15Z
3/18/75
< 0.1.
'3/18/75
0.37 1 6Z
.3/18/75
0.13 ± 12Z
3/18/75
Specific
Gamma Activity
(d)
W).
(d) $
(d)
(d)
-------
INTERSTATE CARRIER WATER
Results .of Water Analyses
Sanple Code &
?3U39 (e) (f)
New Castle, DE'
#31142 (e) (f)
Stanton, DE
*31179 (e) (f)
Clinton, IL
J311S1 (e) (f)
Mt. Clemens, MI
126212 (f)
Baltimore, MD
031163 (e) (f)
Chattanooga, TN
IW-397 88.0
2/5/75
IW-388 397.0
2/6/75
IW-389 172.0
2/5/75
IW-390 226.0
2/3/75
™-«ll 184.0
2/3/75
IW-419 192.0
2/1C/75
'31133 (e) (f) iu-420 202 0
Baltioore, MD 2/11/75
*/il//3
fhi Ts6 T?r eTeS'Sed l8 the P«centaSe relative 2-sig-a counting error
b) The a-.lnlr.uir. detec:abla limit of gross alpha is 2.Q pCi/1
c) The Clni=,u= detectable li=it of gross beta is 1.0 ?Ci/l '
W) Indicates specific gamna activity not detectable.
(e) Specitl study...
(f) Conmualty Uater Supply aaaple.
»::iscl:z£y
5.2 ± 22Z '
2/18/75
1.5 ± 712
2/14/75
3.6 ± 322
2/18/75
4.4 t 29Z
2/18/75
1.9 t 55Z
2/18/75
2.9 : 372
2/20/75
2.9 z 432
2/21/75
DateSc"ounSd(b>
< 2.0
' 2/18/75
< 2.0
2/14/75
< 2.0
2/18/75
< 2.0
2/14/75
< 2.0
2/14/75
< 2.0
2/21/75
< 2.0
2/21/75
"Sr '
< 0.5
3/3/75
1.3 ± 64Z
3/3/75
< 0.5
3/3/75
0.58 ± 892
3/3/75
< 0.5
3/3/75
< Q.5
3/3/75
"*Ra
0.61 ± 52
3/18/75
< 0.1
3/18/75
0.27 ± 72
3/18/75
0.14 ± 122
3/18/75
0.10 2 142
3/20/75
0.10 ± 122
3/20/75
Specific
Cd J *
*
c
(d)
u>
«)'
-------
INTERSTATE CARRIER WATER
Results of Tatar Analyses
Ir.jicatsd Activity in =Ci/l
Location
•^
Baltimore, MD
#31131 (e) (f)
Annandale, VA
J2653S
Youngs town, OH
S31135 (e.) (f)
Washington, DC
"1191 (e) (f)
Youngs town, OH
131187 (e) (f)
Cincinnati, OH
«21165 (e) (f)
Atlanta, CA
(a) The error exp
s;r:pie Code i.
Dare Collected • n?/l
IW-421 218.0
2/6/75 .
IW-426 223.0
2/10/75
IW-427 578.0
2/12/75
IW-431 252 0
2/13/75
•IW-432 254.0
2/13/75
IW-433 54.0
2/11/75
IW-434 73.0
2/13/75
iressed is the percent-age rei
Cross Beta (c)-
Data Counted
1.7 i 61Z
2/21/75
3.9 ± 34Z
2/20/75
3.3 1 37Z
2/21/75
1.9 1 612
2/21/75 ,
3.9 ± 303;
2/21/75
22+ SI?
*• • *• — J L fa
2/21/75
t 3 * 105;
*- « J _ _> 7/«
2/21/75
latlve 2-S"lt»T A .-nt»nr- The nlnlnum detectable liaic of gross alpha is 2.0 ?Ci/l
(c) The Elnimua detectable limit of gross teca is 1.0 pCi/1
(d) Indicates specific gacaa activity not detectable
(e) Special study..
(f) CoEBunity Water Supply saople.
-------
INTERSTATE CARRIER WATER
Results of '..'atar Analyses
Indicated Activity in pCi/l (a)
Location
031115 (e) (£)
Tons River. NJ"
J26250 (e) (f)
Pittsburgh, PA
S262SO (e) (£)
Pittsburgh, PA
01167 (e) (£)
He-phis , TS
»31102 (e) (f)
Laurence, MA
131195 (e) (f)
St. Paul, MN
«U43 (e) (f)
Kuntington, UV
f \. _.
Sample Code &
Date Collected
IW-444
2/18/75
IW-445-A
2/17/75
IU-445-B
2/17/75
IW-451
2/20/75
IW-455
2/19/75
IW-458
2/21/75
IW-459
2/24/75
1
' KR/1
93.0
246.0
224.8
136.0
166.0
144.0
8.0
Gross Beta (c)
Data Counted
" 8.5 ± 172
2/24/75
3.2 ± 40Z
2/25/75
2.6 £ 4U
2/25/75
1.5 * 6U
3/5/75 .
2.1 ± 49Z
3/5/75
2.8 t 67Z
3/5/75
2.1 * 41Z
3/5/75
Cross Alpha (b)
Date Counted
5.5 i 25X
2/24/75
< 2.0
2/24/75
< 2.0
.2/24/75
< 2.0
3/5/75
< 2.0
3/5/75
< 2.0
3/4/75
< 2.0
3/4/75 .
"sr '
< 0.5
3/3/75
< 0.5
3/5/75
< 0.5
4/16/75
< 0.5
3/31/75
< 0..5
3/31/75
"«Ra
1.9 ± 2Z
3/26/75 -
0.32 ± 7Z
3/27/75 '
< 0.1
5/8/75
0.11 1 15Z
4/1/75
0.14 ± 10Z
4/1/75
Specific
(d)
/ _» \
(d)
(d)
*.
W) "
(d)
(d)
(d)
(a) The error expressed is the percentage relative 2-sigsa counting error
(b) The minicun detectable Unit of gross alpha Is 2.0 pCi/1."
(c) The minimum detectable limit of gross beta is 1.0 pCi/l.
(d) Indicates specific ga=za activity not detectable.
(e) Special study.,
(f) Community Water Supply sample. •
-------
INTERSTATE GASSIER WATER
Sesults of Water Analyses
location
J311S7 (e) (f).
Indianapolis. IN
131104 (e) (f)
Boston. MA
IT (sheet torn
up)
Indian Hill. OH
J31199 (e) (f)
Whiting, IN
131146 (e) (f)
Wheeling. WV
131169 (e) (f)
Nashville, TN
(a) The error exoi
(o) The mlninuia de
(c) The ninicua de
(d) Indicates spec
Sample Code &
Date Collected eft/1
IW-481 300.0
2/25/75
IW-482 70 0
/ U*U
2/26/75
IW-483 472.0
2/19/75
IW-484 192.0
2/27/75
IW-510 286.0
2/25/75
IW-511 334.0
3/3/75
~ *
* Liic p
-------
IHTERSTATE CASHIER WATER
Results of Water Analyses
Location
Little Falla. MJ
131201 (e) (f)
Colucbus. OH
131200 (e) (f)
Cleveland. OH
131148 (e) (f)
Pittsburgh, PA
I3U71 (e) (f)
Ouensboro, KY
131106 (e) (f)
Newport. RI
J31214 (e) (f)
Milwaukee. UI
Saaple Code I
Dace Collecred
IW-546
3/4/75 .
IW-559
3/3/75
IW-560
3/5/75
IW-581
3/4/75
1W-582
3/10/75
IW-589
3/11/75
IW-600
3/11/75
=-/!
190.0
284.0
176.0
266.0
1514.0
374.0
182.0
Cross Beta (c)-
Date Counted
1.8 i 50Z
3/10/75
4.0 * 30Z
3/14/75
2.7 ± 38Z
3/14/75 .
2.4 * 47Z
3/14/75
2.4 ± 44Z
.3/18/75
5.8 1 24Z
3/18/75
3.6 ± 33*
3/21/75
Cross Alpha (b)
Date Counted
< 2.0
3/10/75
< 2.0
3/14/75
< 2.0
3/14/75
< 2.0
3/14/75
< 2.0
3/18/75
< 2.0
3/18/75
< 2.0
3/21/75
"Sr
0.8 ± 52Z
5/21/75
< 0.5
3/31/75
0.6 i 27Z
4/16/75
< 0.5
4/16/75
<'0.5
4/16/75
0.6 ± 27Z
4/16/75
0.9 + 36Z
4/16/75
22.
1.3 t 3Z
6/3/75 '
0.13 I 12Z
4/14/75
0.14 £ 12Z
4/14/75
0.11 1 14Z
4/14/75
0.19 t 8Z
4/14/75
0.10 £ 16Z
4/14/75 '
0.10 t 16Z
4/14/75
Specific
(d)
(d) •
(d)
(d)
(d)
(d)
(d)
(a) Th«j error expressed is the percentage relative 2-slg=a counting error
(b) The alniaiua detectable Holt of gross alpha is 2.0 pCi/1.
(c) The nlnlmua detectable limit of gross beta is 1.0 pCi/1.
(d) Indicates specific gamaa activity not detectable.
(e) Special study..
(f) Cooau<y Water Supply
-------
INTESTATE CARRIER WATER
Results of. "ater Analyses
Location
031212 (e) (f)
Oshlcosh, WI
#31149 (e) (f)
Strasbury. PA
131173 (e) (f)
Greenville, MS
(31120 (e) (f)
Buffalo. NY
126542
Marietta, OH
#3UOa (e) (f)
Uaterbury, CT
131205 (e) (f)
Plgua, OH
/ _ \ ™-«
Saople Code &
Dare Collected
IW-607
3/12/75
IW-611
3/11/75
IW-615
3/17/75
IU-616
3/18/75
IU-624
3/17/75
IW-625
3/18/75
IW-626
3/18/75
SB/1
262.0
94.0
220.0
232.0
350.8
56.0
82.0
. Cross Beta (c)
Pace Counted
2.1 ± 50Z
3/21/75
3.5 ± 28Z
3/21/75
1.7 z 52Z
3/21/75
2.8 t 39Z
3/26/75
2.4 ± 46Z
3/26/75
1.6 ± 55Z
3/26/75
1.9 i 44Z
3/26/75
Gross Alpha (b)
Data Counted
< 2.0
3/21/75
< 2.0
3/21/75
< 2.0
3/21/75
< 2.0
3/26/75
< 2.0
3/26/75
< 2.0
3/26/75
< 2.0
3/26/75
*°Sr
0.8 x 53*
4/21/75
< 0.5
4/21/75
< 0.5
4/21/75
1.4 I 29Z
4/21/75
•
1.0 t 49Z
4/21/75
.< 0.5
4/21/75
*i«
0.19 * 10X
4/14/75
0.92 ± 4Z
4/14/75
< 0.1
4/14/75
0.13 t 13Z
4/17/75
•
< 0.1
5/8/75
0.10 ± 16Z
5/8/75
Specific
(d)
(d)
(d)
(d) <•"
(d).
(d)
(d)
(a) The error expressed Is the percentage relative 2-slgaa counting error
(b) The t-lnlnun detectable llaic of gross alpha Is 2.0 pCl/1.
(c) The tainiauai detectable Halt of gross beta is 1.0 pCi/1.
(<0 Indicates specific ga=a activity not detectable.
.(e) Special study,.
(fj Con=unlty Water Supply sanple. .
-------
INTERSTATE CARRIER WATER
Results of Water Analyses
Indicated Activity in pCl/1 (a)
Location
imzoa (e) (f).
Dayton. OH
#31122 (e) (f)
KMnebeek, MY
J<31203
Coluttbus. OH
#31125 (e) (f)
Tarreytoun, HY
J31175 (e) (f)
Charleston. SC
#31209 (e) (f)
Detroit, MI
131137
llopeuell, VA
Ssr.ple Cede 4
D;te Collectsi
IU-627
3/19/75
IW-638
3/25/75
IW-639
No date
IU-640
3/26/75
IW-641
3/27/75
IW-713
3/25/75
IV- 1004
4/28/75
=2/1
550.0
. 356.0
340.0
228.0
90.0
318.0
94.0
Cross Bata (c)
Data Counted
2.9 = 442
4/11/75
8.1 * 372
4/22/75
1.8 i 692
4/22/75
3.0 ± 412
4/22/75 . '
1.1 ± 732
4/21/75
2.4 1 512
4/22/75
1.3 i 522
5/12/75
Cross Alpha, (b)
Dare Cour.ted
<,2.0
4/10/75
< 2.0
4/22/75
< 2.0
4/22/75
< 2.0
4/22/75
< 2.0
4/22/75
< 2.0
4/22/75
< 2.0
5/9/75
»«Sr
0.6 i 812
4/21/75
< 0.5
5/19/75
0.5 ± 652
5/14/75
1.4 ± 502
4/21/75
1.0 ± 312
4/21/75
0.6. ± 442
5/19/75
"«Ra "'
0.20 t 10X
5/8/75
0.10 £ 13%
5/8/75
< 0.1
5/8/75
0.28 i 72
5/8/75
<. 0.1
5/8/75
0.10 ± 12Z
6/5/75
Specific
(d)
(d)
(d)
(d)
M
(d)
(d)
(a) The error expressed is the percentage relative 2-slg=a counting error.
(b) The cinlaun detectable Unit of «ross alpha is 2.0 pCi/1.
(c) The nlnliLun detectable licit of gross beta is 1.0 pCl/1.
(d) Indicates specific gaaaa activity not detectable.
(e) Special etudy^.
(f) Comtunlty Water Supply sample.
-------
47
APPENDIX II-A
Gross Beta, Gross Alpha, Strontium-90,
Radium-226 and Specific Gamma Activity
Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System
-------
MMMJLOi.IOI. "CVJLTS
1-1. '..•"-•Oi-iiiiP t.lf ,cl J. li
i I- i'-'-'j' •»?•«•-• "i.-V-'t-j, I'Unl
»••'. HJ ...«>7il i.j/., i.j.i ;, I i \n->
'••-.' ---- •.<••.> I .'Xll.'. <•.-, I. J.
» I *7Ji.-.'T»v «•••»••«;.».»• I'i'.-iJ
> 1 /(»•-•,. '--.••. i ..... !•. ....'I
: •!>••.«•.. -it :'.•«••••<>. !•<•.«<, uL
•• .i I- ': •>. -.I-,.: f-l. .••'. ***\, (!.UK>IS
.-••U.V'..'i i-'.l J-HM.I. IIUI-'IS
• ••: 1 •••••-.' •=>. J'll-JI. IlLI iOfi •
< |: - '.i. :•-.••«. i. • • illC. <••• M.
• i .../ .-.,,i..-t • -. i LI. •••"::. cm'1.
• H • .'.. .-.•.'•.•. •••II (>!•-. L*i..
.M — -r:s •.-.•••! .. -t I.' ;,!_-•;} i im.£. COii
« »! ; : ••)!.! '.-. tit ' , !'••• ,.
* t „-...> -..,•) .:. (".-ii... ca.:«.
. i. -.- .•••••/•! •;!•;.•< II'.LI • «:••••».
..-'...• •».. .. . I »•>. If. fl • |.
•. i •-•. •-• -iin i-i -i.n. 111.i-»j
f --i *;•-«.-.-.•- N<. «•'.<-• | ^ :';''•;. ILL I'.OI :^
i i'--'-.ilii. .' -I.- iU, C:'(.u- ••'-••'I
;•-. --• -I...-J I«:,V l .r.|.'J.-i. ....\-(.
r U.. „-.'. ,.- ,1. •-.;•.:!,. -.i-i^sf' I-.T. r.J-i".
I .• • ;»i- Vr »..-;. ;4 • : lt-.»Li*'l.t I , C:'-»,
i !••> v .f- >i. !1 I •«"..(.,• K. I . Cl'LI.
'H :-J-.» -III M lv.:|J.llf. CO!-.
••••- -.-••:» • o-»t-....i.-». T<
- i, . 7 -.:...- H . Tl».:S Cllt. I*
f ;• -i-.J ' i.-'ii- \-i-i, .1-'i, r.ri-'.-t.
'•• .- •>- : :-,-. •••'r |:..,l a. C:':.
i I- ...-.-'• i i. • :< 4. i ;i .'it f . ;u-i . ,
ri• .-: !•••!• .-•».-.^^.ui. .-.1..j.
.-'.. • J-*i-. l-t|.t 'I..-!.«•/, £«-•..
1' i '
.-1 . • . •- .I.1-./.I :• |.
111^-1
•> )•>!
3.-l;i7
'11177
lUil
III I'J
I lli
111 .11
1 1 1 .'-•(
llt-ij
Ill'M
iiii-r/
JV-»1
1 2.1,1 J
a'/*'-!
:i/-»l
Uo>1
•/a 21
3'l7ll
3*1 '/I
3 J77
•j-17'l
SSH.)
1 l^ft.i
12u.11
3»t-t5
3?'li
tajiA
li!'llO
Mil 3
3*1* j
•Jri7S
•j-V»s
H2i>!>
V-1^2
1I?«"J
> I?.'**
HZti
ii'?^
41-14-}'::
ll-fj-Vi
•l.<-X'i-?^
01-UI-7Z
.!•»-! fl-72'
•js-l^-7.*
ns-14-12
ftl-:19-7*
' fli-U-72
ft}-lo-72
'i-irl7-7»
•Jo-2J-72
i)^97 0*-?U-72
O^OA n&-21*72
0<>-Jl-li
C&--i2-7<:
nn-2'J-72
Ubl9 i>7-:i2-7?.
•It-V.. .I7-09-/2
flt'n A7-IM-I2
t>£^7 47-1U-72
1«^7 '17-10-72
llf.23 l|/-ld-7*;
1/-11-72
Oi.29 07-11-72
•17-12-72
J»7-»*-7Z
.-.7-1-I-/2.
a7-:«6-7.j
Qi»-a7-?2
ni-o7-7i
i>'i-Oi)-72
. ' nfl-il -72
«»-"'t-72
3*X-i|-i-72
ijA-41-72
08-1U-72
i)^-l 0-72
•01-1 J-72
d't-lU-72
3*-lS-7J
IIHAit ;»<\-Sl-72
n)-2:>-73
2
2
2
'f.
i
2
n
2
<•
2
i-
2
2
2'
2
2
2
2
2
S"
?
2
H
«
2
2
2
;>
2-
7
2
?
2
?
SS K«22& S>J-JO CATC
I«FI»
tfi-t. s,n
n 2 i
JO H 1
J
5
(S
£
i
27
H
3-4
2*
3
5
H
i
o
3
H
3
II
t
i|
t|
a
^
H
7
a
0
s
s
»
3
. 3
1
t
H
1
1
H
a. 7 .0 s
s
«.6 .0 H
2.7 .0 H
-------
RAdlULOSICAL MESULTS
••- V.'-Ll
vr.lUL lUTg UROSS
•iilvlfl tit.*. o.'H-li; AL'iA UF.TA
» ,lCl>A lO-OA-YH VAL. Sl> VAL. SO
M4226 SK90 =A
ri. -.-.;-. • '..i
( !••- ij- .«.; |<-.I
t i... -.!,-•/. vi. !•.
f 1 •'-/•; •• -I.!.';
.-j.. /. «. ../.
••'.i it; ' >.- i .. •. t i
i . -•-.-/ - t
l >i 't-il-' -- i.-i'/J
1 ,•..!./• .." J.l7'.
.-..,.... .,_..', -I--,,.
< .j-»-i7i i:l-*ln
•-. > s/l J|. ,../(.
'-••• I--.. :-j Mi
..» H - ; * :.i*i i ->:i
•'• * ' >> l '•••'• * V*
. | . » r . ,i-..i- 1 1
-i .•.-.«.» L0r«si i;i-v«.
r-.-.r •.«•.-. u-ii.i
I.k4;>*' 1. (M J...
I.-" LTI.l ..'. C •••!-.
]••<.! 1^.1.1 >, -JII.J
» •!«• ,ii»-.«I . CO-;.J.
•--•>.•.-.. Cft-.-j.
.••••» .|i-u::. C-l •• .
Sl l-r 1- ', CO' 1.
>L ;•• >•<• '•«1«u«- • • '.<•
: • 'i '- •. *LJ «» '*
: !•«• i-'..«..i. «LA -A-:*
- !•;•.! ..: ,~i. .'.i.l>in.'A
IL-« :. •-.' i' .lK.il
.-•^ .,..• «"« 1 • .•« . 'L-! ItXICO
j;.-.-/ -.I'^I-...'.. t. ft«(C«J
CM • i.. «SI H-t. C>-"«N.
112^1 i«--»s-y?
llrf.-J-. 9A-21-72
UicW -.^-2^-72
ili'il 0.1-?^-^
i";; o<"' ;;:»•!:»
l^i-'l OelA .1-1-11-72
\->i->i iiM.1 rni-U-72
»3.1"»/ Ottl* 1S-M-72
lit^'y *l.«-M-72
t-.»-:l * • -H-^l-72
».i.l>j .,4-11-7*
»«« ^:1»:7>
li'»O7 0»i-2e-7^
I -i 0 ft I lii~t)2~"/i!
l^Jnl tU-lH-72
lMUn:> 10-II1-7X
l-.lH-l lu-U-j-Vi
lifilnS 11426 10— (J^— 7*^
7*^^ ll*ji^l 111 — 10 — 7«
343* VU-ia-73
)
1
1
J
•
•1
•1
I)
II
' II
u
•1
111
II •
II
II
II
II
ti-
ll
II
II
• ii
n
t
t
r
2
2
'f
2
2
2
'
2
2
2
2
•j
a
.i
i
7
1
1
}
i
7
*
V
4
2
II
n
a
a
0
o
n
0
3
•)
2
0
il
«
n
u
0
b
U
0
u
0
^
7
«
0
9
a
i
s
^
a
u
0
•3
0
i
u
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
%
2
.1
.
2
1
2
2
I !
*l • 0
3 .3
3
3
1
2
3
3
1 2.0
3
H,
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
2 '.
UCLL
IRT.1T PLNI
UCLL
-ELL
THTrtI PLNT
UCLL
UCLL
l i.ii'iT PLNT
i i .nil PLNT
> UCLL
i HELL
"ELL
UlSTH SVTit
RCSCRVOIR
HCSCHVOIK
OTHER
UCLL
tilSTH S»T«
OISIR SITH
TRTHT PLNT
01STR STTN
UCLL
RC$£Mv01ft
IHT.1T PLUT
TRTHT PLMT
OISTR SYTrt
THIrtT PLNT
HELL
UlSTR SYTH
UCLL
IKTHT PLNT
TRTflT PLNT
) UCLL
GROUND
GROUND
GXOO'IU
r, HOUND
GROUND
GROUND
GBOUNO
.
GNTllNU
SURFACE
fiROu'^IX
SURFACE
SURFACE
SiwFACC
SURFACE
SURFACE
GROUND
GHOu'vb
CHOIJUO
GHOUHO
GROUND
r.WfmNO
GIIOUMO
GROUIIO
CMOuHO
GrtOuMU '
6HOUUJ
coniiiciea
GROUND
GIIOUNO
GHOUNO
SURFACE
G4OUIIO
GHOUNO
SURFACE
GMOUNJ
GNOUIIO
GkUUNO
SURFACE
SURFACE
GHOUNO
-------
MVl[l._OlilCl.l HfSULTS
KA226 SR90
JC iui:rr'HI, •»«'*« »-li«
»» PT..j«|r:, r.-E-i --tiKCI
I I . •!-..-•
. I •-I,.---, ?•••'*•• I:A ••!;•« f. C) •' .
« :• :.-•.••'. i-.yi -•?(•• 1L i. C.^ "I.
«•. -tv...T. j Li-: -u'l lei.. C1*''T.
.-. .-...•. •>...:!.. .-i.; ,ti.. :.:-.. .-f..itO
.-<./.,••.. -.'-..I :••!••, !,,, .:/.. s,;.|;a
. -.: /.C.i .-.. ••• > • 1.1 , ,•• , -.i»|C-.l
r r .'. I'-tTi-tli. * \ »-i.r' Kl.'l,
• ••>.' '-:7 I •; i
•It " • .-'J -II
cur. .-i.x 'L.icci
-in. :«> • '.<:<">.--l'l» I
tf i, LII. cm :.
•:.»• , i-il . »L<(CO
ILS. lil'.lllli *>.<*•*»
•ill-It -iO-.IX-Irt VAL. SO
18-10-72
11-11-72
1(1-13-72
fcl^-i ia-lii-72
111-10 10-16-72
lu-17-7*
ia-17-7^
IO-17-73
VI-17-72
ia-ll-72
« 10-51-72
'lu-^i-72
la-^l-72
11-01-72
Il-iU-72
»l-ja-72
'lrlA
VAL. SI)
Hi Vi
lima
^~ . - • . .?•-••• •:.!• ..
• • •-• ••• i" ••. '.; . .li.i ..•<•!. r. !•:.!. .
' ...,.- .. i .- -.. • i'_.:.,.( l, Cii'i.
s .7 '-.'•>• T. •-:•• .ii>..n>. c.'.:.
,. -tl.l. HV. -i.-.iiiM C'vr.
1614
1 1 1 s 1
11-JI.-7J
»!-<>»- 72
112-iS
1 /I Vi
• >.••-•.. .i'-'-^i C.L.. i J .i..«. t-'j «.-i:cv icnT
:••:•-.•»-• ..•;•: .•<•! -..i-!ii L'lfV. ». l.;h
'•- •'• • •-•• ; i "•• •> ••••-: ., o- i.
-.-. ..>•?,-•.- l.i .-i .-i-.' n, .'i . {:•••..'.
/ • ..- J . . -... •- , £••. I i.
• : i':: ••• i-i si.. «-..:•, fV'-<.
• l ••• 11 • •. :^ii. -ii'.. ,r "... i, C'n-1.
••»••• .,-.j- •--:• • a.,« i.i'i.-J.. I. C'l il'.
.-•. .-./ ,.. .. •• j.. '^ . r..»;;.. CU«i.
,.i;...; --.<• ..!.••„. -I.- -,....•«; i. CO^».
.. ./-v. ...-. .;. ., . ,..Wl;... C(... i.
U-06-72
1117'* ll-ln- /?
11 •!!:•. Illl-'j 11-47-72
It^sA ll-OH-72
l'.2'l, . •l-ll-J-72
1'jlu 11-11-73
1/JI7 ll-H-7'<
lull* ll-lt-72
I/tin lldl :i-m-;s
\i <••!-» : n->h-7a
17-J-IS 1111 ll-^ii-7J
l/n,i7 1111 Xl-»7-7J
173.|S lilt 11-^7-72
0
0
n
a
A
3
A
ll
t
u
t
•i
u
a
a
A
d
a
a
0
n
0
0
a
n
K
0
n
a
d
n
a
i
a
a
0
4
a
H
2
2
i
2
2
3
2
}>
K
f>
a
3
1
^
2
t.
r.
S
?
f>
2
9.
3
*
2
}>
f.
2
2
2-
2
y
2
?
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
A
**
4
a
21
k
1
J
A
U
(1
•1
2
•J
»
ll
7
o
0
0
H
0
i
J
i
2
1
7
. S
A
1
i
N
j
z
5
3
0
U
J
1
H
•J
U
1
a
• i
.1
CATC.
4
3
e
H
9
9
9
9
9
9
e
c
c
t
t
•>
9
H
9
9
9
9
9
a
?
9
•>
9
9
• 9
9
9 '
1
1
9
9
9
1
9
•i
e
c
c
E
e
9
c •
E
e
c
SAMPLE
FHOrl
TUTMT PLMT
WELL
THTftT PLNT
WIT PLNT
«ELL
UELL
WELL
UELL
UCLL
WELL
QlSlft SVTM
(JISTH STTH
I1IS1H S»Tii
UtLL
WtLL
HELL
T.II.1T PLNT
T«Ti1T PLI4T
.OJSIH SYIn
OlSlft SrT*.
lllSIrt StlH
OISIR STItt
OISIH STTI1
T.IIHT PLNT
disiM srrn
KESERVOIR
WELL
T.JMT PLNT
T«MT PLMT
inr.iT PLHT
UCLL
UtLL
disra st(n
THiir PLNT
MtUL
KfSEKWOIH
THT.IT PLNT
TlllrtT PLNT
kCLL
TRTflT PLNT
HELL
WELL
UtLL
ME.SEHVOIR
KESErtVOIK
tlCLL
ISTrtT PLNT
HESEHVOIH
ItEScKwOIK
rtCSEKvOlU
SOURCE OF
WATEK
SuMFACE
6HOUMU
SltHFACC
Su'lFACE
GUOU>4l)
CttOUKO
CftOUNU
CHOu:4n
CMUUUO
CHOiirio
r.HOUNl«
bwounn
f.HCllNII
6KOUI4U
CftOuNO
CltOlitlU
SURFACE
caoiiim
GkOuNO
cuoiiun
CNOIIUO
cuouw
GilOUHU
GHOU.JO
GROUND
SUIIFACC
caouuo
SUHFACC
SUHFACC
GIIO4JNU
GNOU'40
Giioufjn
SURFACE
SURFACE
GMOUt.O
SOflfACE
SUHFACE
SiiHFACE
G^OtH.O
SURFACE
GilOutlO
GHOUM
GHoatin
SUHFACC
suMFAce
GrtOUUn
sutFAce
sofFAce
SUMrACt
SUOFACC
-------
l:vil»i_nnciu.
>.« .-I..II 1. i" >.-'. )••" •iU^-'L*
.
.... ,.7>^....,,, ,l« *,V,:», CO..!.
1' 1 ••-.--• 'l'r\. :••.'•••> J • * •-* r:-.i*"l.t €!!•"'.
1 /... I..I -i. ^ \, C^« .
. 1 . --•. : ..'•.«•-;' "-ii-.-.H.*:*! C'jiiJ.
. i. -.- • ••;•:.. i.-rtuu. rj..>.:ciicor
• I: -«.••• -.•.'.:/••! • i>-t .!<'<•• I'Jh. C^.i-'i.
i r >•• C'>1«l''frC, i.C. •
I '•/..» .f»Ai« .. .... PU
- .' y • •*.' -1 1- 1. .I".".'.' IT I'*'.L 1 'i • i*4
i * s | ..:-';-! ', it-«;i !'•> •:l.i-|^>*; • jML'i*/i«
. .7 . .-i •-.--..•: .-.. «;• . •.•
. :.i I,:'-!' ..-.-:• >.it CiH-.-.i. I....IA«
1 ,-.-• ••••it!,, i': i -,-t.t:, -\r.-i.
MM if« .it... Ct;»i.m i.LfHA tier* FHO.I
t/An*
i) -.ii
"I /Ma
1 /^Vi
»2S>*
l-»j«l
1314 J
• 1 4k« 4*^
4 »^ 1**
I/IIS
?'7
1 -4«i*i*i
lic.43
M&H4 •!.)-•»*<-»« Vi.l., Sif VAL
so
itt« tt-27-72 a 2 a it r
ll-?it~72 02*112 H
•j»2o li-m-ya n ? H i C
1X2£ 1'*— IJ4— 7*^ 0 2 ? * ^
I12M I2-.11-72 a ?
12-OH-72 0 2
I ? — il *i • 7 2 11 H
\.?-Uo-/2 i) 2
I2-DA-72 9 2
12-37*77 II 2
l9.»fi7-72 ik 9
. *. ••
} £
2 9
1 9
2 .0 9
I ' 9
2 1
2 »
X u
III — Ml — /« ll < •* -»
12-11-12 n 2 0 2
-------
.• M i••
. ^-. ..- ••MIII|.>-!•!' ;•••« .'M..M, « ,.i.
.' . ->:«.!.' '.I. : ••"IrfjLl.:'. u*. Jl «.'ir»
•-• . ,:•.-.«. j.i.1 i.. •.'•.••rt/iLL-: -it- Jt«sty
-.-.-... -..;.!.... H. | •••|H.' .» 4 .1*. •(-..-.»
-,-.....!;...:.•.. §.-tr i.vfi/: •«, ji «J-.Y
-'. I ; '*-• Jr.iSr I
-LI < •«£ • j'..<#.it
••:. -t« jtliCl
•.• ;'i
.-.^i.i• •rr.i-u.vi ('.IN
--Ill, l.i.. JLHiLr
^H. rp.»Vl.
•-•.».'?•>'• I !.'•>.' '.jj-l ill.Lr. 'i.J.
• >.-> I--MJ- • >i » • -l-i.il-;fu. ii .-. • -JtlSi'T
':. .-...I-. ;;. .i--.«i.. .r-ic.-s«-l
••• .• •••••!%?; ..:-.-.•.•• t :i.-C»-Ul"
••-.-./•i'« l>:- Vl i;«" «:in JIH>:M
•.-./••- i-: ••;•• ii !•,!.; li-iC'l.'..! is, liUli-l
-.^>.i-.ivt.ii'. i- L!••'•> >• •.«.•)-4i:i»:r
. <• > .J> --jj lV.ll f•••«'.• I "1. , (:t 4 Jt.'^Stt
."•.-.-.• .--.»pn;«i« }i iMi'n «J
•.-•-.'.'-••Vl'«-*'l if* I'll •*'•• ivl...1 JLXStf
-, .. /••:.. 4 ..,., i
•-I ••r>»-.'''l=IMi ••(..l.'jrtt »•«
••'.1'•*•!-» l>.':.-.«l i Jli l'Jr?.t "•<
••I." -.^;s • I It,..-...!. . »» iSAS
• -•* -i ,:i...J".... i-I .....III. .ifj Je..iSc«
• .•: 1-/-.I-. "il'/il :•!-:-•:. -.ill jClSr'T
••• .i.>\-'--.l1'-. f.-ur. •• -m jE^irT
:•••-./-•.«::••-.•; .ui \-iU_i-, -iC« jt-^-ir I
1 i-. ^^ ..»...--.- ' ILI»-««.LK« i-.tlj oe.-ti'It
. r •. l'iri:.-'j.' i.->-. .,». 'I.J.
<•'-!.• •,.-.» ..Ti.i 'if -.,-flf 1.4 -H.-I .liKSf.*
••••-.•• i»i-!i-fH-« •'• -i :i »•• '•<«< Jt"^?'_i
• i.J./' "-.liS*" •*• :i ->l:t. VF 4 .J."rfSL"»
•.-?... .••..-. i....-• i. ,-.;.• 11.;< ..!_•-• jc.is'.r
...:,--.-.i .,.•;.. M.: ..; .I-.IM. >i«: J,..I;.:T
..--. .-..'.«..!.. ••<:; U>.'i|-:i. .1. J.
•r--. -i. -., -..I. i^u -ii-t'i, I'.C >• ••».•»••.
( ..>„.,.,!...., I.I nll.«*lt. li..l I ...I-. I. .UL .S-l^-l
••*i »i- ; n»\ i.^i cr.(_i» »is• »iirfi*(»*;.
J., ...-••• .,» -11 1 S;.C^-i':: il.l, C-.LCF-).:A
-•*.:i- > .11.-.'-I •"•...••is«-".«t •;. J.
-:•.. .i.-tiuiKi^b •:.:!:•> IX.-.., • i. j.
«tHi->i_ -KTI.
i:ui-itH hf.fi. CVII1*!
;«lflA iO-J»-TH V»L.
fill V.tL. SO
1 7f,hf.
I '•••III III 17
M-H-74
I/-'. Ii
X It. H
17MJ-
.41-1J-7-1
Ol-tU-71
31-11-71
04-IN-7*
14-.S-
4227
. ll-tt
1I1HS
If Sill
J/f.11
01-011-74
03-06-/3
•I.5-IJ7-7J
uS-i7-7>
l/f.n-i
X/oi-l
l/tti.-*
•H-l •>•
.-> I-IS-
C'*-li-
m-i»-
i-i *-u
I Jill) OJOtl •!»-/! 1
I !•>•>» 91-27
IT^i'j 01-10.
1/oS-. OH-10-
7i
71
73
•7-1
-71
7i
7i
4
0
1
ft
0
o •
4
II
0
II
J
. 4
II
U
2
17
0
II
II
4
n
«
n
n
n
o
l 1
it 1
u 2
1 1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
& 1
0 J
4 1
1 1
.1 I
Ii 2
0 2
4 2
0 II
3 1
2 1
2 1
1 1
U 2
•> 2
0 2
1 1
£ 1
<• 1
!> 1
0 2
SHSU GATE. SA.IPLE
FROrt
I) IS IK
T-«MT
JJIlEM
1.0
2.4
l.b
SOIMCE OF
UATCR
6KOIJMU
OltiEM
TiriT
TUT*!
(«TilT
PLNT
PLf.l
PLWT
PLNT
PLIJI
PLNT
WKLL
UJSTH STTrl
I.IT.1T PLHI
uELL
. OISTM SJTrt
niiiH itrn
UELL
UELL
SURFACE
SUMFACe
SII'IFACE
SlirfFaCE
COrililNCO
SITllFACC
SOHFACE
SUI'FACE
CilOutlO
bKOUKD
SUHFACE
GltOoUO
GHOUhO
ci.au.MO
PLNT
OISTH STTn
WILL
PLMT
mini PLNT
MESCliVOIR.
UELL
THMT PLNT
THTtT PLNT
1HT.1T PLIIT
MELL
JELL
TrtMT PLUI
IN fill PLNT
IHT1T PLNT
WELL
IIITMT PLWT
UELL
uista srirt
GRQUtia
GKOUNU
COHiilNEO
SIIHFACE
GMOUlM
Sl'HfACC
SllHFACE
Guouua
SURFACE
SURFACE
GkOUHO
CMOuUO
GHOlKJi)
CROUI40
6KOIJNO
CROO'Jl)
GHOUHII
GROUND
SIIHFACE
THTNT PLNT SURFACE
IHT*T PLNT
MESLMVOIH SukFACE
Su*F*CE
-------
/-i:.-J
HfSULTS
Sk.HUL >I«|C
NIJ.1i>£.» ICG. Cf).)M-»
uxnss
ALPHA BETA
WAI.. Sil V»L. SO
U 2
•1*226 SK90 CAU.
SOURCE OF
FHOn
._>i- .;•- .11 n'- I
Tilt .11, ulil'i
• Li/...-:i-4. .«•'•. jc'i^'i
'LI/ ..... 'l"i "I" I Jl-latl
& /i* ia
IT'ii.
1 »•••<••»
'/-. t '. iii>,!i
•»/;•.'.•>•••::••
-i'*- -JJ'll 3 i
'.i i (. ;..!.•:£•! JtM-if.T
.
t Z-l :-*t;, '.. J.
<••>:•.! ••••)!.. :i. j.
».,.-.., .•>•!.!
l«v :i 'c|j«.H. ••.. J.
I'LL. •.«!««. '.'. J.
I .;•' •.>!•••->••
-lr\ •... ...•
. ; >•!•!• >•. I-..
LI" r»MV*Hi -»tH J
>' ; -f |...|fSl ••<> J
'. • n-i;. • :".-«'4i Si* *
".. •|.«|:'.M, i t-' Jf.;lvL
'. •-• : -•»! «l''>-''"« ^1 '•
i-.;-.-.-. CHI. V.J.
iif "»'.'. li\C".
•11-1 1-71
ill-IJ-M
U1-12-71
ai-i»-7S
01-1 7-/.1
.11-11-71
r/iiA OH2J m-Z-iOl
1/^.17 JI-2S-7J
l/^ll 0.• ,11.
'.-.. -J.'IM 1 •
"- A.1., l.'l-'
I.--. | . •, •,, j.
I--. I-.. .J. j.
'• f|--Ctll.«". . J.
,..'C-»r-
i>r . .-. ,--s.-.tM., 'I.I.
1 Inl i
OMO
•U-ll-'/J
«-!-•!...» f -i
.-•- j.'-.il >l
•> '; . • • .1:.;
--. - •• .i i->
.-'/-• -ii I'.-i
-.-Ul I^Si-iJ< .. -I. J
••-li-Lr*. -.Iff
<.->.<|r< i-f. Ji-»SClr
w;.C»r If'illi- « •••».
I l- i t 'Hi 'I -14
• I <• i « H..H l:i"i
• I l I . r 1.0 II-)-.
••>• -.t.iK.- •:. J.
1/iHl
lib** 04-11-71
i 4-i..i o«.ns (i^-i^-71
(X.-20-7S
(1
n
'i
•I
il
ii
0
t
i
t
4
•1
I)
A
n
a
•l
n
n
2
f.
2
t
i
t
2
2
2
il
2
2
2
9.
t
2.
2
2
2
2
i
2
2
2
2
•I 2
0 2
0 2
I 1
J 1
a 2
2 1
« 2
a 2
fc i
0 2
J 1
1 I
A t
!•) 2
it t
J 2
10 2
1 1
a 2
2 'l
a 2
0 2
a
a
t
o
o
10
0
a
9
9
C
9
9
C
C
9
9
9
e
9
9
9
9
9
9
-------
ME.SUL1S
! I I* •*.-£. ii/ S'.l'
SVill\L CMC MUSS
•n:M.«t'H -if.;;. £*') !.<:(. ALPHA UCTA
sots* MI—)*-r-< v*u. si) VAL. so
NA226
SM90 CATC. SAIPLC
FROM
SOURCE OF
WAILH
<-l>V. Wi.l-s j
1 »>s »-"«.l.'HVI
••.-!.-.. ?•••••> 7..
-. •• v . •-;• - '. t i
• -••.It ..._ a ••;>••»
• > /.<:••«> 4 i. ,l«!. I
. -.? *O"' 1 «l» M.«
- •..> :;-»•* 4* «A.I ;
1 •"• '•!• l'1'.ll 1 •
• Tl It- 7 •-.'•! •:!!(
.-•. , - • -4'-l .
f.\'- ui -•-it.-n •> •
. 1 1 i. •• -a-.-- ii;
••. I ii'-":.!- 1-»
"i. !•-». • '- ..'....,-. v>
. • t • '• • . >'. i j .•
t •* »i - - ^i.J •'••-.-. I
'
•54 I ^.51 •-•.'•151::
.•VJ..-U-. .') I..-3 .
•!•.--•••';-.',. I
<:Hp
SI'i*li.->'liLT. ILLINOIS
1..-L-II.)' . ftS Jt'iScT
• i i '"L". • 1SMI-..IJ4
f'^.iv us*;, .liSjssllVI
..(.<•: -».;!. T. '!•;•:. •
l'."-C--.i. il.ii UNS.
i f-l L'L->t"'.i uCtCu't&Ilt
L« Cf.<'SE. slit.
i r-'L-jti;.j
i Ml nr 1|L| *.-'• rlfMlGA
i- i-:"L ••' *« FL'J-<{ »A
t r.\* L.i ;i t FLi*itl:>
•l:L >t -"». rL.Vill1-
•lit :t !« If . FL^iJI »(•
!'*.•.« j.« ^-«A. ftWl.jA
l.<'"'. "LrSi FLi't|"->
L.»^* '-•t.Lt.&. ^L''.'!!!^
>f<'«4)^l't ->^41^i rllC'tl i«A'it
^L >• -K^ I'uUL i i»t < t«ICO
."L-in'J'l:V«'.'Ut . lilt ^L»ICO
Itrisl
li.lis
ii't'l 1 0
U ••<•« II
11-J7-J
lt.a-4l*. J
1» .1 1 l>
-1 A 'i H ** U
11177
li-isi a
Itivl 0
ll-J7'i
tan i -
li-lil
1J.1SO
»*»•».-•
li-l*7'
1 JHJI
li».);l
laonn
6«'
f-fct
t?;
&2'
• «(
»
*
t
*
*
t
t
«
»
»
«
*
•
i)fc-?J-V3
06-21-73
06-21-73
fc7-!i7-?J
. 07-39-11
07-iu-yi
I H7-U-7J
1 1.7-11-73
1 A7-12-73
07-12-75
I47-2.1-7J
JO-02-73
•Oi-07-73
.'•H-U-73
> nn-2U-73
Ori-SU-VI
: fl-21-73
M.I-.-1-73
iH-?l-7J
a'i-X\-1\
«^-?l-7i
•11-^1-74
.1ft-23-73
01-23-71
Oti— 2*4 *"7 -1
fl*l—*?*4~ 73
»
0
0
0
ft
It
A
.1
A
0
It
a
a
0
0
j
• o
n
0
u
0
0
0
It
n
i,
ft
6
J
1 0
0
0
• 1
a
•i
0
9.
• o
0
ft
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
a
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2 .
H
2
0
0
.0
o
2
3
II
ID
4
Q
0
2
3
0
3
0
a
0
2
2
2
3
0
• 0
24
2
2
a
2
0
0
2
5
7
i
0
7
a
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
H
3
1.2
l.S
2. A
1.-7
2.1
1.7
2!3
15.3
i.a
1.2
3.S
.2
.2
1.9
1«.7
5J2
7.3
• 3.7
3.1
.2
.2
1
4
4
U
1
<4
H
H
C
C
ll
H
4
C
4
4
C
4
4
H
4
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
\
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
<4
<4
THTHT
OISTR
OlSIH
OlSIH
WELL
nism
OlSIH
OlSIH
OISIR
oisttt
OlSIH
THIilT
OlSIH
oisin
T«Tir
DISIR
OlSIH
UCLL
OISIR
u£LL
UCLL
WCLL
UCLL
. WELL
UCLL
UtLL
UCLL
UCLL
WCLL
UCLL
WELL
UCLL
' WELL
UCLL
UCLL
UCLL
UCLL
JELL
UCLL
UCLL .
UCLL
PLNT
STTH
STTH
STTH
STTH
STTH
STTH
STTH
STTn
STTM
PL'IT
STTH
STTH
PLNT
STTH
STI*
STTH
.
4 fcCSCRVOIR
SURFACE
GROUND
SI4DFACC
SURFACE
GKO4INO
GHOO.MO
GMOIINI)
GROUND
GMOUNI1
GrtOUNU
GHnurlO
GIIOUIIO
GROUND
CHOUND
GROUND
GKOUNO
GHOUilQ
GROUND
GROUND
GROUND
GROUND
GflOUUO
GROUND
GHoJUO
• GIIOUNQ
GROUND
GROUND
GHOilMO
GIlOuUQ
GKUUlO
G.tOUUU
GllOU'Jf)
GIlOUND
GHCUUO
GflCUIJO
CIIOUUO
GROUIJO
GriOUUO
G HQUF JO
GHOUMO
GROUND
GROUND
-------
1.1 • »••!! I • - Jr «.
.-...I /<»,rl..i'.-i.. jtl.Ult iLLI.-SUl-!
I -il/J-j^t!i.'-«t.' J'Ultl. 1I.I.I.-»• ,1-LUl, ILL I v.l II
1 ->i7'i-il . l.llni- l.f I..-I
SOCIAL O;.ir: UMuKS
«•) ll»r!< rttb. ctMUlii AL'rIA
it HA 10-')A-»-< WAL.. -SO VAL. SO
•• .1 ».-••<• ••••<»«• -^L-. i-Ml-li.
:--i l't~" ' \
: Ml f-ifil^i.7>J !>»••••.»'., ILLl—11^
• ,.: ir..l> -x-..i •',.«;(••., L*.'I^H 'h
.• 1U-.I .«.l».-.< It -.'.-.ft. ILi.1 .'Jlti
! c. iULI •"•»!'>
l'-t .'•;. K..M
••71-•->••<-• t-l-Vi"
I / I -f > '. «i:-l*!£;l
. -I---. ••.: >.-><.j
•••i-,-'••>:•;-/•• \- LL ••!• iSM'^. I
I-.;- .>-.•:.;<;>.» f(, ,>.i. n,P:l.;.\
• .1' il ...CUVi-l >'•;—f S-I'-T J'^Ci H.O.I1O*
. .-•., .•.•••i.7~j >-;'«fii i:.-...l-ii. iji-io
. .-.-.--•Vlii!.' 'i.- • tLI. S'JMI-t, On lil
FLOU
> i,l >c] -.i.,u-..1i| MjL-it-x*"! >
i , i :. i, iiil'ii-'. 4.) • i ;lt.< i.-VC
.-..1 K.'.--.>i<-'.u I '.rt' •»•>!.* s, FI.'J.;S
I r.•»-..--:.-, la 3. I "'•• I'.'SLK"1-'*.
i- '-4-11. -../•::; <-*i t in. ill i-; t Lrt*
lClI.--.il, KLAS«
t in
U-i.i
IU-U1-7J
1001 10-».,--•»
\i-2S-7S
10-J-J-71
lu-U-71
l'J-lU-7*
10-1H-71
1II-4Q-71
Ii7'i7 lfl-Jii-71
\-7hft lil-jl-Vl
lll'ii lll-tl-71
i.iai) mi-i it-oi-71
1'i-ll-t 1019 I1-H2-71
11><14 ll-il-i-73
1H77X 1107 ll-2'(-7i
1S7J? IH7 11-20-71
ll-2i-71
11-27-71
•4
4
0
n
.0
0
a
a
0
n
a
a
a
c
r
it
u
0
0
0'
0
a
0
a
0
n
o •
n
u
10
a
.n
•o
o
.a
'a'
15
rt
A
a
' a
0
0
3
2
2
?
2
2
3.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
i
2.
2
2
2
2
2
6
;>
2
2
2
^
•>
y
2
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
0 3
4 H
11 2
12 2
ii' 3
21 3
D 2
2 1
A 2
2 1
IB 3
i 1
0 2
1 I
« 1
3 1
A 1
(. k
u
Ii
2
0
u
.1
.1
.i-
.2
.9
1.0
.7
.1
.A
l.O
.1
0 CATC. SA1PUE
FAOn
H UCLL
1 OISIH SVTH
0 t WELL
0 <• WELL
0 ", UELL
0
•
a
•
t
a
WELL
uisrs STTH
OISTit STTrt
THKT PLN1
TRTHT PLHI
UCLL
WELL
TiJTHT PLNT
UCLL
TdT.tT PLNT
MULL
uCLL
MTrtr PLNT
TrtllT PLNT
•JLLL
ijtsin STTH
mini PLNT
Mi»ir PLWT
m.lT PLNT
TRT1T PLNT
DELL
TiJT.IT PLNT
oiSTH srit
W-XL
OISTM srr.i
IHT.ir PtMT
TUIrtT PLNT
1 I.IIdf PLUT
H TrtTJIT PLNT
•» IHTflT PLNT
0 1 OIST* STTH
SOURCC OF
UAIES
CHOUNU
GhOliNO
GHOUUO
GHOUNU
GttOUim
GIIOUNU
OfllEH
OIHCH
GKOUMO
GIIOUNU
GKOU'JO
GKOUUU
GROUND
GkOu.iQ
GHOU'li)
GMOjNa
GMOUIIII
SURFACE
SuhfACE
GUOU'IO
GHOUriO
SURFACE
COKIUMEO
SUHKACE
GhGUNO
SURFACE
cnouiu
GiiOiinu
SURFACE
GKOuna •
SURFACE
OTllCH
SUKFACE
GROUND
.0
.0
OISTH
larni PLNT
tuinr PLNT
IHTMT PLNT
OISTft SrIH
uisrn srm
I«T:IT PLNT
(JISTA SfTtl
CHOUMO
SIIKFACC
SUHFACE
CHOUUD
SURFACE
SURFACE
SUKFACE
-------
.'-.I-/-
KAuIOLO^IC'l KEXULIS
11 • l-.fl 1" '.6*1. l» MH'I'L I
I I i-!»J -' '."I ! •«l..-'-^ IrX'!. CU
r.l .-7i. ••'!'. „•» r»r."»ij:ii ii'.
• L-- In 1 at/f-lf J". '1. I.
MU.VIC4 Ht(i.
11
l»J'»1
IE
(,rt
EUDI'jii ALPHA
«m-0lt-»l»
11-27-71
1 !-;>•). 7 3
ll-Z"*-73
12-05-73
12-12-73
12-11-73
12-11-73
¥*L.
ft
0
0
„
0
U
0
s:i
2
2
'f
1
•f
2
e
OSS HA22& SN90 CATE. SAMPLE
UfTA FROH
VAL. !>U
Zi 2 .0
0 ?
0 3
0 3
3 1
WELL
UTiir PLNT
OISTM STTH
HCSCrivOIH
ol t OISTK Srin
H i t THIHT PLNT
SCJUHCE OF
UAIEK
CIIOUMO
SURFACE
SuftFACC
CROuliO
SURFACE
-------
KV)|C)L:>u.:CAL
1 •. . i--l I I,
/if sty »*•••.»
I M •*-'..-->.•» l'. J..2 1.1 4-'-t I-".'!/ J t LL . -i.C.
' .-. r --l-Sri - i.i .VS il !••.!
i-— •• i ,:- 1 i- 1 1 -'.i «.••• '.'i-i'.
St:.lQ-J*-ri< VitL.
31-01-Vt
Jl-lfc-71!
ai-r/-?i
lii-l-l-7'i
I'lUHi
M.l.
<• .•• -I -...' . . -l-.l ..:. |
:-- -i...;:,/-... vie, -. -i .. .
' ' •. • / • '•:- . i•- •• .
•«77-< uifl-i
i l.vi u^lM
".\-f.\-l-i
Jt.-.'l nil?
ill t, I
i 1 >-../.•>-
; -.--I --.-.. f- ,.ci> -• L •• . i. ..in
'•'•.. -'.->;.. .--f. *.!'•£, .1. Lt.l.ll
• • - / :-r> •.«.. -•-,.•. ••£ .-ii u, "u. c«'<.h.
-.-*•-»! «•••••.! • I '.-.l:...-i..l.t ', .<. c»
-:••-.»»: J:YI.-'. 4i.-: i.-v|i«i-.sALi:- . f. c.
•'.. i ../:.i ".-I Si -••••%.. |, ' ^*:s .
«:./• j- •..-..-.'.: '-.t:i riiiL, -i .-.
•I. :--.-•• -Jr> •<• I. -•.<(.•.. ^7S.'
«:» ••-••.. i, i -i.^.'n..., ---•<%.
.••--.- •--; it ••. !••••:» sii.-i« ii.is.-
•.'.../!• --....j-.j (!'• II-<-..>iil.r . n .1:.
• -•.», .-/^..- i.. .10 i. >.j . cjrr. irii-j.
. .. . .^ . >. i ,.- ., i ^:o..: su i c.ifr. I.:.-:/,
I- .*•;.••' -. i- •«•.-". i rf-(i:.--.. It ;v ir -i*:*"..!
i-l-. •'•'.--.•! l«.< I . • u !• :.H -w vi.i.i. IT
• :-.... •• ir ,.. . -.iti -..-I :•<;, i.Mi.-asr
!..--•- -II-...- I !. l-^r.-.frS, •'.«.
i T .-./•• •» i. .;..-: n. rv !•.•«.. •••. i:.
o« ^-.- - -.•.:.:a-1 1 ..._•. .,i.-,, j. C.
(-,-.- I." -I l-ri C^JCt-i S. C.
...••, -,- ..!-.,i -. i - tL..i---iic-«. •;. c.
f^^ I • ; j.'.-'.J'.' i" >L-. ..:».!. 3. C.
J i Vii
i t / - :
lt/'>.j 9.'
C.'.- IV-7-I
fti-H-VH
n.l-25-VI
iH-UJ-71
a«-ni-l<.
l-i-nj-71
3401
11171 ii'i?1
l*I-»i ilHll
11/'.-I w-im
»fil7
1J-4M t!V->3
l'JSi7 .iSX9
H7iH fif.'l
UJh? ilnl?
Jl?-i5 •)*;»:'.
:VJ-01'7M
OS-J3-7-I
114-11-71
Oft-21-7"
Q7-01-7V
LPrtA 3FT»
L. Sll VAL.
U
0
n
n
u
a
n
a
n
a
ii
n
'f.
a
0
A
0
0
0
a
t
a
a
0
a
u
a
a
0
0
n
0
a
a
a
a
0
a
a
a
2
•i
•^
;
>
i
B
2
2
X
X
f
y.
2
t
2
a
2
i
2
2
2
2
9.
i
£
2
2
2
2
Z .
2
2
a
•2
ic
2
J;
2
2
0
a
• o
a
2
i
0
3
2
2
3
2
h
U
2
2
1
i
i
2
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
i
a
2
u
3
2
5
.1
2
0
SHVq
ATI
1
1
1
H
It
1
s
N
«
1
1
1
1
t|
1
1
1
0
1
«i
«
1
a
1
f
-------
•4A010COGIO.L HESULIS
?.«-,.W7- «•.,•.-*".*». «!•«.
Is 1
KOftA i«'J-0»-Yil tf»L. SO, W»L. SO
"»«7 On-20-7S «2 *1
0 WWT PUNT SURFACE
-------
59
APPENDIX II-B
Tritium in Drinking Water (1974)
-------
60
Table 1. CRAMS Drinking Water Component:, 1974
Location
Tritium concentration1* (nCi/liter +_ ?o)
Jan-Mar
Apri 1 -June
July-Sept
net-Dec
Ala: Gothan 0
Montgomery 0
Muscle Shoals— 0
Alaska: Anchorage NS
Fairbanks -5
Ark: Little Rock 0
Calif: Berkeley -2
Los Angeles 0
C.Z: Ancon -5
Colo: Denver -5
Platteville- 9
Conn: Hartford 0
Del: Vlilmington .3
D.C: Washington 0
Fla: Miami--- 0
Tampa 0
Ga: Baxley NS
Savannah 3.1 +_ 0.3
Hawaii: Honolulu 0
Idaho: Boise ••*
Idaho Falls- 3
111: Chicago 1-0
Morris 0
Iowa: Cedar Rapids NS
Kans: Topeka 0
Maine: Augusta —- «2
Md: Baltimore 0
Conowingo 0
Mass: Lawrence ®^
Rowe -3
Mich: Detroit 4
Grand Rapids—- -3
0
.2
.3
0
.5
0
.2
0
0
.5
1.0
0
0
.2
0
0
0
6.8
0
0
,3
.6
0
NS
0
0
0
NS
0
' .2
0
.4
0
'0.3
0
0
.3
.5
.5
0
.2
0
0
.4
.9
.2
.3
0 .
0
0
NS
3.0
0
NS
.6
0
0
.3
.3
.3
0
.3
.3
.2
NS
.4
.3
0
0
.2
.4
.3
0
0
0
0
• .6
.6
.2
.3
0
0
0
0
2.9
0
.2
.3
.2
0
.5
0
.3
.2
.5
.3
0
,4
.2
.2
-------
61
Teible 1. ERAMS Drinkinrj Water Component, 1974--continued
Location
Minn: Minneapolis .4
Red Wing 0
Miss: Jackson 0
Mo: Jefferson City-- 0
Mont: Helena -3
Nebr: Lincoln .2
Nev: Las Vegas .8
N.H: Concord 0
N.J: Trenton 0
Waretown 0
fl.Mex: Santa Fe 5
N.Y: Albany 0
Buffalo- 3
New York 3
Syracuse .6
N.C: Charlotte 0
Wilmington 0
N.Dak: Bismarck ' .5
Ohio: Cincinnati 0
East Liverpool-- -4
Painesville 0
Toledo NS
Okla: Oklahoma City-— 0
Oreg: Portland — 0
Pa: Columbia 0
Harrisburg 0
Pittsburgh— 4
P.R: San Juan 0
R.I: Providence .2
S.C: Anderson -3
Columbia 0
Hartsville °
Seneca -2
Tritium concentration3
Jan-Mar
(nCi/liter * 2a)1
April-June
.3
0
0
.4
.5
.2
.7
.2
MS
MS
NS
'.3
:2
NS
.6
.7
0
.5
.3
.3
.3
MS
0
0
0
.2
.2
0
0
.2
0
o-
.4
July-Sept
.5
0
0
0
.4
.2
.6
.2
.2
0
.5
0
.2
.3
.5
.3
.2
.7
.2
.4
.3
NS
.2
0
.2
.3
.3
0 .
0
.3
.4
0
.3
Oct-Dec
0
.5
)
.2
)
.4
)
.7
.3
0
0
0
.3
.5
0
.7
.2
.2
.4
.2
.3
.5
NS
0
.3
.7
.3
.3
0
0
.4
.3
0
.3
-------
62
Table 1. GRAMS .Drinking Water Component, 1974--continued
Location
Tritium concentration3 (nCi/1 i ter +_ 2o)
Jan-Mar
Apri 1-June
July-Sept
Oct-Pec
Tenn: Chattanooga .5
Knoxville .4
Tex: Austin 0
Va: Doswell 0
Lynchburg 0
Norfolk .2
Wash: Richland NS
.2
Wise: Genoa 0
Madison-- 0
.6
.4
0
0
.2
.5
0
0
0
.4
0
0
0
.2
0
.4
0
NS
0
0
0
0
.2
.2
.2
.5
.4
0
0
Average
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
The minimum detection limit for all samples was 0.20 nCi/liter. All
values equal to of less than 0.20 nCi/liter before rounding have been reported
as zero.
The 2o error for all samples is 0.20 nCi/liter unless otherwise noted.
NS, no sample.
-------
63
APPENDIX III
DEFINITIONS
Prom Section 141.2 of 40 CFR Part 141 (Primary Drinking Water Regulations)
As used in this subpart the term:
(a) "Act" means the Public Health Service Act, as amended
by the Safe Drinking Water Act, Pub. L. 93-523
(b) "Contaminant" means any physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological substance or matter in water.
•
(c) "Maximum contaminant level" means the maximum
permissible level of contaminant in water which is delivered to
the free flowing outlet of the ultimate user of a public water
system, except in the case of turbidity where the maximum
permissible level is measured at the point of entry to the
distribution system. Contaminants added to the water under
circumstances controlled by the user, except those resulting from
corrosion of piping and plumbing caused by water quality, are
excluded from this definition.
(d) "Person" means an individual, corporation, company,
association, partnership, State, municipality, or Federal agency.
(e) "Public water system" means a system for the provision
to the public of piped water for human consumption, if such
system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly
serves an average of at least twenty-five individuals daily at
least 60 days out of the year. Such term includes (1} any
collection, treatment, storage and distribution facilities under
control of the operator of such system and used primarily in
connection with such system, and (2) any collection or
pretreatment storage facilities not under such control which are
used primarily in connection with such system. A public water
system is either a "community water system" or a "non-community
water system."
(i) "Community water system" means a public water system
which serves at least 15 service connections used by year-round
residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.
-------
64
(ii) "Non-community water system" means a public water
system that is not a community water system.
-------
65
(o) "Gross beta particle activity" means the total
radioactivity due to beta particle emission as inferred from
measurements on a dry sample.
-------
66
APPENDIX IV
The Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Radium Removal
The United States Environmental Protection Agency planning
guide for water use provides estimates of the amount of water
used per day by various population groups(1). Per capita water
consumption increases with community size because of industrial
and commercial usage. In this cost analysis a water use of 100
gallons per person day is assumed. This may be somewhat high
since mainly small community systems, serving less than 10/000
persons, would be impacted by the proposed regulations.
"Selecting a Softening Process," by Frank 0. Wood, has
served as the-Agency's primary reference for assessing the cost
of zeolite treatment to remove radium(2). Wood surveyed a
representative sample of community water systems to determine
their construction and operating costs for water softening in
order to compare the economics of lime-soda ash softening with
treatment by ion exchange. Zeolite ion exchange was the lower
cost operation for public water systems serving fewer than about
50,000 persons and therefore is applicable to all systems which
may require radium abatement.
Wood's report shows that while the cost per 1000 gallons
increases slightly with system capacity, 8$ per 1000 gallons is a
conservative average value for systems supplying less than 1
million gallons per day. Because plants examined by Wood had
been built over a period of several years, he normalized costs in
-------
67
terms of the 1967 wholesale price index to place them on an equal
chronology basis. For this analysis Wood's estimates have been
updated to 1975 by means of the "Sewage Treatment Plant
Construction Cost Index," prepared by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Programs
Operations. Prom 1967 to January 1975 the index increased by
about 90%. Therefore, for the cost analysis for radium removal
the Agency has assumed a treatment cost of 154 per 1000 gallons.
It should be noted that these costs include amortization of
•
capital costs over a 20 year period as well as chemical costs for
regeneration of the zeolite system. Labor costs for equipment
operation are not included since these costs were too small to be
included in Wood's analysis; the equipment is essentially
automatic.*
Usually only a fraction of the supply water need be treated
since the mixing of treated and untreated water is an acceptable
abatement procedure. The fraction of water treated, F, to
achieve a given, radium concentration is calculated as follows:
F - 1 - Ca/Cu
e
*Recently completed studies indicate that addition of labor costs
would increase the treatment cost by about 24 per 1000 gallons
(3).
-------
68
where Cu is the radium concentration in untreated water,
Ca is the average radium concentration in treated
and untreated waters
and e is the efficiency of radium removal.
The efficiency at which radium is removed from water by a
zeolite ion exchange column is very high, approaching 99% for a
newly charged column and falling to around 90% just before
breakthrough in a spent column. The results listed below are
based on an estimated overall removal efficiency of 97 percent.
•
The volume of water that must be treated per person year to
reduce the radium concentration from (n) pCi/1 to (n-1) pCi/1 is
shown in Table IV-1 along with the annual marginal cost per pCi/1
removed to treat this volume of water. Costs are based on 15 £
per 1000 gallons, as outlined above. For concentrations greater
than'5 pCi/1 the annual per capita cost ranges from about 60
cents to 90 cents per pCi/1 removed depending on the initial
concentration.
Each decrement of the average annual concentration of radium
by 1 pCi/1, corresponds to an.estimated health savings of
approximately 3 x 10~6 excess cancers averted per year, Appendix
IV-A. Dividing this number by the annual expenditure required to
obtain a given concentration yields the estimated marginal costs .
per cancer averted shown in Table IV-1. The marginal cost
increases slowly as the radium concentration is decreased until
at about 2-3 pCi per liter the cost per estimated excess cancer
-------
69
averted increases more rapidly due to the larger fraction of the
water needing treatment to achieve smaller concentrations.
-------
70
Table IV-1
The Marginal Cost-Effectiveness of Radium Removal*
•tial
lium
'centration
Volume of Water
Treated Per Person
Year
Annual Cost
Per Person to
Remove One
pci per liter
Marginal Cost to
Prevent One
cancer
/I
10
9
3
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
(1000 gallons)
3.8
4.2
4.7
5.2
6.3
7.5
9.4
12.6
18.9
36.5
(dollars)
0.57
0.63
0.71
0.78
0.94
1.13
1.41
1.88
2.82
5.48
(millions of dollar
1.83
2.09
2.35
2.61
3.14
3.77
4.71
6.28
9.41
18.83
zeolite ion exchange
-------
71
REFERENCES
1. Manual of Individual Water Supply Systems, EPA-430-9-74-007,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974, Superintendent of
Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.
20402.
2. Wood, Frank 0., "Selecting a Softening Process," Journal
AWWA pp. 820-824, December 1972.
3. "Costs of Radium Removal from Potable Water Supplies," to be
published.
-------
72
Appendix V
Risk to Health from Internal Emitters
A. The Dose and Health Risk from Radium Ingestion
The Federal Radiation Council has also recommended radium-
226 ingestion limits for the general population and stated that
such limits should be based on environmental studies not the
models used to establish occupational dose limits(1). The FRC
ingestion limit is based on the assumption that the skeletal
•
radium-226 burden does not exceed 50 times the daily radium
intake. This assumed relationship between ingestion and body
burden agrees quite well with the measurements of skeletal body
burdens and radium ingestion data reported by the U. N.
Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2). By
comparing Tables 9 and 10 in reference (2) it is seen that the
skeletal burden is about forty times the estimated daily radium-
226 intake.
The FRC limit on radium ingestion is 20 pCi per day.* After
continuous ingestion at this limit the skeletal body burden is
1000 pCi. Ingestion of 2 liters of drinking water per day
containing radium-226 at a maximum contaminant level of 5 pCi per
liter would result in a skeletal burden of 500. pCi.
In order to estimate potential health effects from radium
*Range II, averaged over a suitable sample (1).
-------
73
ingestion, it is necessary to express the dose equivalent from
this body burden in terms of the ICRP dose model which was used
in the dose estimates made in the NAS BEIR Report.(3) The ICRP
model predicts an average dose to bone of about 30 rem per year .
from a body burden of 100,000 pCi(2). A body burden of 500 pCi
would therefore cause an average dose of 150 mrem per year.
The NAS BEIR Report (Table 3-2) gives the rate of absolute
risk from bone cancer as four percent of all non leukemia type
cancers (3). For a lifetime risk plateau and continuous lifetime
exposure (Table 3-1 in reference 3) the number of bone cancers
per year is 3 per 105 man-rem per year, estimated on the basis of
absolute risk.
Relative risk, the number of cancers expected on the basis
of their percent increase in an irradiated population, is also
estimated in the BEIR for total body exposure, Table 3-1. The
NAS-BEIR committee risk report does not give a breakdown by
cancer site of the relative risk per rem. Assuming that bone
cancers are four percent of the relative risk from total body
exposure, excluding leukemia as before, the relative risk of bone
cancer is about 17 per year per 10^ man-rem per year.
Bone cancer is not the only risk from radium ingestion.
About 15 percent of the radium is deposited in soft tissue where
bone marrow is the primary tissue at risk. Doses to soft tissue
relative to those in bone from ingested radium have been
calculated in reference 2, Table 9. The risk to these tissues
-------
74
from radium ingestion has been calculated by weighing the risk
estimates for leukemia (and other cancers) given in the NAS-BEIR
Report, by the appropriate organ dose. The total absolute risk
due to bone and soft tissue cancers is 60 percent larger than
that from bone cancer alone; the relative risk, 16 percent
greater. Therefore, the annual rate of total cancers from
ingesting radium ranges from 4.8 (3 x 1.6) to 20 (17 x 1.16) per
million man-rem/year depending on whether an absolute or relative
risk model is used.
Combining these estimates of the annual risk of total cancer
with the ICRP .dose to bone, 0.15 rem per year, from the ingestion
of 10 pCi of radium-226 per day'yields the range of estimated
health effects from radium ingestion, 0.7 to 3. cancers per year,
per million exposed persons. Almost all of any induced cancers
would be fatal. Bone cancer fatality is estimated at nearly 90
percent, that for leukemia is much higher.
Given the assumption that radiation damage occurs at
incremental doses greater than those due to external background
radiation, the total health impact from a public water supply
system can be estimated on the basis of the total dose received
by the population it serves. This aggregate dose can be
calculated by multiplying the number of persons served by the
average dose received by a reference man consuming two liters of
drinking water per day. Based on the geometric mean of the
individual risk discussed above, a radium concentration of 5 pCi
-------
75
per liter in a water system serving 1,000,000 persons could
result in an estimated health impact of 1.5 fatalities per year
or about 3 x 10~7 per person per year for each pCi per liter of
radium-226 or radium-228 in the drinking water.
As is shown in Appendix VI, this number can be used to estimate
the marginal cost effectiveness of radium control in public water
system to prevent cancer. However, it must be kept in mind that
the risk estimates are uncertain by a factor of four or more.
B. The Relative Health Risk of Radium-228 as Compared to
Radium-226
Unfortunately, guidance on the body burden from chronic
radium-228' ingestion was not provided by the Federal Radiation
Council in their discussion of radium-226 limits. Because
Handbook 69, which is based on 1959 ICRP dose models(4), gives a
maximum permissible concentration in water for radium-228 that is
three times greater than for radium-226, many persons have
concluded that these two isotopes are not equally toxic.
However, more recent data (particularly that in the 1972 UNSCEAR
report(2) and the 1972 ICRP Report (4) on alkaline earth
metabolism) indicates that radium-228 is at least as toxic as
radium-226.
There are two major difficulties with the old ICRP model.
It assumes for radium-226 an effective half-life in bone of 1.6 x
104 days (44 years) and because of the shorter physical half-life
of radium-228 an effective half-life of 2.1 x 103.days (5.8
-------
76
years) for radium-228. Therefore, using the old ICRP model, on
the basis of effective half-life the body burden due radium-226
would be 7.6 times greater than that calculated for radium-228
for equal daily intakes of each.
The recent report from the ICBP Committee II task group on
alkaline earth metabolism shows that the old ICRP bone model
overestimated the effective half-life of radium-226 and that 17.1
years, not 44, is currently the best estimate of the half-time
for radium retention (5).* On this basis the effective half-
life of radium-228 (physical half-life 5.75 years)(5) is 4.3
years, assuming the half-time of radium-226 retention is a
reasonable estimate of the biological half-life of radium. In
light of this new information, the body burden from phrenic
radium-226 ingestion is about four times greater than that from
radium-228, not 7.6 times greater as predicted by the old ICRP
model.
The old ICRP model also underestimates the effective energy
delivered to bone from a given body burden. The old ICRP model
assumes that 50 percent of the radon-220 (physical half-life 55
sees) produced in the radium-228 decay chain escapes from bone as
compared to an assumed 70 percent escape of the radon-222
(physical half-life 3.8 days) produced in the radium-226 decay
*n.b. that since the old ICRP model was used to calculate both
radium doses and health effects this change does not change the
risk estimates given in IV-A.
-------
77
chain. Speculation on this point is unnecessary. The MIT
Radioactivity Center has measured the escape of this short half-
life radon-220 from bone and found it to be about one to two
percent (6).
Since almost all of the radon-220 decay products are
retained in bone, the effective energy per disintegration of
radium-228 in bone is about 330 MEV, not 190 MEV as given by the
old ICRP #2 model. The effective energy for radium-226 in the
old ICRP model is 110 MEV, a factor of three less than that for
radium-228.
The average dose to bone due to continuous radium ingestion
(based on an expontential retention function) is proportional to
the effective half-life and effective energy;
for radium-226 this product is 17.1 years x 110 MEV •
1880.
for radium-223 this product is 4.3 years x 330 MEV » 1420.
which indicates that even on the basis of a single exponential
retention model, as used in reference (4) these two radionuclides
give approximately the same dose per unit activity ingested.
Actually, a simple exponential retention model is not a very
good approximation of radium retention in man and the more
sophisticated model based on studies in humans that were not
available in 1959 (5) is currently being considered by ICRP
Committee II.
-------
78
This new ICKP model on alkaline earth metabolism, indicates
that for equal intakes the 50 year dose to bone surfaces from
radium-228 is significantly greater than that from radium-226.
Experimental data given in the 1972 UNSCEAR report supports this
viewpoint(2). In the United States the average daily ingestion
of radium-226 and radium-228 is about equal, Table 10 in
reference 2. Table 9 in reference 2 shows that the dose to bone
surfaces, calculated on the basis of measured skeletal body
burdens of radium-226 and radium-228, is greater for radium-228
than for radium-226.
Since radium carcinogenity is associated with the dose to
bone surfaces(7}, it is likely that radium-228 is more of a
health risk than radium-226. Experimental findings in dogs bear
this out. The measured relative biological effectiveness of
radium-228 is over twice as great as radium-226 when death by
osteosarcomas is used as an end point(8). Though the
carcinogencity of radium-228 relative to radium-226 may not be as
great in man as in dogs, it is prudent to assume chronically
ingested radium-228 is at least as dangerous as radium-226.
-------
79
REFERENCES
1. "Background Material for the Development of Radiation
Protection Standards," Federal Radiation Council, Report #2, U.
S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, USPHS,
Washington, D. C., September 1961.
2. "Ionizing Radiation Levels and Effects," Vol. I, United
Nations Publication E.72.IX.17, 1972, New York, N. Y.
3. "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of
Ionizing Radiation," Division of Medical Sciences, National
Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, November 1972,
Washington, D. C.
4. Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal
Radiation, ICRP Publication 2 (1959), Pergamon Press, New York,
N. Y.
5. "Alkaline Earth Metabolism in Adult Man," ICRP Publication
20, 1972, Pergamon Press, New York, N. Y.
6. Evans,. R. D., "Radium and Mesothorium Poisoning and
Dosimetry and Instrumentation Techniques in Applied
Radioactivity," MIT-952-3, 1966, Division of Technical
Information, ORNL, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
7. "A Review of the Radiosensitivity of the Tissues in Bone,"
ICRP Publication 11, 1968, Pergamon Press, New York, N. Y.
8. Dougherty, T. F. and Mays, C. W., "Bone Cancer Induced by
Internally Deposited Emitters in Beagles," Radiation Induced
Cancer, IAEA-SM-118/3, 1969, International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna, Austria.
-------
80
APPENDIX VI
Dosimetric Calculations for Man-made Radioactivity
A. Calculations Based on^ NBS Handbook 69_
The dose rate from radioactivity in drinking water is
calculated on the basis of a 2 liter daily* intake. Except for
tritium and strontium-90, see below, the 'concentrations of man-
made radionuclides causing 4 millirem per year have been
calculated using the data in NBS Handbook 69(1) and are tabulated
in Table VI-2. The dose models used in preparing Handbook 69 are
outlined in reference 2. Maximum Contaminant Levels are defined
in terms of the annual dose equivalent to the total body or any
internal organ. Handbook 69 lists the critical organ for each
radionuclide. Often the total body is listed as the critical
organ. The 163 hour maximum permissible concentrations for
ingestion in Handbook 69 are not calculated on the basis of the
same annual dose to each critical organ as in the Interim
Regulations, rather different organ doses are permitted by
occupational radiation protection limits (ORL), Table VI-1.
*The recent ICRP publication #23, "Report of the Task Group on
Reference Man,"(3) gives the total daily water intake as 3
liters, 1.95 liters by fluid intake, the balance by food and food
oxidation. Almost all of the fluid intake is from tap water and
water based drinks (Page 360).
-------
81
Table VI-1
Occupational Radiation Limits
(ORL)
Critical Organ ' ORL (reins)
Total body 5
Gonads 5
Thyroid 30
Bone 29.1 (a)
Other Organs 15
(a) Based on the alpha energy deposited in bone by 0.1 uCi
of radium-226.
The maximum permissible concentrations for a 168 hour week,
MFC, in Handbook 69, assume ingestion at 2.2 liter per day and
are in units of uCi per cc. The various numerical factors can be
combined to find C^ , the concentration causing 4 mrem per year
from 2 liters daily ingestion of drinking water as follows:
C4 - 4.4 x 106 X MFC ....'.pCi per liter .
ORL
Critical, organs are identified by boldface type in Handbook
69 so that an appropriate ORL can be selected from Table VI-1.
-------
32
To illustrate, a sample calculation, taken from page 24 of
Handbook 69 is given:
Radionuclide
Beryllium-7 MPC(168 hours) =0.02 uCi/on?
Listed critical organ GI(LLI) gastrointestional tract
(lower large intestine)
C4 - 4.4 x 106 x 0.02 pCi/1 =» 5867 pCi/1
15
- 6000 pCi/1
Rounding is appropriate since the values in Handbook 69 are given
to one significant figure.
Calculation of the dose resulting from the ingestion of
drinking water containing a known mixture of radionuclides is
straightforward. Let A, B,... be the concentrations, in pCi per
liter, of isotopes a, b, — in the water and let C^(X) be the
average annual concentrations 'of isotope A yielding 4 millirem
per year to organ X, d? (X) the same quantity for B, etc. The
total annual dose to organ X in one year is, then
B -h ...
x 4 millirem
Therefore, the 4 millirem limit is not exceeded if
f *
I cftxT
B
•4 CX> -4
< 1.0
It should be noted that although limits for the various
radionuclides may be based on, different critical organs, the
resultant dose is additive with respect to a specific organ when
-------
S3
the total body is the designated critical organ for one of the
radionuclides. For example, consider drinking water which has on
an annual basis a strontiuxn-90 concentration of 4 pCi/1 and a
tritium concentration of 15,000 pCi/1. The annual dose to bone
marrow from the strontium-90 is 2 mrem. The total body dose from
the tritium is 3 mrem annually. Even though the annual
concentration of each contaminant alone is permissible, the total
dose to bone marrow is 5 mrem annually and therefore the MCL is
exceeded. Tabular values for C. for photon and beta emitters are
listed in Table VI-2 below.
B. The Dose from Tritium and Strontium-90 in. Drinking
Water
For the majority of 'radionuclides, the models given in
Handbook 69 to estimate doses to occupationally exposed workers
are also appropriate for environmental contaminants. They are
»
not, however, appropriate for all man-made radionuclides,
particularly tritium and strontium-90. Concentrations yielding 4
millirem annually for these radionuclides are given in Table A of
the Interim Regulations and listed in Table VI-2.
Some radionuclides are isotopes of elements which are
incorporated into organic molecules within the body so that the
single exponential excretion models assumed in the development of
Handbook 69 underestimate the dose. An example is tritium where
two or three exponentials may be needed to describe the dose-time
relationship of ingested tritium (4). Some investigators have
-------
84
estimated that following chronic ingestion organically bound
tritium may increase the dose by a factor of 1.4 to 1.5 over that
predicted by Handbook 69 (5). Such estimates are too high
because organically bound tritium irradiates the total body mass,
and not just the mass of body water, as assumed in the model used
in Handbook 69(2).
Consideration of the daily intake of hydrogen and water
shows that the tritium concentration (specific activity) in any
organ is no greater than 120% of the tritium concentration in
body water. The concentration of tritium in body water following
chronic ingestion is T/3 where T is daily intake of tritium in
pCi and the total water intake, including that in food, is 3
liters per day(3). Water content by weight of any organ does not
exceed 80 percent(4). Therefore, equilibrium concentration of
tritium' in any organ due to its water content, therefore can not
exceed 0.8 T/3 - .267 T pCiAg«'
Because of organically bound hydrogen an organ's hydrogen
(and tritium) content is greater than that due to water alone.
The daily hydrogen intake is .35 kg per day(3) and, since no
organ contains more than 11 percent hydrogen by weight(4), the
maximum tritium concentration in any organ following chronic
ingestion is .11 T/.35 - .314 T pCiAg. The specific activity of
tritium in any organ due to bound and unbound hydrogen exceeds
that due to its water content alone by the ratio
.314/.267 » 1.18. Therefore, the dose to any organ due to
-------
85
organically bound tritium, exceeds the dose to body water, given
in Handbook 69, by no more than about twenty percent.
The Agency is aware that the ICPP is developing new tritium
dose models more suitable for environmental sources of tritium
exposure than the model used in Handbook 69. Until these models
are published and recommended by the Agency, the maximum
contaminant level for tritium is calculated on the basis of SO
percent of the value calculated using NBS Handbook 69.* For
tritium in drinking water:
C4 - 0.8 x 4.4 x 10s x 0.03 » 21,120 pCi/1
5
- 20,000 pCi/1
The maximum contaminant level for strontium-90 in the
Interim Regulations is based on the dose model used by the
Federal Radiation Council (FRC) to predict the dose to bone
marrow(6). According to the FRC model a continuous daily intake
of 200 pCi per day of strontium-90 will result 'in a body burden
of 50 pCi per gram of calcium in bone. The annual dose rate to
bone marrow from this body burden would be 50 mrem per year (7).
Therefore, continuous ingestion of 16 pCi per day would result in
4 mrem per year, the limit for man-made radionuclides in drinking
water. For two liters ingestion of water per day
*n.b. In accordance with current guidance to Federal agencies, a
quality factor of 1.7, as in Handbook 69, is used in this
calculation.
-------
86
C4 - 16 pCi - 8 pCi/1
2
C. Concentrations yielding an Annual Dose of 4 Millirem
Table VI-2 gives C4 the annual average concentrations for
man-made radionuclides which are assumed to yield an annual dose
of 4 millirem to the indicated organ. Ingestion at a rate of 2.0
liters per day is assumed. The values shown were calculated from,
the Maximum Permissible Concentrations listed in Handbook 69 (1)
as outlined above.
-------
87
Table VI-2
Annual Average concentrations Yielding 4 Millirem
per Year for a Two Liter Daily Intake
Radionuclide and
Type Dec.
Tritium
I5p32
1&S33
17C136
17C138
2oca*5
zoca*7
21SC**
21SC*7
21SC*8
2 3V* 8
Critical Organ
Total Body
GI (LLI)
Tat
GI (SI)
Total Body
GI(S)
Bone
Testis
Total Body
GI(S)
GI(S)
Bone
Bone
GI(LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI(LLI)
GI (LLI)
(pCi/1)
20,000
6,000
2,000
2,000
UOO
3,000
30
500
700
1,000
900
10
80
lrOOO
300
80
90
-------
88
2SMnS2
26J'e33
27CQS7
iSani
28NJ.63
J°Zn69Itl
33AS74
33AS76
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
Spleen
GI (LL ()
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
Bone
Bone
GI(LLI)
GI (LLI)
Liver
GI (LLI)
GI(S)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI(LLI)
GI(LLI)
GI(LLI)
Kidney
GI (LLI)
6,000
90
300
300
2,000
200
1,000
9,000
300
100
300
50
300
900
300
200
6rOOO
100
6,000
1,000
100
60
200
900
100
-------
89
3 a sr 8 ^
3 8 sr 9 O
39Y90
3 9Y9 l
39^93
m
3Tc97
Total Body
Pancreas
GI (SI)
Total Body
Bone
Bone Marrow (FUG)
Bone Marrow (FRC)
GI (LLI)
GI (ULI)
GI (LLI)
GI(SI)
GI (LLI)
GI (ULI)
GI(LLI)
G± (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI(LLI)
GI(LLI)
GI (ULI)
Kidney
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
600
300
21,000
900
20
80
8
200
200
60
9,000
90
200
90
2,000
200
60
1,000
300
3,000
600
30,000
300
1,000
6,000
-------
90
t 3ff* 99 HI
^ 3^n/^ 9 9
* 4 J^jj 9 7
4 4 Jftj 103
**RU105
* *Rtl 106
*SRhi03m
* 5Rh* 0 S
,6pd103
* * Pd i o q
* *A<7 l ° s
*7Aqiio m
* 7 Aq 111
*8CdK>*
* 8Cd1 1 s ra
.acdiis
»9Inll3in
»9inii* m
* 9 r j^ 113
Tn. * *
s osn ^ i 3
s o Sn i 2 '
siSbt22
sisb124
sisb125
GI (ULI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI(LLI) -
GI (ULI)
GI (LLI)
GI(S)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (ULI)
GI (LLI)
GI (ULI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
20,000
900
1,000
200
300
30
30,000
300
900
-300
300
90
100
600
90
90
3,000
60
1,000
300
300
60
90
60
300
-------
91
Kidney 600
Kidney 200
27 GI(LLI) 900
GI(LLI) 90
GI(S) 2,000
GI(LLI) 200
GI(LLI) 90
; 12 a Thyroid 3
s3i129 Thyroid 1
s3ii3i Thyroid 3
S3J132 Thyroid 90
531133 Thyroid 10
S3I134IQ Thyroid 100
53H35 Thyroid 30
sacs*3* Total Body 20,000
sscs*34 GI (S) 20,000
S5Csi3* Total Body 80
sscs135 Total body 900
sscs*3* Total Body 800
sscsi37 Total Body 200
GI(LLI) 600
GI(LLI) 90
37La**° GI(LLI) 60
GI(LLI) -300
GI(LLI) 100
-------
92
58Ce14*
3«Pr *42
5 6 pr 1*3
*'°Nd149
6ipn149
62Smi3i
62SmiS3
63EU1S2
63Eu15if
63EU15S
6*G<3iS3
**Gd159
6STb160
66Dy16S
6*Dy 1 66
srgo166
68Er169
S3 Eri7l
57 Tml70
6 'Tm * 7 J
roYb173
7iLui77
72Hf 181
73Taifl2
74^71 at
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI).
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (ULI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI) '
GI (LLI)
30
90
100
900
100
1,000
200
200
60
600
600
200
100
1,000
iao
90
300
300
100
1,000
300
300
200
100
1,000
-------
93
7+yi as
74^187
7SRe183
r
7SRe186
7SRe187
73RQ188
76QS18S
76Qsl91m
7 6Qg 191
76QS193
77Irl90
77Ir192
77Ir194
7apti*i
7 8 pt I 9 3m
7apti93
7 apt 197m
7Sp-tl97
79AU19«
T 9AU l 9 a
81T1202
a ii"i2O4
B2pb203
83Bi20*
83Bi207
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
Kidney
GI (ULI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
GI (LLI)
300
200
2,000
300
9,000
200
200
9,000
600
200
600
100
90
300
3,000
3,000
3,000
300
600
100
300
300
1,000
100
200
-------
94
9ipaz33 GI (LLI) 300
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Maximum Permissible Body Burdens and Maximum Permissible
Concentrations of Radionuclides in Air and Water for Occupational
Exposure," NBS Handbook 69, Department of Commerce, revised 1963.
•
2. Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal
Radiation, ICRP Publication 2 (1959), Pergamon Press, New York,
N. Y.
3. Report of the Task Group on Reference Man, ICRP Publication
23, 1975, Pergamon Press, New York, N. Y.
4. Snyder, W. S., Fish, B. R., Bernard, S. R., Ford, M. R. and
Muir, J. R., "Urinary Excretion of Tritium Following Exposure of
Man to HTO-A Two-Exponential Model," Physics in Medicine and
Biology, Vol. 13, p.547, 1968.
5. Evans, A. G., "Hew Dose Estimates from Chronic Tritium
Exposures," Health Physics, Vol. 16, pp 57-63, 1969.
6. "Background Material for the Development of Radiation
Protection Standards," Federal Radiation Council, Report #2, U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, USPHS, Washington,
D. C., September 1961.
7. "Estimates and Evaluation of Fallout in the United States
from Nuclear Weapons Testing Conducted through 1962", Federal
Radiation Council, Report §4, U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, USPHS, Washington, D. C., May 1963.
------- |