PRIVACY MATERIAL !?!w?

w) ACT

DEc .:

1974

L
,. >..,
J:, ., ,
!, .

/?(
Major GeneralW. R. S&add,W DeputyDirector (Operationand Adainlstratioa)
Defeaaa Nuclear A@acy Ueshis@en, D. C. 20305

.
... .., ,

. . . ,..

,. -...., ,,, :
, . .!1 .. . *

Dear Bi3J.: b with Dr. ~

sent m on Octobu

. . ;, . .. .,. ...

B. COochraas previaw
$iaaager for

nterial

which

you

9, 1974, X have asked W.

IAmman, A8sistant6eaerd
,<
,4

L. Bioadical earl
ti

L::vir:ms.tal ..eaearchanc Safety ?rogrants,to study Dr. Cochrans hteet latterand aacloed paper aaprovtAed w your letterof .Noveder 26, 1974. Dr. Liver,ea9 Xaff
18 still workingoa * ~lier ~ ad mey addreastbe MUpaperc CnlCumeatly with the pr8vimS -. Yeu atmald reeeivean appropriate reepmae for botkpepembya but

mld-i)ecember.
SinceYdy,

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

!( ~

Dietributon: i eo: Addee bCc: Km bcc: AGMB 6bcc Std DM4 :

~k~ $$?

@b

\\\+.$

&$Q

4-5016 fm DNA +$$f: DD 12/6/74

MA:TESTS
Giannotta/jm 12/3/74

Dos

Graves
12/ /74

/74

12/

/74

.,,

).

.,.,

., 0
. .. ~%
.!,

& ACENCY
/~

r.

..

DEFENSE

NUCLEAR

4..,.
~ 4 ~:

WASHINGTON,

D.C.20305

r3$?J
a .._ ~ ,, =. ___

ma

Najor General :rnest Graves, USA Aeeiatent General Hanagerfor MilitaryApplication be s. AtORLiC nntirgyboMllMaion Weehingtcm, D.C. 20545

Da&r hrel

Gravee

Attach-d letteris forwurdod

upon which you provideinformation

for

your

st~

snd r-u.

Xaqueet

I caI baes q reply,if naceeaa~. Sincerely,

/3 )
1 Encl
Natural Reaourcee Defenee Council, Inc. ltr, 24 Sap 74 w/hcl,
w.

k SEQD Major C&nerd, U8A

Deputy

Dir@ctor

(Oparatione and Admlniatr8tiod

DEIS-Baevetak
. \

COpy furnished: Dr. Martin B. Biles, USAEC Mr. Lester ~laback, AFRRI

,.

.
q

1710

STREET, X.\\.
l?. L. New Iorh O/JIcc

\i.4>l [l:i(; i.)s,

:ullq .G 202 7835710

1974

BOARDOF TRUSTEES
Slcphen P. Duggan. Esq.
Cl!nirvln,t Ill h!ls. I.U:IS :1 .!! 1 t .4-; %)11

24
$111,1 <1($ss

September

36\VCST~THSTREET ~ 1 NEW YORK, N.Y.0036 a12I386-831o

I.WI:.

L q. John T. IhJIJtlI. Esq. Frederick .4. G,]lirrs, Jr., ~.

1)1, K(IC7 ): it. J t :,,.4 l,! ! i. .:ore hq. ]L+111L5 Rolxrt

1. ; :r, 1 ;.

TO:

Lt. General Warren D. Johnson Di~nctor Defense Nuclear Agency Dr. Thomas B. Cochran Staff Scientist Draft Environmental Impact Statement

664 IIAhf ILTON AVENUE PALoALTO, CALIF. 9.1301 415 327-1060

Dr. Jushu:l klcrbcrg James Marshall, Esq. Ruby G. h[~rtin, Esq. An thonv h! azzrrcchi Jf, cb c! !1

FROM:

John. , U ,).,..(
Dr CIfl, IILI l!nchot E: ]01,11ii. i. .s,,. I.>q. burance Rockfellcr J. IVillard Rousevclt ENCLOSURX David Sivc, ~sq. Dr. ~cc:-c Iioodwcll Edwin M. Zu,,merrnan, Esq.

-- Enewetak

: Radiation Standards for He+. Particles, A. R. Tamplin and T. B. Cochran, NRDC, 14 February, 1974

1. NRDC finds the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Clean Up, Rehabilitation, Resettlement of Enewetak Atoll -- Marshall Islands, to be incomplete and inadequate. Furthermore, the proposed (preferred) clean up operation is totally inadequate to protect the health of.the Enewetak people from exposure to hct particles of plutonium which carry a high risk of producing lung cancer. The basis for these conclusions ltp=ai~ti~.m. St~P.5ZZtiS i=nl- LTT~ D=-r+iplac - -- . 1 --~~ pre~ep.t~d i~. +_h-~ ~ep~~~, .&=. -. .I ~---L.j ;.rt:.~r :i ikmpiin and I,iyself (~ilC105LiIf2) . . TtIis report is intended to-be an integral part of these comments.

2. Radiation Standards for Hot Particles, was written in support of a petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Atomic Energy .Commission reql-. sting (1) a reduction of the existing radiation protection 5tandar5s applicable to the internal exposure of man to insoluble alpha-emitting hot par.tlcles and (2) the establishment, with respect to such materials, of stdndards governing the maximum permissible concentrations in air and maximum permissible surface contamination letiels in unrestricted areas. 3. The petition was filed with the AEC on February 14, 1974. It is totally irresponsible for the AEC Task Group on Recommendations for Clean Up and Rehabilitation of Enewetak Atoll to issue its report on acknowledqinq the serious implications of hot June 19, 1974, without particles as detailed in our rep~rt~ 4. It is NRDCS position that the clean up of Enewetak should meet standards (enclosure) . summarized on pages 51-52 of our report
the

YL. T) ca
., ii? ;,:

* >. ., +: .. . . . r

..

.,. ,,-. ...-

,.

-..

RADIATION STANDARDS

FOR HOT PARTICLES

A REPORT ON THE INADEQU14Cy OF

EXISTING RAD1ATION RELATED TO lNTERNAL EXPCSURE PROTECTION STANDARDS P.4RTICLES

OF hlAN TO INSOLUBLE

OF PLUTONIU31 AND OTHER

.

ALPHA-E\fITfING

HOT PARTICLES.

FEBRUARY .

14,1974

,-

r ARTIIUR R.TA!!?PLIN THOMAS B.COf3iRAN

.

NaturalResourcesDefense Council 1710 N Street. N.W. Washington.. C. D 20036

------w .

------

--

Int-ro~\~:~~o~ II plutonium Use

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 3

Iv

Calculating the Dose Due . The ~,~se Equivalent. A B

c

to Insoluble

Alpha-Emitters

. . 11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Modifying The

Factors

,iot Particle

Problem

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Biological Data Related to the Cancer Risk from Insoluble Plutonium Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . .. A B
c

. 21

The

Geesaman Human Lung

Hypothesis Experience Experiments Activity Flats Workers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Related Related

VI

Critical A B
c

Particle

- Exposure Manhattan Weapons

at Rocky Project Test

Fallout.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 c
q

VII

: ,, Exposure

Standards

for Hot particles Exposure

: c o

41

/ A B
c

Occupational Exposure Exposure Surface As Low

. . . . ~. . . . . . .. . . . . 42 Public . . . . . . . . . . . 44 . . . . . . . . . 46
q q

of the General from Accidental Contamination as Practicable .

Releases
q

D E VIII

. -

48

Hearings

. . . . . . . . . . . SO

Summary A

of Recommendations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Setting. Organizations and

Appendix

Radiation Standards Their Roles Statement Submitted

Appendix Glossary

to Attorneys

for Mr. Edward

Gleason

This

report

is written

in support

of a petition

by

Protection

Agency

(EPA) and

the Atomic

Energy

Commission rediation exposure and (2) the of

\AEC) requesting protection

of the existing ~1) a .-cd.::cti:n applicable to the internal

standards

man to insoluble establishment, governing maximum

u~rticles alpha -~~~itting hot .,, with respect to such materials, concentrations

of standards in air and in un-

the maxirium permissible permissible areas. surface

contamination

levels

restricted

~e~~iew in the health concern

follo~~inq section as plutonium

the qravity

of the public article of

becomes

a principal

commerce in the nuciear . ,. /

power

industry.

r While much of this report focuses narrowly on plutonium-239, ~/ the discussion is, nevert!leless, germaine to all raciionuclides in insoluble particles with a high specific activity. (The definition of specific activity and other technical terms in this report are given in the Glossary) . The- justification for focusing on plutonium has been aptly stated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) : of the generthe emphasis on plutonium is clearly a reflection al consensus that, in terms of amount available, projected accidental human exposurel and usage , extent of anticipated radionuclide radiotoxicity, plutonium is the most formidable [ICRP Publication 19, The Metabolism in the periodic table. of Compounds of Plutonium and Other Actnidesl pergamon press~ 1972, P.1.]

. .
.!.

!.. . ,. ?.
J , . .. :!, ,., ,,!; : * .

,. ,,,.
,. ... ,..

-2* This specific is followed in Section 111 by a review that of tile

radiation

protection

regulations

are in force

in tile United Szates today and which are at issue. This section focuses on the existinq guidelines for Pu-239 , b~t is to be understood it should meet be applied particle Section that, in this and subsequent sections,

i: .

to all alpha-emittir.g criteria III, developed

radionuclides in this with report. the

that

the hot

Before national
,,. {,,.,. , ~,, .
,8
!. ,. ..

reading

those

unfamiliar

and international

organizations

which

have

primary

responsibility protection A, where

for recommending may find

or establishing it useful their to read

radiation Appendix are reviewed. in the existing those assump-

standard<, these

,; . . . t, . ., .. ,,,. .

organizatiofis IV-presents

and

authority inherent

Section radiation

assumptions and when The

protection are

standards

identifies applied

,,$.. ., .. ,..

tions
# ,,

that

inappropriate particulate. these

to insoluble data which when applied

alpha-emitting # demonstrate

biological are

that

assumptions

<appropriate V. V, the

to hot particles Utilizinq criteria VI. that

are discussed the data

in Section

presented particle

in Section

define

a hot

are developed standards

in Section particles

Recommendations developed VIII.

for exposure in Section VII

for hot in

are then Section

and summarized

,
.

. *

T\*i ,..;.. ,.. ,

,7, \
q

,, .:,

-1 .

Pluccniu.n U:.: ancl pu~~Iic !;ealth plutonium occurs in nature, althouqh in such small cf the

., ,, ,.. ..
.. .

.. >c..ntsthat . element capture 2 .

:k C2*:S not c~n:titcte is bred

a pr~ctical reactors

sour~e by the

Plytonium

in nuclear

of neutrons program

in uranium-238. the principal the

To date, source

the nuclear of plutonium. nuclear power

.! ,.

,,

weapons

has been

liowever, it is anticipated industry within will become the

that

corme~-cial source

principal

of this commercial

material reactors of

the next

two decades.

In todays

plutonium

is produced

as a by-product

in the

production

electricity.
.

As a result .~ -. X: nlutonium be some estir.atcs

of the
tlhzt

growth /
tctal

of the nuclear cur~~lative

power

industry, of will

:::Q

production States . Since fuel,

in the tori.mercial sector 4.5 million like kilograms can by

of the United 3 2000

the year

piuconium,
.

uranium, spent

serve

as a reactor

botl_A

are

Be-covered

from

reactor The

fuel

tihey will

be recycled.

reactor

in anticipation that r together with the variety

~/ The ratio of the concentrations of plutonium-239 to Katz, J.J., uranium in ores varies from 4X10-13 to 1.5x10-11. Chapter VI, The Chemistry of Actinide Elements, Methuen and co., Ltd., London, 1957, pp. 239-330. Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor 3_/ Environmental Statement, Demonstration Plant, USAEC, WASH-1509, April 1972, p. 149.
.

-49

of support to recover

activities and recycle

required

both

to provide andplutonium

raw

fuel up

and

the uranium

make

?rojectz~. that will

over

4 million 1970

megawatts 4 and 2020 capacity

of nuclear . Over

capacity

be installed plants flow

between this

the lifetimes in a of

of these cumulative plutonium

installed

could

result kilograms

of approximately ,,

200 million cycle.

t!!rough the nuclear commercial 5 .

fuel reactors

In todays oxide cycle, form, PU02

the plutonium

is in fuel on in

At various

facilities

in the nuclear

aerosols basis. cycle

of Pu02

are released there

to the environment are numerous those points

a routine the fuel with PU02 . .

..

In addition, accidents,

where

particularly

associated of

fire or explosions, as aerosols These small that

can release inhaled

significant by man. of Pu02

amounts

can be

aerosol

particles fraction

are highly Pu02 tissue of

radio-

/ active. particles lung,

An appreciable are trapped because

of t~e

inhaled

in the deep they are

respiratory

the

where,

insoluble

in human .

tissue,

~/ Updated (1970) Cost-Benefit Analysis of the U. S. Breeder Four Reactor Program, USAEC, WASH-1184, January 1972, p. 34. million megawatts (MW) corresponds to 4000 nominal-size nuclear reactors -- 1000 Mw each. 5/ Some advanced veactors of the future may use carbide and nitride, rather than oxide, form. fuel in

P].utor.iun +.s cne agents

,,.} . 0 8

cf the noct A machinist

Fotcr.t :an:er of plutonium

prod~cing carried of four

known
.

to man.

metal site

~licronrams

of plutcnium.-239 in the palm it was

imbedded

at the

the puncture year period

wound before

of his hand. it produced There inhaled

Within

the

excized,

a nod.ale which doubt from

displayed

precancerous animal

changesg. studies that

is little plutonium known. plutonium

experimental the most

is one of is

potent

respiratory

carcinogens evidence that

There

experimental tions in the

and observed lungs of dogs

concentra(3 micro-

as lcv as 0.2

microcuries

200 million ~017 cancer

kilograms doses,

of plutonium

represents which,

a flow as will

of over be

a staggering

number

cancer /

doses

by

several of

orders this

of magnitude. toxic mater;al, once lost to

The persistence the environment,

.

is measured

in terms

of thousands in.the

of years. nuclear

Roughly

two-thirds

of the plutonium

flowing

A Dermal C.C. and J. Langham, Lushbauch, Archives of Dermatology, ;mplanted Plutonium, 1962, pp. 121-124.
6/

Lesion from 86, October

7/ There are 0.061 curies per gram of plutonium-239. fro-tenths of a microcurie of plutonium-238 would have a mass of only 0.01 micrograms since plutonium-238 has a much higher specific activity, 17.47 curies per gram.

-6q

fuel . life.

cycle

will

be plutonium-239 words, in 240,000

which years

has the

a 24,400 inventory a factor

year

half-

In other

of this Of iOOJ be

hazardous due

; mate-rial 1..;ou13 be red~c~:cl by only radioactive decay. This

to nat~ral from

material

must

isolated

the environment

in perpetuity.

IIi.

Existinq Radiation

Standards exposure

fcr Plutonium. Lxposure standards have been established and genetic can

because mutations in turn The

radiation

is known

to produce

cancer The

in individuals cause genetic

irradiated.

mutations

defects

in subsequent

generations. this biological

intent

of the exposure

standards

is to limit

shown dose

to be related the greater

to the

radiation

dose. the

The

higher

the

the effect.

Therefore,

primary

radia-

dose; maximum

This

primary

standard dose

is generally r

referred

to as the

permissible discuss

and is given of this

in units

of rem/yr.

We shall
.

the nature

unit

subsequently. from sources

An individual that are external or from

can be exposed to his body as,

to radiation for example, emit X-ray

an X-ray like radiation from can be

machine deposited nuclear

radionuclides

which

on the ground weapon tests) .

(this occurred Alternately,

with

fallout

an individual

-7.

irradiated incorporated ;ntrance

taminated

by internal in body

sources; tissues.

that These

is, by radionuclides radionuclides gain contheir

eXdillpl~,

intc f~d

the bo~y or water.

th>-cuc;i inhalation Once inside they

or throuah behave iodine,

like for as

non-radioactive accumulates stable

counterparts.

Radioactive

in the thyroid

gland

in the same

fashion

iodine , and radioactive similar to their . The

strontium naturally

or calcium occurring

accumulate

in the bone active

non-radiothus larger deliver than

counterparts

radioactive that

iodine

will

a dosage that

to the thyroid orgms

qland

is many

times

to the other

or to the whole body, will mainly

and the irradiate the

radioactive bone. . Because in the body developed . . ,, org~s.

strontium

and ca~cium

of the

uneven

distribution exposure body,

of radionuclides standards but also have been

organs ~ radiation just

not

for the whole we will and

for individual

In this whole

report body

be referr$ng

to the maximum

~>ermissible

lunq doses. of convenience

f

Largely radiation standards, burdens, standards.

as a matter have

secondary These

or derived

standards which

been

developed.

secondary or organ dose

limit more

radionuclide easily

concentrations than

are often

employed two

the primary

We shall

examine

secondary

standards

in this

-8q

report; maximum

~he maxi,num permissible permissible amount man concentration of a given that will

lung

burden

(MPLB)

and the The MPLB of

in air

(MPCa) .

is the total an average irradiated The MPCa an average breathing

radionuclide result in the lunq that

in the lung lung being dose will (MPLD) . result in

size

at the maximum

permissible in air

is the concentration adult male

obtaining. .

a MPLi3 and hence

a !4PLD by

the air. to recognize to all and that the MPLD is the and standards standards

It is important primary radiation standard;

it applies

radionuclides

sources. . The MPLB

the NIPCa are derived These derived

and are specific are related -. and to the Table ployees . . form. of the (ICRP)!
.

for a radionuclide.

EO the biological fcrm

Gf

properties it emits. exposure that

of a radionuclide

radiation

I lists

the existing industry

standards to Pu-239

for emin insoluble

of the nuclear The MPLD

apply

of 15 rem/yr

is includ~d

in the recommendations Protection and

International the National (NCRP)9,

Commission Council and

on Radiological

on Radiation

Protection

Measurements
-,.
)

the Federal

. Radiation

Council

. ., ;,,
,.. +

.,. ,; .. .,.

!.

8/ ICRP Publication 9, Recommendations of the International ~ommission on Radiological Protection (Adopted September 17, Pergamon Press, New York, 1966, p. 14. . 9/ NCRP Report No. 39, Basic ~CRP Publications, Washington, Radiation Protection Criteria, D. C.; Jan. 15, 1971, p. 106.

1966) ,

..

,.
q

-911

(FRC)lO.

The MPCa an AEC

is included radiation

in the standard

ICRP 12 .

recommendations Of the standards

and is also

in Table

I only

the :lPCa is designated corresponds is derived to that

in the AEC tabulated

regul~tions. in ICRP

;l~wever, this MPCa Publication listed he

213 which I.

on the basis derived

of the MPLD on the basis of

in Table

The MPLB

is also included

MPLD14.

The HPI_B I.s net NCRP, the

in either of FRC,

the recenmenda-

tions

of ICRP,

guidelines

or the AEC (designate~ and MPLB. radiation. In

zngulations. in AEC Table

In sur.nery, in IableI the MPCa is consistent to all with forms the MPLD

regulations) I the MPLD and MPCa -

applies apply

of ionizing to Pu-239

The MPLB forrn15.

specifically

in insoluble

The 10/ FRC Report No. 1, O=. cit., p. 38. tr~ferred to EPA. tioiisi.ed aad i=s d~~i~~
.

FRC

has

been

11/,ICRP Publication 2, Report of Committee II on Permissible ~se for Internal Radiation, Pergamon Press, New York, 1960. [Appeared in Health Phvsics, Vol. 3, Perqamon Press, June 1960.]

12/
.

10 CFR 20, Appendix ICRP Publication

B. . of Lung Pu02, Burden Health

13/ 14/

2, Og. _it. c

Evaluation Mann, J.R. and A.R. Kirchner, ~llowing Acute Inhalation of Highly Insoluble Physics, Vol. 13, 1967, pp. 877-882.

15/ The MPLB could apply to most other alpha-emitting since the alpha particle radionuclides with long half-lives, energies do not differ appreciably from the Pu-239 alpha energy.

TABLE

that Apply MPLD MPLB

to Pu-239

in Insoluble 15 rerr,/y;0.016 uCi

Form*

(ICRP, ;:CT.P ?Rc) ,

4~10-11 *Note : See Glossary for definitions

uCi/ml

of symbols.

The exposure occupational Table II.

guidelines

for Pu-239

that

apply

to nonin the the

exposure

of the general are applied

public here.

are tabulated One is for is for

Two guidelines exposure

limiting average differ

to an individual of a population of 3. The

and sample.

the other These

exposure

two guidelines include within the only

by a factor for

ICRP recommendations The MPLD to tKe values latest

the.guidelines ,. p~rentheses
.-

individuals. II correspond latest

in Table ib . These

recommendation

of the NCRP have AEC not, or EPA

recommendations incorporated

of the NCRP into either . the

at this

tiIL]e/been

regulations.

1
16/ NCRp Report No. 39, ~.

-11q

TABLE Existing Exposure t~at Guidelines to Pu-239

II for Non-Occupational in Insoluble Population 0.5 (0.i7) Average rem/yr Exposure

Apply

Individual !.!F LD (ICRP, NCRP; MPLB MPCa (ICRP, AEC)

*

1.5 (0.5) rem/yr

FP.C) 0.0016 10-12 .. (0.0005) (3x10-13) . uCi uCi/ml

0.0005 3X10-13

(0.00017) (10-13)

uCi uCi/ml

The MPLD

values

in parentheses

refer

to the and MPCa dose

latest values in

recommendations parentheses

of the NCRP.

The MPLB

correspond

to t~.e ne~w NCRP

recorn.rn.endaticns.

IV.

Calculating

the Dose

Due

to Insoluble

Alpha-Emitters

The purpose of this section is to examine the assumptions . ,. inthe radiation standards above that ar$ inappropriate when applied aerosols . review used of basic definitions the dose. Equivalent or the radiation emitted energy by a radionuclide cells in of radiation dose-and the factors to insol<~ble of Pu02. alpha-emitzing assumptions particulate are introduced such as a

The

through

to calculate A. When The

Dose

an X-ray

passes

through

tissue

it transfers

to the

these

tissues.

m.-~ cl-. i... .3 ergy cells;

produces

cllemic~l chailqcs in such a chemical dose

the molecule change

of the

for example, in a Gene.

could. be a mutaticn a measure

The rad~~tion to or

is actually absorbed rad

of the energy The basic

transferred unit of dGse

by the tissue. represents

is the of

(one rad per

the absorption . .

of 100 ergs

energy

qr=m

of material)
,,

In addition (high energy particles it was produced magnitude example, produce X-rays . . .

to X-rays, beta

radionuclides

emit

gamma

rays

X-rays),

particles

(electrons),

and alpha

(helium

nuclei). that, .

In radiobiological these effects,

not

experiments, types of radiation the

determined the same

while

various such

biological .
tiias

as cancer, per raci.

of the effect it was roughly found

the same

For would

that

100 red of alpha cancers that

radiation

10 times it was

as many found

as 100 rad of of the special alpha cancer particles than the

Moreover, Pu-239 more

because its bone

~-ay in which were alpha

.

deposits

in the bone, r in producing 17 . To account effects dose

5 times

efferti~.e radium

particles

from

for these at- the limits same

differences absorbed

in the magnitude dose in rad,

of the observed

the maximum than rad.

permissible

are given

in rem rather The MPLD

is given

in rem .

in Tables

I and

II.

The

17/ ICRP Publication the Tissues in Bone,

,. ,. .,.. 1,

of 11, A Review of the Radiosensitivity Perqamon Press, New York, N. Y. , 1967, p. 21.

.-13q

18 rem is the unit of Dose Equivalent dose (DE) .

The DE is obtained factors

b; multiplying to correct

the absorbed

in rad by modifying

for these observed differences in the magnitude the magnitude of the :f the effect. As a consequence, will be the same for a given DE regardless of radiation. of the

effect ~zture

of the radiation B. Modifying

or the manner . Factors ,. time,

At the present One is the Quality

two modifying (QF) which among

factors

are employed.

Factor

accounts various

for differences forms of

in producing radiation. which when

biological The other

effects

is the Distribution

Factor

(DF) effects

accnl].nts for the m.odiffcation a radionuclide. is nonuniformly

of the biological distributed tissue

in an organ.

For example, l-v Usinq determined / QF=~

the DE for X-ray

to bone

is determined in the bcr.e iS the greater

~P.d gF=lf T#hi~e that a QF=1O

for PU-239 for

by using

(to account

effectiveness
(to
.

of alpha

particle

irradiati~nl

and .a DF=5
19

account

for the peculiar from X-rays

distribution would

of Pu in the bone) thus induce from the same the X-rays 1 rad.

A DE=50 number would

rem

or Pu-239 but the

of cancers

in bone that

absorbed

dose

be 50 rad while

from

Pu-239

would

be only

18/

NCRP ICRP

Report

No.

39, 0~. 11, OD.

&.; cit.,

p.
p.

81.
21.

19/

Publication

-14q

In obzainlng
.,,
r, ,. .

t!~e derived

values was

in Tables employed.

I and II, This QF

MPLB

and MPCa

for Pu-239,

a QF=1O

im~li~s, which

as ~.lenfi,~,:ej 2LQle, that particle

tk,ur.

the particles are

cf PU-239, more effective of

emit alpha
C2ilCer

radiation, X-rays.

10 times

in inddcing
.,,. , .. ,:, .. ... .,.
.,.

Although

the irradiation is highly

tissue

by insoluble has beer

plutonim assigned

particles to these

nonuniform, and hence, a I

no DF value

particies

.,,..

DF=l was er,plc~zd in :Ietermining t,hederived ,, and II. Ideally, the DF should be determined of the observed nonuniform for example: DF = Number Number Since direct . of cancers of cance~s data effects in an organ following with the

values

in Tables

by the ratio uniform same and

., ..: ,.

radiation

of the tissue

radionuclide;

(l~onuniform irradiation) (uniform irradiation) are not available, Pu-239 we it is particles present a DF=l from

e>:perinental

necessary collateral

to deri~~e the DF for insoluble data. In a subsequent section,

shall that

the big~~gi~;~

.-r.;-..--~ TV-.. -._= L:-latstrongly

suggests

grossly underestimates the DE for insoluble particulate of d Pu-239 and, consequently, that the derived standards, MPLB and ;\!PCafor this radionuclide, are greatly in error.20 In fact,
.

it will that

be shown

that

the biological one should

data use

strongly

suggests

for such

particles

a DF=115,000.

20/

This applies as well to other insoluble particulate form.

alpha-emitting

actinides

.
q

-15-

uefore discuss

turning first

53 che bi~lsgical the radiation the field

data

it is appropriate a particle that

to

around

of Pu02 need to be

and thereb} deiine answered

i~:,danental questions data from

by the collateral.

radiobiological

studies.

insoluble decays, This

particles it emits has

of Pu-239

occurs

because,

when

Pu-239 of 5.1 PAeV. of only

an alpha a range

particle (produces

wit!! an energy biological

particle

damage)

some 40-45 u (0.004 cm) in human

a Pu-239 tissue ward particle in tissue in a-sphere will

tissue. only

In other

words, of in-

irradiate

a volume

enclosed

of 45 u radius. sphere, half the

As one moves radiation alpha

from

the surface geometrically.

of this /

intensity particle that dose in the

increases energy is 1/8

About

of the

is i!issipzti ed at 20 u the total in the 20 u. volume) . first The

(that is, with means that that

a volume the average delivered

This

delivered . refraining

20 u is 8 times column such lung

first around the

of Tab+e

III describes in soft tissue tissue; with a large

the radiation e.g., . air volume, lung

field

a particle is a spongy particles

the skin. the

Since range

of alpha the mass made

is longer

in the larger.

and consequently Donald

of irradiated a detailed

tissueis

Professor

Geesaman

analysis

of plutonium

-16q

particle last

irradiation

of deep

respiratory

.tissue 21 . the radiation Geesamans is given Table

The field lung in

two columns such

in Table

III describe

around model. column

a p:.rticlc in the lung rate III

using

-The dose

to the entire

organ From

2 of Table

for comparison. with an assumed

III it is

significant dose

to note

that

PF=l, than

the lung 8 orders over of

from the sane depending

:~~ticle

varies one

by more averages

magnitude the entire exposed.

on whether

the dose

lung or calculates

it on the basis

of the tissue

1
.

I
,

i Radiation Dose Rate Due to a Pu-239 0.28 pCi23) Particle

(1 u in diameter,

Mass of Tissue Dose Rate (rem/yr)

0.4

Ug

1000

gz

65

ug

19 Ug

730,000

0.0003

4000

11,000

21/ Geesaman, Donald P., An Analysis of the Carcinogenic Risk ~om an Insoiuble Alpha-Emitting Aerosol Deposited in Deep Respiratory Tissue, UCRL-50387 and UCRL-50387 Addendum, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, Calif., 1968.

-17q

It would , in Table ,

take

53,000

particles

of the size uCi which

liCWeV~K,

illustrated results as

III to reach

the MPLB

of 0.016

in i5 rem/yr Table

to the entire these

(1000 g) lung. particles would

III ifidicates,

irr~.diate only rate of particles A

3.4 g of this 1000 g to the lung, but

4000 rem/yr result 28 . Thus, as Table but highly III

at a dose

indicates,

theSe

in an intense question more or

localized is this

irradiation. intense

fundamental irradiation irradiation?

is, then: less

but localized

carcinogenic

than

uniform particular than one? or this form In

Alternatively, equal of this

is the DF for this than, or less

of irradiation the remainder more hot

..

to, greater

sectiofi, we review of qi~idance,

the guidance, with

appropriately, particle

lack

for dealing

problem.
-

22/ ~Geesaman, /

Donald

P., UCRL-50387,

pp.

8, 15.

23/ Langham, Wright H. , The Problem of L~rue Area Plutonium CGntanin2t10n, 11. S. Dept. of H. E. 1;. Public }+ealth , Services, Seminar Paper No. 002, Dec. 6, 1968, p. 7.

24/ Long, Neqliqible

Inhalation: A.B., Plutonium Nuclear News, Consequence,

The Burden of June 1971, p. 71.

Based on 25/ Geesaman, Donald P., uCRL-50387, pp. 8, 15. ~esamans model for a lung at one-half maximum inflation. Geesaman estimates a total of.68 alveoli at risk, each 8X10-6 cm3 in volume, and deep respiratory zone tissue density of 0.12 g/cm3. 26/ 27/ See footnote 23. mass of a standard radiation man = 1000 of
g.

Based

on a lung

28\ This ~rticles

assumes that the do not overlap.

field

the 53,000

-186

c.

The

Hot Particle

Problem that the ICRP has qiven

It is important no guidance by insoluble particles. with

to recognize

respect

to r,onuniforrn irradiation such as insoluble ICRP

of t!!e lung

alpha-emitters

plutonium

In its Publication

9, the

states:

to show ...In the meantime there is no clear evidence biological with a qi~cn mean absorbed dose, the wheth;u, risk associated with a non-homoqeneous distribution is than. the risk resulting from a more greater or less diffuse distribution of that dose in the lung.29 In effect, to the risk the MPCa particles. The NCRP with respect offers and the ICRP is saying that there is no guidance in the lung, as hence

for non-homo~eneous the MFLB

exposure for

are meaningless . the following

insoluble

plutonium

and

similar

statement

to these

particles:

.,. /

(210) The NCRP has arbitrarily used 10 percent of the ~cltc~,e of the cr~an 2s the si~~.i.ficlnt ?olIur.e fc~ irradiation of the gonads. There are some cases in which choice of a significant volume or area is virtually meaningless. For exa~le, if a single particle of radioactive material fixed in either lung Gr lyn?h no~e Y.cy be carcir,oqenic, the averaging of dose either over the lung or even over one cubic centimeter may have little to do with this case.30 This hot particle community. problem The is also following wel-l recognized is extracted in from a

the bloloqical

29/
30/

ICRP NCRP

Publication Report No.

9, o=. 39, 0~.

cit.,

p.. 4. 79-80.

., pp.

-19q

paper

by Professor

Donald

P. Geesaman:

So there is a hot particle problem with plutoni~~~ in t!:e Lu;lq, ana tile ;hbt ;Jartlcic prO~~.~1~ -s :Iot as to the risk. undersL~Gd, and +Jcre is rlo guidance I donk think there is any controversy about that. s Let :-.7; q~ote to ;:ou f~~;n Cr. K. Z . :.lorqan tcstin;ony ;Tear be fare the Joint CJr.mittce on in Jc.::!:r~r:- t!lis n Atomic Energy, U.S. Congress. [a] Dr. K. Z. Morgan . , is one of the United States two metiers to the main Committee of t!~e International Commission on RadiLIoqical protection; he has been a member of the comof mittee long~r tcan anyone; and he is director Health Physics Division at Oak Ridge National LaboraThere are many things about radiation tory. I quote: exposure we do not understand, and there will continue to be uncertalnci.es until health physics can provide This is why a coherent theory of radiation damage. some of the basic research studies of the USAEC are so and Tamplin have pointed important. D. P. Geesaman out recently the-problems of plutonium-239 particles and the uncertainty of the risk to a man who carries such a particle of hiah specific activity in his lungs. :,t che sa::: hea~i:ig, in response to the committee s inquiry about. priorities in basic research on the biological effects of radiation, Dr. M. Eisenbud, then Director of the New York City Environmental Protection Administration , in part replied, For some reason or other the Darticle problem has not come upon us in quite. a little while, but it probably will one of these . days . We are not much further along on the basic 2 question of whether a given amount of energy delivered to a progressively smaller and small&r volume of tissue This is another is better or worse fcr the recipient. calculate the dose way of asking the question of how you when you inhale a single particle. [b] He was correct; the pro~lem has come up aqain.

,.

[a]
,.. . .. ., 1.

Standards for Reactor Siting, Morgan, K. Z., Radiation in Environmental Effects of Producinq Electrical Power presented at Hearings before the Joint Phase 2. Testimony Committee on Atomic Energy, 91st Congress, 1970. Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office. Eisenbud, M. Panel Discussion. In: Environmental Effects of Producinq Electrical Power, Phase 2. Testim~y presented at Hearings before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, o 91st Congress, 1970. Washington, D. C. , U. S. Government

\,-

,
, .,. ,?<., ,... .

[b]

. .,..

-20q

In the context of his commcnc it is interesting refer to the National Academy of Sciences , National Research Council report of 1961 on the Effects of Inhaled RadioactiT~e Particles. [c] The first sentence reads, ~he potential !lazard due to airborne radioactive particulate is probably the least understood of the hazards associated with atcmic weapons :ests, vrcd~ction of radioelements , and the
expa.rLdi~Cj use o~ ndclear erlerCj>7 for Fotier prUduct~CJII.

to

.-.

.. ,.
J . !. . .,

1,

A decade later that statement is still valid. Finally let me quote Drs. Sanders, Thompson, and Bair from a paper qi.enby them last October. [d] Dr. Bair and his colleagues ha~e done, the most relevant plutonium iJonuniform irradiation oxide inhalation experiments. of the lunq from deposited radioactive particulate is than uniform exposure (on a clearly more carcinogenic total-lung dose basis) , and alpha-irradiation is more carcinogenic than beta-irradiation. The doses required for a substantial tumor incidence, are very high, however, if measured in proximity to the particle; and, again, there are no data to establish the low-incidence end of a do>e-effect curve. And there is no general theory, or data on which to base a theory, which would permit extranolatior. of tb.e h.iqb.i~fl~ . e+ -Aw+.in- of . uA..k, . Snm-n yA k&.. the cur-re into the low incidence region. I agree and I suggest that in such a circumstance .it is appropriate to view tk.e standartis with extreme caution.31 .

:9 . . . ,.

?,.

,,.
* ., i

[c] . ,. /

u. S. NAS-NRC Subcommittee, Effects of Inhaled Radioactive Particles. Report of the Subcommittee on Inhalation Hazards. Committee on Pathologic Effects of Atomic Radiation. National Academy of~ Sciences - National Re~~ar~h cg~:~cil, ~~as~inqt-n, D. C. 19610 Publication

848.
,, .., ,.

NAS-NRC/PUB-848,

1961.

[d]

Sanders, C.L., R.C. Thompson, and W.J. Bair, Lung Cancer: .Dose Response Studies with Radionuclides. In: Inhalation Carcinoaenesis. Proceedings of a Biology Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, conference held in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, October 8-11, 1$)69. M.G. Hanna, Jr., P. Nettesheim, and J.R. Gilbert, eds., U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Symposium Series 18, 1970.
pp. 285-303. (CONF-691001) .

Geesaman, Donald P. , Plutonium 31/ and Public iiealth, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Calif. , GT-121-70, April 19, 1970, reproduced in Underground Uses of Nuclear Eneray, Part 2, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on public works, U. s: Senate, gist Congress, Znd Session August 5, 1970, pg. 15#)-J532. ~.,~.u-. ,, ,,,;V= x,.- :-$+:; . ~ ..., : j~y- :; . . :*+ . b%;, .,. :$:. ~ ;.. ,.. i, ,,,,, , : -1 :Xq$%j$;;.::: :, ~~: ~.:; ,,, ,, . ,,~gg:. ,., , 41!$!F .=% +- U.,. -.-.

-21q

To these the comments

41 . . .

comments,

referenced

by Geesaman,

can be added

of Dr. A. B. Long:

there is an u~-qent need to ciispcll the sense of secur~ty and certainty that the present limits for the maximum permissl~ie lur,g burden and the nti:<im.d;n permissible air ccnccr.zration bri:;g . . . the pubiic should be informed of the uncertainties that exist . in these limits. 1132

v.

Biological

Data

Related

to Cancer

Risk

from

Insoluble

Plutonium, Particles We have result at very We said that shown that insoluble alpha-emitting They particles can irradiate fatal. suggests

in intense high that doses

b~t localized without being

radiation. organismdata

or organ strongly

the available grossly

biological

a DF=l

underestimates

the DE

for insoluble the derived standards

particulate MPLB and MPC3 turn

of Pu-239, for this

and consequently, radionuclide are

greatly cancer

in error. induction

We now d by

to the experir,lents involving local exposure, whether since these

intense

ar~ especially alpha-emitting collected . follows

relevant
.

in judging constitute

or not risk.

insoluble Geesaman

particles and

a unique

analyzed

the pertinent

experiments,

and what

32/

Long,

A.B.,

OQ .

.
q

-22-

is essentially known as the

a re-~iew of his Geesaman

analysis

33

, which

has become

hypothesis.

Dr._ Roy E. Albert experiments Alberts gives 011 the

and co-workers of cancer

performed in rat

a number

of

induction

skin 34-36 . in rat skin car-

study

of radiation-induced description A skin with area

carcinoma

some quantitative situation. radiation

of a high-dose of 24 cm2 was depths

cinogenic to electron tion.

exposed penetra1.

various are

of maximum

The dose

response

curves

reproduced high

in Figure doses

In all cases 3000 rem) was

the response .

at sufficiently per

(1000post was

large, til-5 tumors . noted by Albert

rat by when

80 weeks the dose the 2) .

exposure. normalized response

It was

that

to a skin curves

depth

of 0.27

millimeters, (See Figure

three Since this

became

continuous

,.

</

Geesaman,

D.P.,

UCRL-50387

Addendufl,

O-.

cit.

34/ Albert, R.E., F.J. Burns, and R.D. Hei~ach, The effect of penetration depth of electron radiation on skin tUmOr formation in the rat, Radiation Res. 30, 1967, pp. .

51S-S24.

~ 35/ Albert, R.E., F.J. Burns, and R.D. Heimbach, skin damage I and tumor formation from qrid and sieve patterns of electron and beta radiation in the rat, Radiation Res. 30, 1967, pp. S25-540. 1
36/ Albert, R.E., F.J. Burns, and R.D. Hei~ach, The ~sociation between chronic radiation damage of the hair follicles and tumor formation in the rat, Radiation Res. 1967, pp. 590-599.

-23-

depth

is near

the base

of the hair

follicle which cells might

comprises

he deepest layer,

reser~~oir of epithelial that this

of the germinal be a critical

it was suggestive .

~ gion in the observed significance from

carclnoqenesis. that

The most

suggestion

gained - .

the observations follicles, of tumorg

of the tumors

..& siimilar to hair -e dose range the number

and that per

in the non-ulcerogenic in nearly constant

rat was

t ~::tio (lj2G00-l/4000) ~,,ith he nunber follicles. was Thus the carcinogenesis

of atrophied

hair

in this

experiment specific we~e

remarkably

damage

correlated with the dose . of a particular skin structure.

to and When

exposures

geometrical induction

effects

were

observed: was

most

notably

the cancer at doses of

in the sieve

qeometry

suppressed

was,again

consistent hair

with

the reduction

in damaqe
7

as characterized

by atrophied

follicles. this important after was experiment, local a high incidence

To summarize
.

of cancer and

was

observed

intense

doses

of radiation, or

the carcinoqenesis

proportional architectural

to the unit

damage

disordering the hair

of a critical

of the

tissue,

follicles.

> ,.,

% .?:

,...

-,9... -. .

.-,+., ,,

-24.

8
A

I
~

7 6 I

0.36mm o 0.75rnm q I.40mm o 1,65mm (su?P!

O,cfimnl
1.65 mm

m 0.75mm e 1.40mm
.

data) 1

(iuppl

dots)\

o
DC3cC!0.27~ ~r~~ Fig. 1.TulllGr incidencewiih respectto ;uY!~cedose at GO ::ec~s011 three Pcnet:-atio:l depths o{ e~cctrcns. Fig. 2. Tumor Incidencewith respect to the dose at a depth oi o.~~ ~rn in the skin at 80 weeks ior thrct penetration ciep!hs electrons. of

. ..

Source

of Figures:

Albert,

R. E. , et al. , Radiation S and 02. ~. 7 ; reproduced , p. 2. in

Res.

30,

O&. _ cit. , pp. Geesaman,

515-524,

Figures Addendum,

UCRL-50387

-25q

Others have observed

and mice after intense

carcinomas

and

sarcomas

in rats radia-

exposure

of the skin

to ionizing

37-!3 . tlon. i:l these

Cancer

induction Even

is generally at elevated Boag .

a freq$~ent cvcnk doses, such as induced

experiments.

12,000 rad of 1 MeV electrons,

37 L5 sarcomas/100 cm2 in rats

and Glucksmann

A few results obtained

for rabbits, ,, sheep, and s}~ine were 38-41 the small number of animals . Despite at Hanford

relationship for 37/ Withers, H.R., The dose-survival irradiation of epithelial cells of mouse skin, Brit. J. Radiol. 40, 1967, pp. 187-194. 38/ Hulse, E.V., Tumours of~the skin of mice and other cf Tice usir.g ~iayei ef~ects L: SXZCL-r.Ql Lets irzadiaticn 90Sr and ~2P, Brit. J. Cancer 16, 1962, pp. 72-86. 39\ Boag, J.W. and A. Glucksmann, production of cancers-in ~ts by the local application of Beta-rays and of chemical in Radiobioloqy, J.S. Mitchell, -arcinogens , ?roaress . B.E. Holmes, and C.L. Smithl eds. Proc@etiings Of the ~~ur=~~ International Conference on Radiobiology held in Cafiridge, Oliver and Boyd, 1956, pp. 476-479. Edinburgh, 14-lq August 1955. ? Grcss effects of beta rays Georqe, L..%. and L.K. ~~stad, 43/ Biology on the skin, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, Research Annual Report for 1956, H1f-47500, 1957, pp. 135-141. . 41/ Georqe, L.A. II, R.L. Pershinq, S. Marks, and L.K fibrosarcoma in a rabbit following beta fistad, Cutaneous Hanfozd Atomic Products Operation, Biology irradiation, Research Annual Report for 1959, HW-65500, 1960, pp. 68-69. 42/ Ragan, H.A., W.J. Clarke and L.K. Bustad, Late effects Battelle-Northwest Laboratory Annual of skin irradiation, Report for 1965 in the Biological Sciences, BNWL-280, 1956,pp. 43/ Karagianes, M.T. , E.B. Howard and J*L =rthwest Laboratory Annual Report for 1967 of Biology and Mcdicinej Vol. If Biological 1968, pp. 1.10-1.11

13-14.

palotaYl Battelleto the USAEC Division BNWL-714, Sclencesl

-26

P32 plaque

involved, induced that after vations after

surface an average

doses ofl are

of 16,000

rad

from which

a is indicative to skin gross cancer

cancer/animal similarly insult. enhanced

larger

mammals

susceptible Again, tumor these

intense

radiation that

obseroccur .

demonstrate very high

incidence

does

doses. radiation of animals frequency of the subcutaneous by Pu-239 of cancer has and

Intense intraperitoneal shown to cause Now Certainly

!

localized tis~ue a high are

also been 43-45.. ~ us?

lnductlon to tell

what

these

experiments

trying

a reasonable is: when

interpretation

of these unit

experimental of a tissue !?Igh

results (e~q., dosage, 10-3 to

a critical

architectura~

1 I

a hair the

follicle)

is irraciiated

at a sufficiently

I ,

chance This

of it becoming has become

canc~rous as the

is approximately Geesaman

10-4.

known

hypothesis. B Since in animals,

Related the

Human

Experience relate to cancer man ir.duction or less

abova

experiments .

it is pertinent

to ask whether

is more

: ,..

.,, .,, .... . .. ,. J..

Induction 44/ Sanders, C.L. and T.A. ~ackson, of Pu02 Activity, and Sarcomas From Hot Spots Vol . 22, No. 6, June 1972, pp. 755-759.

of Mesotheliomas Health Physics,

, ,+ ,

r, ,,

45/

Li.sCO, Herman,

,..

~dioactive Fission vol. 49, No. 3, Sept.

e~ a~, Carcinoqenlc rope~t~~-i~~o Products and of Plutonlum, 1947, pp.

~Y !

361-363.

i,

:!..
..

&

-27-

sensitive

to such

intense

localized

radiation.

c. c.
as the result The particle on

T ~.k:~hbauch rcpcrtcd
of residual :ontained Pu-239 0.08 Ug

on s lesion from (0.00~

that de~eloped 46 wound .

a puncture uci)

of U-239 of the

Commenting the

the histological

examination

lesion, precise . damage

authors of

Late , The autoradioqraphs alpha-tracks :.~netration epithelial

,

showed of maximum areas

confinement and their

to the into

area

t!le basal typical

of the epidermis, radiation

where exposure were

changes The cause

of ionizing

present. therefore

and effect

relationship the

of these was

findings, minute,

. . . .,. . ,., . ,.. J.

I ,

, seemed

obvious.

Although Their

lesion

~.!-.z changes
,,. :. ,.,
,. *.. ,, ... . ., .,. ,>
.!

in it were epidernal

. se-~~r~. cytologic

si~ilarity

to kncr:.n raised should it

precancerous the question

changes,

of course, a lesion

of the ultimate

fate of such

,:!; * ,, .. ,. .,

this,-case, less chanqes was

.

than

0.1

uq of Pu-239 The dose

produced

precancerous tissue that a

in human intense. quantity

tissue. There

to the surrounding reason to believe

very

is every would indicates

smaller This

of PU-239 lesion

have

produced

similar . Pu-239 of study

changes.

precancerous irradiates

that

a single

particle and

a significant cancer. .

(critical)

volume

tissue was

is capable

of inducing

The Lushbaugh

46/

Lushbaugn,

C.C.

and J. Langhamt

~~

? PPo

461-464

-28i

PRIVACY ACTMATERIAL REMOVED

published wounds in .~ound.; wa~ pLayinq certainly
1

in 1962. man was excls~on

At that less than

zime 1,000 the

t!le total

nunaer treatment

of punct~re of such

47

The

so that

total

nu,mber of wourtdsais particles data offer than was wouid a risk

residual less t~at

contamination than 1,000.

by plutonium

Theru~cre

, this wound could

suggest

insoluble

ulutonium that

particles is even when

of cancer
#

induction

in man

qreater

1/1000

per particle. is irradiated, Albert data

In other 4

words,

a critical

unit of tissue the

man may be more

susceptible would

to cancer-than . . suggest. induced cancer with

as analyzed case

by Geesaman

A second that of

of plutonium .

particle not

is

He was

associated

AL . LLULAL-. A..uti-i.~ ~lJt ~:,?~~ ~reiq,ht ]1.an?.ler ~ ~~ho oacied, un.1 U.LC -..elm-w <-,-7,,CLW.. t . rotated leaking arid reloadefd a crate carboy of Pu-239 that was . contaminated by the He

solution

which

it contained. soft tissue

subsequently on the i left

developed palm which

an infiltrating eventually

sarcoma

resulted

in his death. of the probability

Al:hodch . plutonium that his I

this

cdse

is not as cl~ar cut there

as the case medical

worker, cancer

is an overwhelming by nlutonium. lead

was

induced with

unfortunate

contact

Pu-239

to a lawsuit,

/i
(d
b, ,.

in Puncture Wounds, 47/ Vanderbeck, J.N., Plutonium ~nford Laboratories Operation, July 25, 1960.

HW-661

!, !!
I

, .,

PRIVACYACTMATERIA~REM~vED ~

-29-

PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED

, et al v. NUIMEC. settled out-of-court.

This

suit

was

eventually in t!lis B

A discussion

of the evidence

case by one of the aut!!ors is presented of this report. two cases, drawn from the

in the Appendix

These

relatively suggest

small that

number PU-239

of individuals

so contaminated,

strongly

that

a sinqle dose

particle

is capable

of delivering of tissue

an intense and that hair this follicle,

radiation

tc a critical

volume like

disruptively has a hiah

irradiated probability

tissue, (maybe >

an atrophied as 1/1000)

as high

of becoming

cancerous .

c .. Related
The a hiqhly repairable ,. skin

Lunc

Exnerinents . with animals are remarkable in that

experiments dose

disruptive mammalian

of radiation produced cancer

to a snail frequent

pcrtio;. G:

tissue one

carcinoqenesis. is essentially

The chance of producing :nity. It is reasonable could occur

per that

anikal

to expect

a comparable While a number lung of

development radioactive in mice kion

in ,lung tissue. have been used

substances

to induce

cancers

and rats

48

, it is difficult from these

to derive experiments

any characteriza.

of carcinoqenesis

Cember,. H., Radioqcnic lung cancer, Progress in fiperimcntal rumor Research, F. llotiurqcr, ed. New York, l{afner Publishing Company, Inc. , Vol. 4,, 1964, pp. .251-303.

48/

>U

~~l~ti JII The wo~k involving deep of Laskin~ respiratory curve was e: ~t tissue, for lmq

nac ~gec:fi~ll~i

intensity-respcnse cylindrtial cance~s The even were source

demonstrate a source does 49 .A RU-106 tlsdue . in the bronchi bronchial of rats, and

implanted to arise

epitheliums. (7 percent) loqaritimic .

obser!~ed

from

tine response

response at 0.008

cur~e indicates uCi burden,

a substantial

approximately and a S1OWI over three orders of tur.or incidence d source intensity.

increase in the adjacent Animals

of magnitude doses to,

Corresponding varied and

first-year from

50 103 rad to 106;rad . observed that accumulated

bronchial were

epitheliums until generally

collowed .

death

it was

the tumor at death. cancer 106 rad fortified of Sr-90, rats . was

incidence

increased dose .

with

the dose a of -

y;_& _~...J~sz ~ accumulated 1450 rad. For was

=ted with .~ssoci. dose

an accumulated aPProximacely

of the order . Cember

the

incidence beads

. two-thirds with

seJeral nicrocdrias lun9s f

glass and

(0.3 u diameter) Deads \{ere implanted in the

single .::ere~~ser~.,ed in 7 Of 23 ainim.als exposed ~at lungs to Ce-144 ln a second For

TU7C r S

experiment

Cerber

particles.

J.H. Nelson, B. Altshuler, 49/ Laskin, S., M. Kuschner! N. lunq in rats exposed ~rley and !4. Daniels, Carcinoma of the of intra-bronchial ruthenium16 pellets. to the beta-radiation Cancer Inst. 31, relationships, J. Natl. Dose response 1. 1963, pp. 219-231. ~rom a RU106- coated Altshuler, B. , Dosimetry . 50/ Radiation ResQ Z 1958, ~p. 626-632. ~llet,
q

platinw

J,.. ,, . v. % >.. -

..,,-,,.,-

-31q

a burden
.

range

of 0.5 uCi 0.04

to 50 uCi 51 .

the observed

tumor

incidence

fluctuated

between

and 0.3

All of these
., ,

lurl;experiments level

invol~ed intense Severe with

exposures

and a sigrrificant and disruption The most inhalation particulate

of carcinogenesis. were lung associated experiment

damage

of tissue relevant with

the exposures. Pu to burdens were more 23902

is Bairs was

study

52-!j4 . beagles ,

Exposure

of 0.25

u or 0.5 u median

diameter; that

in the uCi range. than 1600 days were post

Twenty

of the 21 dogs had lung

survived Many

exposure

cancer. The

of these

cancers appeared

multicentric

in origin. wi}h severe

cancers injury.

again Since the

in conjunction

lung

natural- incidence at this certainty level

of the disease

is small,

it appears

tha,t

of exposure

the induction beagle life

of lung span.

cancer is a At the same

durinq

the normal

,.

5~/

Cember,

H., o~.

~.

Cldrket Lon9-term 52/ Bair, W.J. , J.F. Park, and W.J. Battelle Memorial Institute study of inhaled plutonium in dogsf (Richland) , AFWL-TR-65-214 , 1966 (AD-631 690) .
. .

53/ Park, J.F., W.J. Clarke and W.J. Bair, Chronic effects Battelle-Northwest Laboratory ~ inhaled 239Pu02 in beaqles, Annual Report for 1967 to the USAEC Division of Biology and Sciences, BNWL-714, 1968, Medicine, Vol. I, Biological PP 3.3-3.4.
in Beagle Dog Studies with Park, J.F., et al, Proqress ~ansuranium Elements at Battelle-Northwest , Health Physics, 6, June 1972, pp. 803-81O. vol. 22, No.

54/

time,

since

the

pathological

response

is saturated

in this about smallest

experiment, tie
L~~~~itUde

it is inappropriate of tile response

ijeath)

to draw at smalier lung

any inference b~rdens. cancer was The

!>,~~dpfi (~.t Presumably about

in a dog

showing

0.2 uCi. of cf

this would .

correspond Burdens induce

to a particle are smaller

burden

107 particles. may still

which

by orders

nagnitude

a substantial as for skin

incidence and soft

of cancer. tissues, t of

Indeed, the cancer~ risk correspond to a risk

may,

per particle

in the neighborhood

1/1000 to 1/10,000.

VI ;

Critical

ParticleActivity

hich

cancer per

probabilities. particle tissue.

As the particle .

size

or specific to the particle

activity

is reduced indeed,

so is the dosage smail the

surroufiding size

at sufficiently expect

or specific

activity,

one would

radiation The study a

in~L1~t to beha~~e slr,ilar to uniform ,

.

irradiation. skin curve This occur The

of Albert precipitous exceeds

on induction change rem

of cancer

in rat

indicates

in the dose

response 2). must

as the dosage that this of a

1,000

55

(See Figure damaqe

suggests before

particular unique

level

of tissue response

carcinogenic

occurs.

experiments

t PP

515-5

-33-

Laskin,

et al, indicate at 1400

.

a significant suggesting

carcinogenic a comparable

response sensitivity

in the lung

rem,

5L that the tissue repair of lurlg tiswe . Gcesalozn indicates 57 time in the lung is of the order of one year . It therefore seems appropriate that but this not necessarily enhanced cancer . irradiate rem/yr t}~c s.drr:d~ldinq conservative, risk occurs to accept particles

as guidance

when

lun,g ~is=~e

at a Qose rate Gf 1000

or more.

TABLE Particle Activity

IV

. to Give a Dose of

and Size

Particle Activity (pCi)

Particle 239PU0 0.8 0.6 r 0.4

Diameter 23*PU02 0.12 0.09 0.06

(u)

59

3/4 max inflated

. L~2 max Closest inflated 20 alveoli

(i~fl alveoli) ( 68 alveoli)

0.14 0.07 0.02

. . .,,
,

56/
57/
58/

Laskin, Geesaman, Ibid

et al, 0~. Donald

cit. UCRL-50387, 02. ~., p. Il.

. . .,, ..,. ,,.. . ~ ~..,:1.. ,.

. .,. , ..
,, .:

P.,

59/ Based upon specific c ~. _it., p. 7.

activity

given

by Lanqham,

W.H. I

., ., .:. .

AS

Seen

Ci-cnT-ib!e
an alpha

1~7, using activity

Cccsamans 0.02

lun~ pCi

nodel, and 0.14

a pCi

particle

with

between

is required tissue.

t~ give

a dose

of 1000

rcm/yr

to irradiated

lung

For purposes burden than

of establishing we will one year) use 0.07

a maximum pCi from

permissible long halflimiting Thus , throughout

lung lived alpha

particle (greater activity

isotopes

as the

to qualify of this this

as a hot hot alpha

pzrticle. particle activity

the remainder with

!- .,.

report,

will which

imply

a particle

at least tissue.

limiting

is insoluble

in lung A.

Exposures at Rocky Flats . The AEC has a plutonium facility associated with its . This nuclear wea~or.s ?ro~ram at Roc-ky Fiats, Colorado.
,..,. .,
. ,:!, * i

facility Chemical

is operated Company.

under

contract

to the

AEC by

the Dow and undoubtedly

,,, , ,;, ,.. ,.

The employees,

the environment

60-62 /
particles as a result of the operation here of this the plant. information It is, therefore, pertinent r to examine

60/

Mann,

J.R.

and A.R.

Kirchnev,

0~.

cit.

61/ Poet, S.E. and E.A. Marten, Plutonium-239 and ~ericium-241 in the Denver Area, Health Physics, Vol. 1972, pp. 537-549.
of Plutonium Information 62/ Richmond, Chet, Transcript ~etinq of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Los Alamos, N. Mex., 5 January 1974, pp. 319-320.

23,

-.. .

. . ,V:! ,,, . . ..
~..
\ ., .. . .,

;5,,\

:. . ,,, ,. .,

facility

and

to relate

this

to the hot

particle

problem.

..
,

J. R. llGnn and resulted from SOme

R. A. Kirclmer fire

discuss

the ~.xr,oscres that on 1S October rocm at t!le

. . .

a plutonium 400 employees

at Rocky working

Flats

,., .,.

1965.63
!,

were

ir-i tha were

time
.,, /

the

fire occurred. body

These counter

employees

subsequently lung burdens on those uCi. of presented V

placed

in a whole

t9 determine

their

of Pu-239. 25 employees Table these

However, who were

Mann

and Kirchner above the

reported

only

exposed

llPLBof 0.016

V presents .

the information Utilizing , we have .

on the exposure information in Table

25 employees.
and Kirchner of the

the other also

by Mann the with

estimated

fraction hot

lung burden and

activity of hot

(uCi)

associated that this

particles

the number

particles

represents.

,.

63/

Mann,

J.R.

and

R.A.

Kirchner,

0~.

~.

-36b

TABLE Rocky Number of Cases 1

1

V E:<posure* Hot Particles Lung Burden (uCi)

Flats

Total Lung Burden (uCi)

Number of
Hot Particles

0.272 0.160 . 0.111 0.064 0.024

0.033 0.019 0.013 0.008 0.003

137,000 79,000 54,000 33,000 12,500

1 3 19
*

Mann and Kirchner presented the lung burdens as number of MPLB. These have been converted to uCi in column two using l?PLB=O.016 luCi. (For the groups with 3 and 19 cases, we selected the midpoint.of the reported range.) The hot particie buriien in coi~n~. :hree -,~?asstin.ated by n.~ltiplyinq e the tatal burden by 0.i7, the fraction of the activity on particles above. 0.6 u, and 0.70, the fraction of initial deposited activity that was involved in long term retention in the lung. Based on particle size data reported by Mann and Kirchner, we estimate the averaqe hot particle activity is ~~ ~ !d&- .24 p~i. U ;..= ::~ntiefs c: llct particles in the last coiulr, were obtained by dividing the hot particle burdens in column ,three by the average hot particle activity (0.24 pCi) . r

Allowinq
.

a risk

of cancer that the

equal

to 1/2000 whose chance

per

hot are

particle, presented lung this

suggests in Table

individuals high

exposures

V stand

a very

of developing unity. In

cancer respect,

-- the probability it is significant

is essentially to note that

in the experiments

-37. reported by Park, et al, the beagle developed dog with the smallest

64
lunq burden, highest burden i.e. , 0.2 uCi, lung cancer. to the lowest V, the in labie V is comparable

The

; beacjle G:.:~Gsuz.2 ~he lcI/est exposure cases order with lung buzdens less that tine, in the 0.024 than the

in Table uCi range beagle

19 an

are only exposure.

of naqnit~de suggest

lowest

We would

this none

is potentially of these

a serious has

situation. developed

As of this lung cancer. 65

individuals 9 years that the

Howe\er, it is only reason exposure this. was to suggest

since

the exposure period

and there

is uood

latent

(the time between is much loncer

and the development In the beagle associated may be and these dog

of cancer) experirm?nts, period and of

than

the lowest

lunq.burden The

with

a latent in man

of 11 years. particularl>~ cases / will hot

latent

period

longer

at these

lm.er dosaaes while

the small exposed

nurher

involved. be expected

Therefore, to supply risk

individuals to this

Dertinent

data

relative

particle

cancer give

over

the next

10 to 20 years, at this or time that would

these warrant

exposures modifyinq

us no information risk per particle

the

the critical

particle

activity.

64/ 65/

Park,

J.F.,

et al, Health OD. - cit.,

Physics, p. 320.

OQ . cit.

p. 805.

Richmond,

Chet,

-3u-

B.

!! A:?;l?tt:: :Ys:cct study of human

:;ork.crs respiratory exposure to plutonium

Another re~at~s Manhattan found them

to ~: ;.o~~~ men Project.

exposed latest

ta pl~tcnium examination althouah

cluri:ig ~ilc of this qroup

66

The

kc ke free

of lung cells

cancer

the rcp:zt showed significance changes are

states, moderate of these

The bronchial to marked changes

of several

subjects the

rtetaplastic .chanqes , but clear. Such

is not

netaplastic

a possible cancer. was

indicator In one case

for detecting the report

incipient

or actual

lung

indicates

that

the subject this con-

a heavy

smoker .

(3 packs/day)

and undoubtedly

tributed suggest these

to the changes. thLt :kr,z:ancec . in the one

Xevert??eless , these ~:ay becone nani~est

findings iri sore of

subjects

future. lung

Indeed , one would even in such

not be of

surprised non-exposed . #workers, g were

to find

cancer

a group

subjects. vivo

Daring

the latest

examination lunq

of these burdens

measurement

of the plutonium
r

conducted

:.?iththese

~es,dlts: i

An average MDA for a 2000-sec counting time is about 7 nCi if one uses the 95% confidence level.67 For the 68% confidence level and a sim-ilar counting time , the comparable value is about 3.5 nCi.

66/ Hemplemann, L.H., W~rkers; A Twenty-Seven 67\

MDA refers

et al, Manhattan Project Plutonium Year Follow-Up Study of Selected Cases. detectable amount.

to the minimum

-39q

Positive counts were obtained for 14 of 21 persons measured. These counts sugqested chest burdens ranging However, in no case did the from 3 to about 10 nCi. est.inatcd chest b~-:dcn excccd the !.D?\ thfi 95 con~t Spven of the 14 CCL .jccts with pc.sltive fider.ce levei. chest counts had estimated chest burdens of 7 nCi or greater and may be considered (at the 68% level of confidence) to have statistically significant chest burdens of from 7 to 10 nCi.68 Since the plutonium is still in the lung cavity, 27 years

post-exposure

, it is ccrrect form

to assume that pertinent

it was

ir.itially At the time wcl~ld be

in the insoluble

and hence

here.

69

of this measurement, expected estimate these to be the in the

b.a?ever, most lymph particle nodes. burden

of t-e material Nevertheless, in these

.we could from

initial

subjects

data

if we knew

the jnitial ~article

particle size data events

size

at the time

of contamination. The nature particle result . ,. size from

This

is unavailable. suggest than that the those that

of the contaminating have been somewhat

miaht

larger of the

plutonium

fires

where

most

respirable of 0.1 u to of the

activity resides 0.5 u in diameter.

on particles 70

in the

si?e

range

??uch-of the

contamination

68/

Hemplemann,

L.H.,

Op.

cit.,

p. 474.

69/ ICRP ~utonium 70/

Mann,

Publication 19, The and Other Actnides, J.R. and A.R.

Metabolism of Compounds of Pergamon Press, New York, 1972, OQ . cit., p. 880.

p. 7.

Kirchner,

,.

-40q

Manhattan liquid

workers

resulted

from

aspiration the

of droplets much

of larger

solltions of plutonium

into

air wherein

At the same time, the activity particle sizes would result. . less of the plutonium in the particle would be considerably than that that for a particle of Pu02. For example, body and it is stated burdens that 1-40 this g/liter of

14 of the 25 subjects worked when

plutonium occurred

with measurable . the recovery operation in with solutions H202 hood. was

working

containing being

of plutonyl vigorous siderable

nitrate

to which in an open

added

with in con-

stirring

This

resulted

fizzing-and

the discharqe Ad~oplet. the hiqhest only 71 72

of droplets

into

the

air ~)~.tside the hnod.

from--the solution would therefore with contain

1 u in diameter concentration compared activity words, hot 1000

.

(0.5 us) (40 g/liter)

with that a is

6x10- 4 pCi (a specific In other qualify~as than

0.07 pCi p.art~cle of Pu02

,16wer by # involved They
.

a factor in this

of 100). study

the

particles

do not

particles. rem/yr to the

are delivering

dosages

lower

71/ Recall from Table IV that a 0.07 pCi, the limiting would qive a dose of 1000 rem/yr ~tivity for a hot particle, to the surrounding tissue in a lung inflated to 1/2 maximum. 72/ Of the particles of an inhaled aerosol that are deposited in the deep respiratory zone of the lung, virtually all are less than 5 u in diameter- [Geesaman, UCRL-50387, 0~. cit., p. 3]. from the 40 q/liter solution would correspond A 5 u droplet roughly to the limiting activity of a hot particle.

!,..

.,. ,..

.. .

, ,.
.4..

:,.- .. , .. . aii!f
>! ,.,-.

.,@J:

..;,

t.

~.

-41-

surrounding c

tissue

(roughly

10 rem/yr).

he~,!>c~ns Test . source

~ a 1l~t-. contamination that is suggested in the from

Another

of human

as k)2L-lgy2Yti. lent to tl~is problem fallout

.. ,
.!.

is the plutonium The plutonium

from nuclear tests

weapon

tests.

weapon that

is incorporated other materials activity

in *or deposited and, like that

on particles for the Manhattan is much

contain

.< ., ,.. ,
Y.

.,

workers, smaller

the specific than that

in these

particles

,.. ,

,.,. ,:. .1 ::,, 1.

..! .,. ....

in hot

particles.

,, .,. ,.

VII

Exposure Thus

Standbrds

for Hot biological

Particles evidence strongly sugqests

the existinq

,, ,,
!. ...-

that

an insoluble tissue and the

particle

of PU-239 a risk Prudent

deposited of cancer public

in deep induction practices pluof

respiratory between

represents l!10 ,000. risk

1/1000

health

sh.auld assess / tonium these

associated

with

environmental on the basis

and establish probabilities.

exposure

quideline?s

The existing of the whole establishing risk body

standards or lunq

for uniform can be used

radiation as the basis

exposure for the

particle

exposure between

standards the two .

by equating types

of cancer vs.

induction

of exposure

(uniform assessment

grossly

non-uniform) associated

The most uniform

recent irradiation of

of the

risk

with

.
q

-42man was performed Biological Effects by the NAS-}IRC Advisory of Radiation. to as the BLIR Their Committee report, on the in

.,, .,.. !. ., 7,, ?,. ,,., . . ,.. fi

published

1972, is referred
i,

Report.73

A.

Occupational Exposure The existing occupational exposure body irradiation is 5 rem/yr that and

~tandard for the

for uni form lung, 15 rem/yr. body risk is

whole

the BEIR

Report

estimates

exposure lead

of the whole to a cancer best

of an individual

to 5 rerrJyr w6uld

between 4.5x1O
75 lo-3/yr. individual Allowing l/lC,000

-4

and 2.3x10-3/yr.
estimate

74
Their estimate to the is 3x10-5/yr. 76 of cancer 15 rem/yr

Their from a risk per

of the risk of the

a lung

exposure

of cancer induction between 1/1000 and . particle, Table V presents the maximim permissible

to th-ese unifozm The MPLPB reduction

radiation

standards

for occupational a very

exposure.

values

in Table

V represent

substantial at the lower

in the MPLB.

A hot particle

of Pu-239

limit activity contains only 0.07 pCi while the MPLB for . ,.. occupational exposure is 1.6x104 pm. Thus the

73/ NAS-NRC, The Effects on Populations of Exposure to ~w Levels of Ionizing Radiation, (BEIR Report) , NAS-NRC, Washington, D. C. , Nov. 1972.

74/ 75/ 76/

Ibid, Ibid, Ibid,

p. 91. p. 91. p. 156.

-43q

TABLE Occupational Maximum Cancer . Exucsure

V for In.;oluble Alpha Burden Assumed l/luuu (MPLPB) Risk

l/ZUULJ

Gu~dance Lung

E!niLters,

l?~rmissible

Particle

77

risk due to 5 rem/yr whole bodv ex~csure 78

in Particle l/lu,uuu 4.5

4.5X10-4 10-3

.0.45 (best estimate) 1.

0.9

2. 4.6

10. 23.

2.3X1O-3

2.3

larcjest MPI,IB in Table reduction

V, 23 particles, MPLB here and MPCa that

represent

a of of be used

of the existing

by a factor

1O,O(-IO. It is recommende&
the effects together particle emitting
..

the best

estimate

of uniform a risk

exposure of cancer

by the BEIR induction

Committee

with

of 1/2000

per hot

in determining radionuclides compromise

the MPLPB in hot

for insoluble This

alphais a somewhat value

particles.

a~bitrary that could

and

is not

the most conservative r

be recoznm.endec?. Thus , the recommended exposure from hot particles

!lFL?B

for occupational

of alpha-

77/ The number of particles required equal to that from uniform radiation.
.

to give

78/ Source: BEIR Report, Op. cit., p. 91. The MPLPB ~rrespondinq to a lung can~r =k of 3X10-5 due to 15 rem/yr 156] are 0.03, 0.06 lunq dose [BEIR Report, 0~. cit., p. and 0.3 for assumed particle~sks of 1/1000, 1/2000 and 1/10,000 respectively.

-44. emitting particles. sents implies radionuclides This in the deep respiratory of 0.14 zone pCi is 2 and repreThis Moreover, 115,000 that .to

corresponds of 115,000

to a MPLB

a reduction

in the existing particles

MPLB.

that the DF for hot a reduction

is 115,000. for Pu-239 by

it requires a value

of the MPCa unless

of 3.5x10-16 is not

uCi/ml

it is determined

the piutonium B.

in hot particles. Public for non-occupational less than that

Ex~osure

of the General in Table of the

As indicated exposure (members

II, the MPLB

public) Such

is tenfold an exposure Exposure

for occupat.icnal particle implies would not. would that

e::~jcsu~e.

limit at this

for a hot level

be 9.2

narficles.

on the

average

one out of five and the

individuals other be four would assuming since an a

be contaminated Obviously

by a particle

the exposed fraction

invididuals of the risk.

would

disproportionate / individual exposure condition

In fact,

is exposed to hot does

to whole would the

particles,

any non-occupational This

particles not meet

be an overexposure. and .

recommendations

admonitions

of the FRC, ICRP and NCRP. Under certain conditions, sach as widespread radioactive contamination of the environment, the only data available may be related to average contamination or exposure levels. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to make assumptions concerning the relationship between

-43avcrage
COU!2Cj 1

anfl maximum

doses.

Th,~ FcdcL-al Fadiation

_:~. {! >~j:- -.,i~s:,.;;.ip~i~n .

~c..j[ros~~.~ 1~~~ -l,; . (Jf

that the majority of individuals do not vary from the average by a factor greater than three. Thus, we recommend the use of 0.17 rem for yearly whole-body exposure of average ponul.ation qrnuns. (It is noted that this ;ui~ic is also ~n essential agreement with current recom.menitiLions of the NCIU? and the ICRP.) It i: critical that this guide be applied with reason ~and ]udc~,~~nt. Especially, it is noted that the use of the iverage figure, as a substitute for evidence concerning the dose to individuals, is permissible only when there is a probability of appreciable homogeneity concerning the distribution of e dose within the population included in the average. $9 Strict the ambient While adherence air to these should guidelines be zero could implies that

standard

particles.80 we reco.mmer-id acceptance

a variety

of suggestions from these risk

be proposed, and the

a slight

deviation

guidelines implicit

of the disproportionate . standard. This

in the

0.2 particle best estimates

is a workable solution since . Of lung burfl~n: c~~ ~,e fr~~cio:.al g~an:~~ie~. recommend that the and hot MPLPB for members lung of the burden C:

Thus , ;:e public be 0.2 of the the

hot particles, public maximum. ., / be 0.07 ,

the average narticles

for members 3 less thzn

, a factor

79/

FRC

Report

No.

1, ~.

Had we based the standard on a 1/10,000 ~rticle (See Table V), the MPLPB would have particle and this problem would not exist.

80/

risk been

per one

.,

,. . .. . .. . ., ~. J. ,. ., . ..- *. ,.

-46q

The MPLPB=O.2 for non-occupational by a factor

particles exposure

implies

that

the

existing

MPCa

to Pu-239

should

also be reduced unless it

ci 115,GG0 that

to a value

of 9x10 19 is not

uCi\ml

is determined

the plutonium

in hot

particles.

c.
There zations release

EXDOSUR

from Accic?e.ntal P.eleases statements

.

are no direct

by standard-setting exposure associated For

orqaniwith of

regardir,g

an acceptable

of radioactivity sites

in an accident. 81 reactors,

purposes site

evaluating boundaries, the AEC has boundary criteria

for nuclear

establishing reports, The reactor meet

and preparing

safety

analysis

however, site the following

adopte-d specific

criteria.

(surrounding

the exclusion (1)) :

area)

must

(10 CF.R 100.ll(a)

. .,

(1) An exclusion area of such size that an individual located at any point on its boundary for two hours immediately following onset of the postulated fiission product release wo~ld not rece}ve a total radiation dose to the whcle body dose in excess of 25 rem2 or a total radiation in excess of 300 rem2 to the thyfoid from iodine expcsure .

81/ Fish, B.R., G.W. Keilhalte, W.S. Snyde-r, and S.D. swisher, &apter 7 of early draft version of B.R. Fish, al, Calcuet lation of Doses Due to Accidental Released Plutonium from an (Nov. 1972), p. 128. LMFBR, ORNL-NSIC-74 This chapter was deleted from the final version at the direction of AEC-Division of Reactor Development and Technology because it was judged to be not directly applicable to the objective of the study, and the information base from which it was developed was already available in other documents. AEC-DRDT further stated that it was not removed because of the quality of the work.

,,

The whole bo5y dose of 25 rem referred to above corrc:pozds :~umerically to the once in a lifetime accidental or emergency dose for radiationworkers which, according to NCRP recormncndations may be disreqarde.d in the determin-ition Qi their radiation exposure status (see LJBG iiuntibo~k neither its use 69 dated June 5, 1959) . However, nor that of the 300 rem value for thyroid exposure guides are as set for~:h in these site criteria constitute intended to inpl~~ that these nurbcrs ior emerqency doses to the public lirLits acceptable Rather , this 25 rem under accident conditions. whole body ~alue and the 300 rem thyroid value have been set forth in these guides as reference values, which can be used in the evaluation of reactor sites with respect to potential reactor accidents of exceedingly low probability of occurrence , and low risk of public exposure to . radiation.

applicability release. case.

.
.. -. . ... .

of. these comments

criteria

to the

case

of plutonium to hot particle

These

are also

applicable

J. ,,, ,

,.

.. .. ,, f..,
,, .

, \ * ;,, ;. .,, >.. ... .... ,.

.!

First, the wording of sections 100.ll(a) (1) clearly limits the application to }he irradiation of the whole body and the thyroid; no other organ or tissue is mentioned or in~lied. Furthermore, only fission products in general and iodine in particular are Finally, footnote (2) identified as reference substances. states unequivocally that the guides are not to be considered as acceptable limits for emerqency doses to the public under accident conditions.82 Without addressing body whether and
300

the rem

guideline to the

values, thyroid, should

,. ,. ,.
)-$

25 rem to the whole

82\

Ibid,

p. 129.

-48q

be considered accidents
,,

as acceptable

limits,

or whether under

design these

basis

tlhat are currently

evaluated

criteria we in

are

of exceedingly

low probability 100.ll(a)

of occurrence,

y,::;:
l. -

,
.!

recommend order

that

10 CFR

(1) be modified standard that body

as follows

, .:/ , .
..

to establish

a hot

particle

is equivalent

,, .. . .
7, .,, ,

to the risk
..4

associated

with

25 rem whole
.

irradiation:

,:,,

.,0 ... ... ...

.,-

,. . ,

(1) An exclusion area of such size that an individllal located at any point on its boundary for two hours immediately following onset of the postulated fission product or other radionuclide release would not receive a total radiation dose to the whole body in excess of 25 rem2 or a total radiation dose in excess of 300 rem2 to the thyroid from iodine exposure, or receive a lung particle burden in excess of 10 hot ~articles.3

(Unchanged

from original

text)

. ,, /

is a particle that contains sufficient activity to deliver at least 1000 rem/yr to the surrounding lung tissue. For isotopes having half-lives greater than one year, this would correspond to particles containing at least 0.07 pCi of alpha activity. r We also recommend particle under that similar criteria be established facilities not

3A hot particle

limiting
.

hot

releases 100.

for nuclear

now covered

10 CFR

D.

Surface

Contamination deposited the on land surfaces can be including Following

Hot particles resuspended . wind, automobile into

air by any . human

number

of means,

traffic,

or animal

movements,

-49q

an accident particles,

wherein

surfaces

are

contaminated

with

hot to

it is necessary measures. of particles the have

to have

a stanclard to arnly

decontamination The number surfaces These

that

can be resuspended

from

has been

subject

of a number

of experiments. in the determination by:

experiments

csuall~~ resulted (RF) . The

of a resuspension RF (m-l) =

factor

RF is defined

concentration concentration

in air (uCi,7.3) (uCi\m2) on surface

R. L. Kathren
values. 83

has

reviewed

the data

obtained

on RF for plutonium This m-l

He indicates

th,at, reported over 11 orders between of 10-4

[RF] values of magnitude. 10-1 m-l,

and its cornpounds r ange 11 orders Kathren corresponds

to values an ~

to 10-11 although

indicates

that,

conservative . . ,. m~mber during

is appropriate.

,,84 Langham team uspd

indicates an RF=10-3 recommend

that m-l

of the Danish

scientific

the Tllule deliberatian.

85

We would

th,at

interim acceptable surface Kathren, R.L., Towards ~mination levels for environmental Pu02, BNWL-SA-151O, Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, April 1968,

83/

conBattelle pp. 3-4.

84/
85/

Ibid,

p. 4.

The Thule DeliberaLangham, Wright H., o~. cit., p. 5. ~ons refer to the deliberati~ following the accidental crash of a B-52 bomber carrying nuclear weapons near Thule The. high explosives in the Air Force Base in Greenland. weapons detonated and dispersed the plutonium.

-50q

the value

selected the

by Kathren ambient

be used when

the RF is unknown standard. standard a maximum per-

to determine

ground

contamination MPCa

-~ m-l ApFlyir.g an R~=lb

to the ambient

recornm(.=nde~in the pre~!iaus section, missible of 9X10-8 In areas be shown E. surface uCi/n~. where

we obtain

~ontar.i~.ation (!IPSC) level 86 This is roughly or less 1 hot than

for hot

particles

particle\m2. 10-4 m-l could

an RF greater

to apply, As Low

the .MPSC could

be altered

appropriately.

as Practicable that

Hearings the above part recommendations risk

It is to be understood do not represent inherent upon-which endorsement

on our

of the

in the existing radiation these recommendations the exposures

protection. are based. should

ffll{~=l {m== ~----A&..- Rather , we offer as far we

the admonition below these

that

be kept

guidelines that

as is practicable. these guidelines be

Therefore, incorporated and that

,ftirther recommend / into the existing agency

regulations or agencies what

without~delay convene

the

appropriate
.

hearings as low

to determine

for the limits

regulations for exposure

constitutes particles.

as practicable

to hot

86/ This value is derived as follows: The recommended MPCa ~r hot particles is 9x1o-18 uCi/ml which corresponds to 9X10-12 uCi\m3. The maximum ground contamination level, using RF=10-4 m-l, is 9x10-12/10-4 = 9x1o-8 uCi/m2.

-51-

VIII

Summary The

of Recommendations rer~mm~.da tion.; aDply a hot particle activity lung to alpha-emitting as a particle at least isotopes 1000 having to 87 activity.

fcllcwinq where

>.. ,

hot particles . that contains rem/yr to the

is defined to deliver For

sufficient surrounding than

tissue.

half-lives particles

gre~ter containing

cne year, this .

v~ould correspond

at least that:

0.07 pCi of alpha

It is reccnx,ended

1.

For

occupational = 2 hot
.

exposure

MPLPB MPCa

particles = 3.5xlO -16 uC1/m188

for Pu-239

MPLPB MPCa

=-0.2

hot

particles = 9X10-18 uCi/m189

for Pu-239

q? These particulate would consist of compounds of Pu and the other actnides which fall into Clas~ Y material. in the ICRP would be retained for Task Group Lung !!odel. These materials ~C~p ~ublicati~n 19, ~~. cit., See zor example, years in the lung. Since only particles in the size range of 5 u and below in P. 6* diameter would be deposited in the deep respiratory tissue, this in effect sets an upper limit for the particle size of interest If the half-life is less than or close to 1 year the limit here. of 0.07 pCi can be adjusted upward through appropriate calculations. 88/ This FIPCa applies for particles containing 0.07 pCi of For particles containing more than 0.07 pCi the K-239. For particles MPCa could be increased proportionately. containing less than 0.07 pCi the existing MPCa=4x10 11 pCi/ml The hlPCa for hot particles of other isotopes would apply. and mixtures of isotopes should be established on a similar basis with consideration given to the half-life of the isotope. 89/ Ibid.

-52.

3.

For

accidental

releases exposure) areas

exposure = 10 hot

(10 CFR

100.ll(a)

(l))

MPLIB (2 hours

particles

4.

For MPSC

unrestricted = 1 hot

particle/m2

90
to determine as low as

5.

Hearings

should

be convened

practicable

rcqulations.

. / .-

~/ This value is meant for guidance with respect to decontamination of an unrestricted area that has been contaminated with hot particles. In areas where an RF greater or less than 10-4 m-l could be shown to apply, the MPSC could be altered appropriately.

APPENDIX Radiation . Standards

A Organizations

SeLting Roles

and Their

which recommends basic radiation criThe organization teria and standards at the international level is the on Radiological Protection (ICRP) . International Commission auspices of the Second It was established in 1928 underathe During the early In~ernatio,na~ CfJ::IgrL55of Radiology. primarily with period and until 1950, the ICRP was concerned recommendations desicned to provide protection to members of the medical profession in their diagnostic ar.d therairom radium. peutic use of X-rays and gamma radiation However, since the advent of atomic energy, and radiation it has extended its efforts to include uses on a large scale, studies of radiaticn protection matters covering the whole It works together with its gamut of radiation applications. the International Commission on Radiation sister commission, ~lnits Measurements (ICRU) ,and relies on the ICRU for backorl :adiatiori measdre:ielnts. ground k~Gi~5~qC The Nation~l Council on Radiation Protection and . (NCRP) was organized in 1929, a year after the Measurements ICRP, as a combined effort of several radiation protection committees in the United States to consolidate their voice at meetings scattered efforts and to present a unified The ICRP and NCRP are private groups whose of=the ICRP.1 recommendations are purely advisory. r In 1934 the NC2.Iad~~ted the simple level of 0.1 dose. In roentgen per dayl m,e~~s~~ed in air aS the tolerance 1940, it recommended a permissible body burden of 0.1 microThe latter standard, still in gram for ingested radium. to an average dose- to the skeleton effect today, corresponds of about 30 rem\yr or a dose to the critical endosteal tissue out to a distance of 5-10 microns of about 10 rem/yr.

. .,,, . ,, ,
,..

r,, . .,. 3::..

,,

-,!.

.? * ,., ..S; . *, . ; ,, , ., .:..

.. -.. .,

Committee 1/ Initially the NCRP was known as the Advisory in 1946 the name was changed on X-rays and Radium Protection; Radiation Protection and Measureto the National Committee on a Federal charter and took ments , and in 1964 it received its present name.

-A2-

In 1949, the maximum permissible dose for radiation It was lowered again was lowered to 0.3 roentgen per week. as the permissible dose for radiation in 1957 to 5 rem\*,r This stfind~rd is still in effect. workers. The AEC has also played a significant role in setting authority However, the AECS regulatory radiation standards. over materials was, and still is, limited by the Atomic EnergY Act of 1954, as amended, to source, by-product, and sPecial llefore the Federal Radiation Council nuclear material. standards, (FRC) was forr.e~, :lle ;.E2, when setting radiation of the NCRP, generally follo~ied :lcse!.y the reconwendations which in turn paralleled the ICRP recommendations.
.

,, .. .

d
, -, ,,, ,
,.<: ,,

..... . .-. ,! :,,i

.. .

,., ;, ,., .,. ,,.

In 1959, after the advent of the atomic age had aroused public fears over fallout from nuclear weapons I the U. S. government, because of uncertainty of government influence over radiation protection standards, organized the FRC. It was authorized by Congress to .. .advise the president with respect to radiation matters directly or indirectly for all federal agencies affecting health, including guidance in the formulation cf radiation standards and in establishment and execution of ~rccra~.s in cooperation with the states. . .2 The f-inal authority with respect to radiation standards rested Such a subordinate not with the FRC but with the President. agency as the AEC , for example, had to make its rules, e.g. , compatible with the overall those governing licensed reactors, guides developed by the FRC. the 1950s the ICRP and NCRP continued to . Tnrouqhout ,tevise and refine the basic recommendations concerning Standards were permissible radiation exposure standa~ds. recorrunended for some non-occupational groups and for the whole ~.i~.Xi;JU,T population. permissible body burdens and maximum permissible concentrations of radionuclides in the air and in Most of these water were recommended as secondary standards. recommendations were incorporated by the FRC and the AEC. and its duties were transfel-lt-tl In 1970 the FRC was abolished Since that time, the setting of population to the EPA. Population standards, exposure standards has resided in EPA.

.,. .

Material for the Development 2/ FRC Report No. 1, Background Go~rcrnment Printing Office, of Radiation Protection Standards, Washington, D. C. , Play 13, 1960, p. 1.

--, * ... . ,. .,;, .

-A3... ...
,, ...
,.., . :.

.
, ,,

..
,. ..

.,, ,.

in this case, mean exposure to persons. outside the fence Criteria, required E:- liter.sed) facilitiy. of an :~EC (cr :, ~+- 2 v,4,- for plant cmeration and design b.nrl.-.i&*ti, to neet L!lese Hence, present responsibility for remained with the AEC. health effects resides in EpA~ while the asses ??. ent of technology to control emissions res~onsibi li::v for developing The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) resides in AEIC. in a recent letter to EPA and AEC clarified the delegation of responsibilit-] bet%:een these agencies for promulgating that may be emitted regulations to limit the radioacti.;ity OVB s~at~d: IrdustrY from f~~ili:i..~ i- ~~.~ ~:~eT-Y;:;Cr AEC should proceed with its plans for issuing urzr,l~m fuel cycle standards , taking received fran all into accol~.ct .L ~.ie connents . EPA; that EPA should dissources , including continue its preparations for issuing, now for types of or in the future, any standards facilities; and that EPA shculd continue, under its current authority, to have responsibility for setting standards for the total av,our.tcf ?.ti~.tition the cer.eral ep.vironrienh iv. from all facilities combined in the uranium which fuel cycle, i.e. , an ambient standard would have to reflect AECS findings as to. 3 the practicability of emission controls. There axe other agencies ar.i groups which are concerned with radiation standards and ,in some cases have regulatory These include, but are not limited to, the ~authority. and Welfare, Department of Department of Health, Education National Standards Labor , Bureau of 31ines , the American institute, and state agencies. :he radiation standards of For the most part these organizations are not at issue here. they play a secondary role, or where applicable, follow the guidance of the NCRP, EPA and AEC.

3_/ Memorandum for Administrator from Roy L. Ash, Dec. 7, 1973.

Train

and Chairman

Ray

APPENDIX

B for

PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED

Statement

Submitted

to Attorneys

Re:
by :

, et al vs. NUMEC
Arth)dr R. Tamplin

The foil-owinu is my analysis of the oriqin of Mr. Ed~~-ard resulted in his :~leasons S05? tl~~dc sarco~l:l that ultimately death and of the Consultation Report, submitted by Dr. Niel Wald, dated Jan. 29, 1973. unleaded , rotated, and loaded a crate con(Pu-239) SO~JtiO~. -:inina 3 le:ki~.o z::?JO;05 ?lLtoniCx-239 ,, This could not have occured without contaminating? the palmr The question is : surface of his lerc hand, which was bare. to develop a ...d this Pu-239 c~r:ta~,ination cause with sarcoma? Since radiation inci~ced cancers are identical it is necessary to consider those that occur spontaneously, the relative chances that the cancer was spontaneous or Pu-239 induced. . The United States Vital Statistics, record a death rate for malignant neoplasrris (othez than melanoma) of the skin in Sines e upper extrcn.it-? c: less thm one per ~.illion per y~~r. and .synovial sarcoma is a rare form that often metastasizes its ,occurrence rate is certainly hence has a poor proanosis, less than the total skin cancer death rate of one per million Thus it is highly unlikely that anyone who handled per year. this crate would spontaneously develop this sarcoma on the . =aninated ha:.d (less th.a Gr.2 chalice in a r.iilicn) . . ,Now let us consider what the chances are of the developcontamination Qf the ment of cancer as a result of plutonium data :ron plutonium skin . Experimental contaminated animals ::-.onstr~te that injection of 1 microgram of Pu-239 into the skin of rats promptly produced cancer in up to 5% of the animals tumors are fibrosarcomas. (Exhibit 1) . The particular Now the analysis done by LASL indicated that the Pu-239 This concentration was about 160 micrograms per milliliter. is reason to suspect, since the volume of liquid was reduced, But setting that the Pu was actually more concentrated in 1963. aside, one drop would be expected to contain between 8 and One-one hundredth of a milliliter 16 microcjrams of Pu-239. (a very small amount of liquid). would have been sufficient to

,.

,.

.. ..

PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED ,.., ... ,+. .. .,. . ., f., . .-..j(; . >,.,.,,.,/ . i .. ~ ,. ..f b;::: ,: a, )$:.; ..;),:! ; .. . .. .,.,., $.::;, :,; .(..: ;:, .. , ,:, ,.., . . ~ ,. * - / ,. ,,
b,. . ,. . ,.

,.

PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED

q

-i32. There is little reason to doubt produce sarcomas in animals. or even more that this small amount of liquid (0.!)1 milliliter) palm. In t!lis i>..~r.d its way belcw :!le 5Gr:-FiC!3 of event, his chance of developing cancer would be one in twenty. This is at l;ast 50,000 times higher than his chances of de~sloni:-;.; is o;-rIn other words , the evidence L:le cancer s~ontaneou~l~{. whelminq in favor of the tumor resulting from Pu-239 contamination. The above relative probability is based upon data from than .Lnimals. It i~ quite possible that man i~ more sensitive the biol~gical :ni~als to cancer inducticn by P1~-239 . In fact, Exhibit 2 evidence strongly suggests that man is more sensitive. This nodule is a case report of a nodule removed from a man. Commenting on the histological .~ntained only 0.08 uq of ?u-239. e:,~+~nation of t-e l~~ion , the a~lt~~ors st~.~n~ ,T5@ qut@r~,di~graphs showed precise confinement of w-tracks to the area of maximum damage and their penetration into the basal areas of where epithelial changes typical of ionizing the epidermis, The cause. and effect relationradiation exposure we~e present. Althcagh the ship of these findinqs, th~refore, seemed obvious. lesion was minute, the chanq~s in it were severe. Their . similarity to known precancerous epidermai cyroloaic c:nanqes, Gf course; raised the question of, the ultimate fate of such a lesion should it be allowed to exist without surgical intervention. . . In this case, less than 0.1 ug of Pu-239 produced precancerous chanqes in human tissue. The dose to the surrounding tissue was very intense. There is every reason to believe .~;cta smallar c .Q:ntitf: c: ?u-239 would !-.avepzo:~ced similar changes. . . . d When I consider the above human and ?nimal data toqether with the relative probability of 50,000, I can come to no other .Inciusion than that this sarcoma was a direct result of the . contamination of left Dalm by Pu-239.
.

Turning now to Dr. Walds Consultation Report, it can be stated that he has presented no evidence to disprove the claim that this sarcoma was caused by Pu-239 contamination. I shall discuss Dr. Waldts report in the order that it was written. According to the Division of Inspection Report submitted by Anson M. Bartlett on April 11, 1963, pages 29-30, the January 19 examination was conducted not on , but on The single urine and feces his home, clothing and automobile.

PRIvAcy AcTMATERIAL REMOv~O

.
-B3.,

PRIVACY ACTMATERIAL REMOVED

camnlcs collected s?.lbsenuent to January 20 qave negative g is that no l-.2sults. The only thir. that this demenstr~tes Even following the indetectable level of PU-239 was found. jection of l.mqe volumes of Pu-239 solution into the skin and -;uscle of animals, the Pu-239 is slowly absorbed and appreciable 1 oreup to 70%, remain at the site of injection. V fractions, over, of the quantity absorbed only a small fraction appears in the urine or feces (see paqe 3, Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4) . case we are concerned with only a very small .. ~ --o~~n,eof sol.~tion and. P~-~e we should not be s~rprised if we .1----urine or feces obtain negative results in an individual sample. (See also Exhibit 5) The physical exa~.i:lation performed by Dr. Roy E. Albert One would expect no on January 23, 1963, has no relevance. overt signs of radiation injury at this early date from the Ole are concerned sm,all quantity of PU-239 which is at issue here. here with the long tern e ffects, not the acute effects. as recorded by Dr. Wald The medical histor:] of , he -~nears to be accur~.t.e, ~-.~~.;e~ler emitted the concl~sior.s for Special Surgery of the Pathology Report of the Hospital wherein the unanimous opinion of the pathologists was stated to be that this lesion was a synovial sarcoma. The negative findin~s in the feces and urine in April of findinus in the 770 are of no more yele-~ance than the similar . . The whole body counter has a detection January 1963 samples. At issue here are quantities limi,tof 0.3 u Ci of PU-239. below 0.06 u Ci and, hence, well below th- detectable limit.
!, ,. ,

,!

There are three reasons for setting aside the negative . First, findings in the initial tissue removed from no evidence of atypical since the pathologist report indicated it is quite possible that this mass was or malignant changes, Recall here that the histoloqy of unrelated to the sarcoma. the small nodule in Exhibit 2 showed severe chanqes that resembled Third, the site of contamination was precancerous changes. not necessarily removed with the mass or it could have trimmed

from the mass prior to production of the paraffin blocks and slides . Consider here that the nodule in Exhibit 2 was only eventually Since 1/10 of a millimeter in diameter. developed an infiltrating soft tissue sarcoma, and this original tissue removed showed no atypical change, there is no basis for PRIVACY MATERIAL REMWED ACT
,.

PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED

q

-B4-

assuminq that the origin of the sarcoma was included in this tissue mass .
The negative results on the clavicle specimen are also flhe issue here is a small quantity of Pu-239 equivocal. ~hct rem~i;,ed l{;c:.lized in t!le pahmar area cf the left hand. Tilis boricspeci:~cll indicates ol-i~Ythat the amount of systemtoo small to be detected in this bone ically absorbed Pu-239 was specimen. None of these clinical findings are able to set aside the sarcoma was a direct strong possibility that The most likely course result of the plutonium contamination. -f events is that a small quantity of the PU-239 solution in the tissue below (less the 0.01 millilite~) was deposited This may hate occured through a small cut palm. The body then reacted to this material as a or via a sliver. Eventually, a lesion foreign body, and encapsulated it. This nodule similar to that discus-sed in Exhibit 2 developed. progressed beyond the precancerous stage to become an inThe chances are some 50,000 filtrating soft tissue sarco~a. ~~,i~ fa=hion th zn ~e.v.el-ma ~.-A n AuyLu ?iT&CS greater that +h~ sarcma ..AL .kat it o~cured I think spontaneously.
.

to point out that all df the information relevant to this case was available in 1963. been informed of the potential cancer risk Had subsequent to the incident, he could have informed his physicians.
that it is important AS a result they would probably and tli.e tradeqy could have been d have treateci him more cautiously substantially mitigated. r

PRIVACY ACT MATERIAL REMOVED

-B5-

..

Lisco, Herman, et al, RadiOIOgy~ VO1. 49 1 NO* 31 Sept. 1947, pp. 361-363. Lushbaugh, C.C. # et all ~ch~ Oct. 1962, pp. 461-464. Vanderbeck, J. W.t Hw-66172# C)wration, JUIY 251 1960~ s, .,;-. . .. ..- ~,, Matsuokal Mr. , et all Health Of DermatO109Y~ .
HNAford =boratories

010 86,

physics~

VO1O

22/ June
.. ,

1972~

PP:; ,?y-722 .:.,*-:,. , / ..-<

5 .

~~.%lsco;:-~erman Walter E. Kesiekeski, American J. and ; - of Pathology, Vol. 29, No. 1, Jan. - Feb. 1953~ pp. 305321* .,,, ~ :. # .,.>.

-.:,

... ,. .-

.,. .,. .*. .. ...

.

,.. < ,,

,.. . ,+

irradiated material at the place of The unit of absorbed dose interest.

One rad is 100 ,... Atomic Energy Commission. . Abbreviation for curie. the rad. ergs/gram.

is

Ci:
..., .

2.-:- ... . .. . . ,. L ...

Curie:

The quantity ofs radioactive nuclide disintegrating at the rate of 3.7x1010

atoms per second. .. . ,.,,. . Abbreviation

.

fordAbsorbed Dose.
:!-

Abbreviation Abbreviation Dose Distribution Factor:

>$,:. ..%

for Dose Equivalent. for Dose Distribution Factor.

A modifying-factor used in calculating dose equivalent which accounts for nonuniforrnd&E~ibution of radiation. - ,, . .:~&,; ; The product of absorbed doseD, quality factor (QF) , dose distribution factor (DF), and other necessary modifying factors (The dose equivalent is-numerically equal to the absorbed dose <n rads multip~ied by The the appropriate modifying factors). unit of dose equivalent is the rem. t ;. :... ::.-..-:.- .. . .,~. . Environmenta~ Protection Agency.<, .&.,. ,, Federal Radiation Counc~l.:.heheFRC has . been aBolished, andits-,,f~ctionq taken over
. .

*<..

.-.

. ,. *..
V,.

.:? ..*.. .

Dose Equivalent:
,
4 ... ;:%.,>.,:.
.-

.- . .

,.
,
..

Abbreviation Half-life:

for gram. . ~~

Time r~quired for a radioactive substance to lose 50 percent of its activity by radioactive Each radionuclide has a unique halfdecay. life.
.

..-: B
!

--b

%.

.. .. iiiliikf.+.-. .:.., c
-.

, -- .;..

... , s&.-,.,. ...,=. .. .

> -. ---

..>---.2s . +*.. ---

Millilitegi,= 0.001 liters. -.,.. - :<: .. . ,..+~.;.; .-. Maximum:peti~ss ible concentration (of a radionuclide) in air. The average corlcentration above background of a specific radionticli.de to which an individual can ,.- be exposedw~thout exceeding the guidelines.
~pcw ~.,.

Maximum @>errnissibleconcentration (of a radionucl$~ej. in water.- ~(See definition above. ) .j~::;j~~-... .,,. .-. ,,:. ,, , .: . ,;:, -..,. .:. ,; , ,:,:*.>=. . . Maximum pek~ssible lungburden. .,.. ,$. Maxixyunp&missj.ble lung dose. . . National Council on Radiation Protection and Measur~em&ts. ..: . .

,.

Abbreviation for picocurie, which is onemillionth-of. a microcurie, or 10-12 curies. -., [:,<., ~ Jr%& .+..::, . ,- .j,. -,. ,,. . :<~F:~&@j:~+$;;~:;. ~ --;,;::---:;:-:-?. f ;..:. -. which i= . Abbrevlat~o~for Quallty Factor, ., . . . assignedon the basis of a number of con.. . . . , .:;~j,&i: .<.
- .. =>.,. . .

pci : ----

mences

Radionuclide:

A nuclide of an element that is radioactive.

. .

.$ .+ * . ,., , .,.. . ..

+---

:*

-.

~+

-. -

--, . .

1 ,

..>.

.:*

.-,

..

-.--$p==q

- -~

--:: -
-. .

.-.

&

-i

v==---Q-
.. . . . . ..

.4

.-

.-.,.

. . . .

?-

-G3. i

-.: :.. ? _

~~

., ::.:,:,..>: ,, ;<...,. # _<-:.3: unit

the ~-:~ > of dos~ e@valent~:~@en appropriate modifyin-g factors are used to calculate dose equivalent one rem is the - quantity of any type of io,n$zing radiation which when absorbed infi-fil~@roducesan
effe-t equivalent to the absorption of at the one rad of X- or gamma-radiation place of interest.

. .. ,.

..

Roentgen:

.;: . ,,; ~;

The quantity of X- or gamma-radiation such that the associated corpuscular emission per 0.001293 grams of air produces, in air ions carrying one electrostatic unit of electricityof either sign. For the . purposes here, the roentgen is roughly equivalen~:to *the. rad. .:;-:. :
.:-/..

Specific tictivity: Total radi~$c~lvity of a givenmaterial (isotopet$lement8 or compound) per 9ram of the material -- curies/9rame
.. ...

u:

. -.,.

Abbretia~io&jfoi micron;which is onerriillicntn of .,.. a meter.

..

Ug:

millionth of a gram. .,..