Radiation Protection Criteria and Standards: Their Basis and Use

application, and the court had on one occasion to overrule the Administrator for failing to abide by his own general pricing standards. In the pricing of meat products, the Administrator claimed that accounting difficulties made it impracticable to apply the minimum product standard to determine the adequacy of ceilings for particular cuts or even for all the products of a given species of livestock. The court rejected this view and in effect directed the Administrator to apply the product standard on a species basis.17

The same industry furnished another example of the same principle, applied in this instance, however, to a pricing standard contained in an adjustment provision. Early in the history of price control, a regulation-Supplementary Order No. 9-had been issued authorizing individual applicants to secure adjustments of ceilings in any case in which the applicant could show that his ceiling impeded or threatened to impede production of a commodity which was essential to the war program and which was or would be the subject of a Government contract. An applicant, Armour and Co., applied for an adjustment under this order, showing that its existing ceilings obliged it to perform its Government contracts at a loss. This application was denied, as was the ensuing protest, on the ground that the applicant's over-all position was favorable, and that relief, if granted, would be illusory since it would soon be offset by resulting higher livestock prices. The court, convinced that the protestant had met the terms of the adjustment standard, rejected the Administrator's contentions and upheld the protest. The court pointed out that "An adjustment provision in a regulation has the force of law, becomes one of the rules of the game, so to speak. If an applicant makes out a case within the framework of the adjustment provision, the denial of relief by the Administrator must be deemed an arbitrary act. The Administrator is no less obligated to give the relief called for by the adjustment provision because of his discovery, through experience that the adjustment provision is ill-advised * *If such has proved to be the case, the thing to do is to rewrite or amend the adjustment provision.” 18

Instances such as the foregoing in which the Administrator was found to have failed to adhere to the standards he had set to govern the agency's operations were very few. It is probable that these occasional reverses had a salutary effect that extended beyond the particular matters affected by them. The presence of a vigilant umpire made for better administration of the rules of the game.

16 Presumably the Administrator could lawfully have discarded the entire system of standards for a new one if the latter system were reasonable and in accord with the statutory standards. What the Administrator could not do was to take action in particular cases that was inconsistent with standards to which he purported to adhere.

17 Armour & Co. v. Bowles, 148 F. (2d) 546 (1945).

18 Armour & Co. v. Brown, 137 F. (2d) 233, 240-241 (1943). For an interesting extension of this principle, in the field of rent control, see Hillcrest Terrace Corp. v. Brown, 137 F. (2d) 663 (ECA, 1943).

At the recent Congressional Hearings Selected Materials on Radiation Protection Criteria and Standards: Their Basis and Use by the Special Subcommittee on Radiation, we promised to submit interpretations of the data on shorter lived radionuclides from fallout found in the soils near Chicago, as they are related to radiological health. We are pleased to submit our statement at this time.

The data on radioactivity in soil referred to in the recent Hearings Selected Materials on Radiation Protection Criteria and Standards: Their Basis and Use, were developed by Dr. P. F. Gustafson of Argonne National Laboratory in a program initiated May 1957. These data together with their interpretation are contained in a paper presented by Dr. Gustafson in December 1959 at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. By permission of the author this paper is attached. Also attached are graphs of these data prepared by us, which will appear in the July issue of Radiological Health Data, a monthly publication of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, together with data sheets for March and April 1960 which were received after the preparation of the graphs.

It will be noted that the total (natural sources and fallout) gamma radiation levels reported in the attached paper are direct measurements made at 3 feet above the ground using an ionizing chamber. To estimate the contribution to this total level from the radionuclides in fallout, studies were performed by Dr. Gustafson to determine (a) the distribution of these materials in depth within the soil, (b) shielding effect of the soil, and (c) the effect of multiple scattering of gamma rays within the soil. Based on these data the gamma dose rates at 3 feet above the ground were calculated. As a second approach a similar calculation of the above

* See page 300.

Mr. James T. Ramey

rate was made for the natural occurring radionuclides in soil to which value was added an estimate of the contribution of cosmic rays, followed by the mathematical subtraction of this calculated dose rate (from natural sources) from the total measured radiation level in order to estimate the contribution of fallout. In addition to these necessary estimations (in contrast with direct measurements) must be added the usual uncertainties of sample collections and measurements. Within the relatively large range of uncertainties necessarily inherent in such studies we are in agreement with the data and interpretations contained in the attached paper by Dr. Gustafson.

In addition to the interpretations given in the attached paper we have calculated the theoretical out-of-doors exposures based on the same data and methods of calculations as used by Dr. Gustafson. These calculations are summarized as follows:

140

(Barium -lanthanum were not measured but it would be expected
that these would contribute some additional gamma exposure.
Although their half-lives are relatively short (12.8 days and 40
hours) they are present initially in relatively great abundance
in fission products.)

As one point of reference in interpreting the calculations it will be recalled that the external gamma radiation exposure from natural background is usually considered to be 100 millirads per year. Thus, the calculated out-of-doors doses from fallout (based on these soil data) are about 1/3 of natural background for the period May 1957 to April 1959 and about 1/2 for the peak year (1959). The calculated out-of-doors dose rate in April 1960 was about 1/5 that of natural background. In the absence of further atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, it would be expected that the downward trend of dose rates would continue since the radiological decay of the radionuclides more than compensate for the small additional deposition from the atmosphere. Eventually, of course, the gamma dose rate will level off to that from cesium-137 (half-life of 27 years).

Mr. James T. Ramey

The shielding effect of normal structures will reduce the in-door radiation exposures from those calculated out-of-doors. Using an ionization chamber Dr. Gustafson found a reduction factor of approximately five for in-door dose rates compared to those out-of-doors. The structures used for this test, however, were either relatively large frame buildings or were of the cinder-block construction. It would be expected that a more usual small frame home would have somewhat less shielding effects possibly a factor of 2 or 3. The actual radiation exposure that persons might receive would depend, of course, not only on the type of structure but also on the length of time it was occupied.