_ ,LA-9445-PNTX-P. . .. .. . ... ,., r ..... ,- ,: ,...-.

.

,

.,...:. . . .. .<

Los-, ,,, .,., .,,’ -... .-

,.

. . ..-” ,.

.,

AhnnlosLos Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos,New Mexico 87545

. . .,,.

,.” ,’ .... .,,.. r.. ..’ . .,.

-.. . .

.,An Affirmative ACUOrr/EquaIOpportunity Empbyei

Thik report was prepared by Kathy Derouin, Lois Schneider, and Mary LouKeigher, Group H-8.

DMIAfhiER

TM zeport was prepared as an accocmt of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Covcrnment.Neither the United States Covcrnment norany agency thereof, nor any of their employees, maka anywarzmty, express or impEed, or aaauma any legal tiability or rcsponaiiility for the accuracy, campleteneaa,or uacftdoas of acry information, apparatus, product, or procers disclosed, or repreacrrta that its usc wouldnot Infringe privately owned rights. References herein to any SPCCUICcommercial product, procas, oracrvtce by trade name, trademark, mandacturer, or otherwise, does not nmasarify constitute or imply itsemdorscment, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. Theview and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the UnitedStata Covcrnment or any agency thereof.

Supplementary Documentation for anEnvironmental Impact Statement

Regarding the Pantex Plant

A Comparison of County andState Cancer Mortality Rates

L. D. WiggsG. S. WilkinsonG. L.Tietjen

J. F.Acquavella

. . . .

LA-9445-PNTX-P

Issued: December 1982

.

k ~oa~osLosA,amos,NewMex,co8,,4,Los Alamos National Laboratory

SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTATION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTREGARDING THE PANTEX PLANT:

A COMPARISON OF COUNTY AND STATE

by

L. D. Wiggs, G. S. Wilkinson, G. L. T

ABSTRACT

CANCER MORTALITY RATES

etjen, and J. F. Acquave”la

This report documents work performed in support of preparation of anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the Department of Energy’sPantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas.

This report considers cancer mortality rates in the region surroundingthe Pantex nuclear weapons facility. The working hypothesis was thatincreased cancer mortality rates would exist in counties proximal to thePantex Plant. To evaluate this hypothesis, we compared age-adjusted cancermortality rates for the six surrounding counties with Texas state rates forthree time periods: 1950 to 1959, 1960 to 1969, and 1970 to 1978. Thesecomparisons showed that cancer mortality rates for Carson County (where theplant is located) and the five adjacent and downwind counties were notsignificantly different from rates for the State of Texas.

I. INTRODUCTION

This report documents work performed in support of preparation of anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the Department of Energy’sPantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas. That EIS addresses continuing nuclearweapons operations at Pantex and the construction of additional facilities tohouse those operations. The EIS was prepared in accordance with currentregulations under the National Environmental Policy Act. Regulations of theCouncil on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500) require agencies to prepareconcise EISS with less than 300 pages for complex projects. This report wasprepared by Los Alamos National Laboratory to document details of workperformed and supplementary information considered during preparation of theDraft EIS.

1

Recently, there has been increasing nationwide interest in the health of

residents living near nuclear and chemical industrial sites. In Amarillo,Texas, this interest has been directed toward individuals living near thePantex Plant, a nuclear weapons production facility.

To address this concern, we compared age-adjusted cancer mortality inthis region with mortality for the State of Texas. The wrking hypotheseswere that (1) cancer mortality rates in this region were significantly higherthan rates for Texas, and that (2) these elevated rates would follow ageographic pattern consistent with the pattern of ambient emissions from theplant.

We selected cancer as the health endpoint of interest because of thelarge body of literature supporting the association between cancer andexposures to radiation and chemicals. Investigations of radiation-inducedcancers have demonstrated (1) increased mortality from leukemia, cancers ofthe thyroid, breast, lung, urinary organs, stomach, and lymphomas among theJapanese atomic bomb survivors (Beebe 1978); (2) increased incidence oftumors of the brain, thyroid, and parotid among tinea capitis patientstreated with x-ray therapy during childhood (Shore 1976); (3) excessmortality from leukemia, cancers of the pharynx, bronchi, skin, liver,pancreas, and lymphatic and hemopoietic cancers in ankylosing spondyliticstreated with therapeutic x rays (Court Brown 1965); (4) excess breast cancerin wmen treated with x rays for postpartum mastitis (Shore 1977); and (5)increased mortality from leukemias and cancers of the bone, liver, and lungin Portuguese thorotrast patients (Horta 1978).

Investigations of chemically related cancers have shown (1) excesses ofangiosarcoma, brain cancer, and respiratory cancers among vinyl chlorideworkers (Tabershaw 1974, Waxweiler 1976); (2) lymphatic leukemias amongworkers exposed to solvents (McMichael 1975); and (3) excess nmrtality fromrespiratory cancers among chromiun workers (Satoh 1981). Several recentarticles (Cole 1980, Tomatis 1976, Tomatis 1978) have summarized andattempted to quantify the associations between cancer and chemical exposures.

Other studies in the past have examined cancer mortality in the regionssurrounding nuclear or chemical industries. Lambert (1980) and Grahn (1975)examined cancer mortality in the vicinity of the Big Rock Point nuclearreactor in Charlevoix County, Michigan. Both studies reported that cancermortality rates were not significantly different from rates for the State ofMichigan.

Two recent investigations in counties with a heavy concentration ofeither chemical (Hoover 1975) or petroleum (Blot 1977) industries reportedexcess rates for “all cancers,” cancers of the lung, skin, and other sites.These studies compared county cancer mortality rates with rates for the

2

United States (chemical industry study) or with rates for selected control

counties (petroleum industry study).

II. CHARACTERISTICS OF PLANT OPERATIONS

Since 1951, the mission of the Pantex Plant has been to assemble anddisassemble nuclear weapons. In addition, the facility maintains weapons forthe national nuclear stockpile, develops and synthesizes small amounts ofchemical high explosives (HE), and performs quality assurance and testing ofweapons (USERDA 1976).

III. EXPOSURES FROM PLANT OPERATIONS

The Pantex Plant handles a variety of chemical and radioactive elementsincluding (1) solvents and adhesives; (2) chemical HE; and (3) uranium,tritium, and plutonium. As with most studies of this nature, currentemissions records are superior compared to earlier records. Therefore, it isdifficult to estimate the potential radioactive and chemical exposuresreceived by individuals living near the plant during early Pantex operations.For this reason, we must rely on current data to estimate exposures.

IV. CURRENT RADIOACTIVE EXPOSURES

In 1981, extensive environmental monitoring was conducted at the PantexPlant. Levels of gross alpha, gross beta, and total uranium in water samplesreflected naturally occurring levels of these components. Levels of ‘3”7CS,238pu, 239Pu, and tritium were at or below the limits of detection (Purtymun1982A) .

Monitoring of air and soil detected no measurable levels of radioactivecontamination offsite. Consequently, computer modeling was used to estimatepotential environmental doses below the detection limit of current analytictechniques (Buhl 1982). The estimated annual whole body dose was determinedto be (at a maximum) less than 1 mrem for individuals in the surroundingpopulation. This estimate is less than 1% of the exposure received fromnaturally occurring background radiation (Buhl 1982).

v. CURRENT NONRADIOACTIVE EXPOSURES

Air and water contamination represent the tm potential sources ofnonradioactive exposures for the surrounding population. Water samples fromthe Pantex supply wells and Ogallala Aquifer test wells met all primary andsecondary federal drinking water standards (Purtymun 1982B).

A review of purchasing records for toxic materials used in the plantindicated that burning of waste HE and the disposal of waste organic solvent

through evaporation represented the major sources of nonradioactive airborne

3

emissions (Macdonell 1982). Macdonell (1982) modeled the dispersionconcentrations of potential airborne emissions for commonly used wastesolvents and waste HE. These estimated concentrations meet all EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) air quality standards and all Texas Air QualityRegulations. In addition, these concentrations are within the DOE’soccupational exposure standards (Macdonell 1982).

VI. METHODS

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the workingthat cancer mortality rates in the region surrounding the Pantex P“exceeded cancer mortality rates in the State of Texas.

hypothesisant

Meteorological data (Bowen 1981) were used to determine the countiesmost likely to be exposed to emissions from plant operations. These dataindicated that air concentrations resulting from plant emissions woulddecrease rapidly with increasing distance from the plant. People livingwithin a 10-km radius of the plant were expected to have had the highestpotential for exposure from these emissions. The prevailing winds woulddirect plant emissions toward the north and east of the plant. On this basis,the study region (Fig. 1) was defined as (1) the two counties (Carson andPotter) adjacent to the plant, and (2) the three downwind counties

HUTCHINSON

~ BORGER

CARSON

:.%,,,,TEX

g

,.,.,,,,., -panhandle,.,.,:,, ,,.,:,:,.,,,,,.,,.,,,,,

10km rodius

ROBERTS

b PAM PA

GRAY

‘*“o 10 20 30 km

Fig. 1. Texas counties included in the study region.

4

(Hutchinson, Roberts, and Gray) to the north and east of the plant. Becausea portion of the major population center in the area, the City of Amarillo,is located in Randall County, cancer mrtality rates for Randall County werealso evaluated.

The region studied contained a population of 203,000 persons accordingto the 1970 census (US Bureau of the Census 1973). Only a small part of thispopulation resides within the 10-km radius of the plant. In 1980, there were155 residents within an 8-km radius and 934 within a 16-km radius. Of thoseliving within the 16-km radius, only 155 live to the north and east(downwind) of the plant (LATA 1982).

County data were used for this investigation because mortality data werenot available for smaller geographic units. Texas was chosen as theappropriate comparison group because (1) Texas state rates are morerepresentative of the region than US rates, and (2) state rates are morestable than county rates. We examined the percentage of the state populationresiding in urban areas and found that it was similar to that of the studyregion (Table I). Age, sex, and race characteristics were controlled by theuse of sex- and race-specific, age-adjusted rates. The percentage of personsof Hispanic heritage represents a possible confounding factor not controlledin these analyses. In 1970, the percentage of persons of Hispanic heritagefor Texas was 18.4% compared with a range of <1.0 to 8.0% for the counties in

TABLE I

PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION LIVING IN URBAN AREAS* - 1970

Total Population Per Cent of Urban**

State of TexasSix-County Study Region

Carson CountyGray CountyHutchinson CountyPotter CountyRanda-11 CountyRoberts County

11 195 431203 096

6 35826 94924 44390 51153 885

950

79.885.500.080.368.495.690.400.0

*Source: US Bureau of the Census 1973.**Urban refers to incorporated and unincorporated places with >2500inhabitants (US Bureau of the Census 1973).

TABLE II

PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION OF SPANISH HERITAGE*

Region

State of Texas

Carson County, TexasGray County, TexasHutchinson County, TexasPotter County, TexasRandall County, TexasRoberts County, Texas

Per Cent Spanish**

18.4

.-.***

2.52.98.03.2---***

*Source: US Bureau of the Census 1973.**Spanish is defined as persons reporting Spanish as their “mother tongue”

(US Bureau of the Census 1973).***Percentage not calculated when less than 400 members of the population

possess a given characteristic (US Bureau of the Census 1973).

the study region (Table II) (US Bureau of the Census 1973). Because Mexican-Americans, in general, tend to have low cancer mortality rates (Menck 1975),this bias would elevate our mortality rate ratios and result in aconservative estimate of cancer rmrtality in the study region.

Mortality ratios were calculated by comparing age-adjusted cancermortality rates (Riggan in press)* for counties in the study region withrates for the State of Texas. These mortality rate ratios and theirassociated exact 95% confidence intervals (Pearson 1966) served as the basisfor statistical evaluation. A rate ratio of 1.00 indicated no differencebetween county and state rates. A chi-squared goodness-of-fit test (Bowker1972) and sign tests (Bowker 1972) were used to determine whether significantmortality rate ratios displayed patterns. Although mortality rate ratios werecomputed for white males and white females for three time periods (1950 to1959, 1960 to 1969, and 1970 to 1978), our interest centered on the 1960s and1970s because of the long latent periods required for most cancers.

*These analyse-swere based on an advance copy (dated April 1982) of thecancer mortality atlas (Riggan in press). These age-adjusted rates were basedon extrapolated age-specific populations for the 1970s.

6

TABLE III

CANCER SITES INCLUDED IN THE INVESTIGATION OF CANCER MORTALITYIN THE REGION SURROUNDING THE PANTEX PLANT

Cancer Sites

All cancers combinedBladder and other urinary organsBone, including jawBrain and nervous systemBreastKidney and ureterLarge intestineLarynxLeukemiasLiver, gallbladder and bileducts

LungLymphosarcoma , reticulum cellsarcoma

Multiple myelomaPancreasProstateStomachTestisThyroid gland

ICDA-8*

140-207188, 189.9170191, 192174189.0-189.2153161204-207155, 156, 197.8

162, 163.0, 163.9200, 202

203157185151186193

*Eighth Revision, International Classification of Diseases (USDHEW 1968).

To limit the number of chance associations, we restricted our analysesto cancers (Table III) previously associated with radiation or chemicalexposures. Cancer of the testis was added because of public interest (Tiede1980) .

VII. RESULTS

Tables IV and V list mortality rate ratios that differ significantlyfrom the null value (i.e. 1.00). A complete listing of all cancer sites iscontained in the Appendix. In general the number of ratios that weresignificantly different is consistent with the number expected.

Cancer mortality in the region around Pantex did not follow a patternthat would suggest a relationship between cancer mortality and exposures toambient emissions. Carson County, which contains the plant and was,

7

County

HutchinsonPotter

GrayHutchinsonPotter

Randal 1

Gray

PotterRandal 1Roberts

TABLE IV

SIGNIFICANTLY ELEVATED MORTALITY RATE RATIOS FORSELECTED TEXAS COUNTIES (1950-1978)

Site

StomachBoneKidney

LiverLarge intestineKidneyMultiple myelomaLeukemia

All cancersLymphosarcomaProstateBrainLeukemia

No. ofSex Deaths

1950to 1959

M 18M 12M 19

1960to 1969

F 11M 17M 24M 14M 19

1970to 1978

M 272M 14M 80F 15F 3

Ratio*

1.772.471.74

2.431.901.652.171.84

1.142.091.281.95

12.39

ConfidenceInterval**

1.05-2.801.27-4.311.05-2.72

1.21-4.351.11-3.051.06-2.451.18-3.641.11-2.88

1.00-1.281.14-3.511.01-1.591.09-3.212.56-36.22

*County rate divided by the state rate.**Exact 95% confidence interval (Pearson 1966).

therefore, most likely to receive the heaviest ambient exposures, displayedno significantly elevated mortality rate ratios (1950 to 1978). Mortalityrate ratios (for n > 5) for Carson County (1970 to 1978) are presented inTable VI.

The mortality rate ratios for the study region as a whole weredistributed as expected based on statistical chance alone. A chi-squaredgoodness-of-fit test demonstrated that the number of significantly differentmortality rate ratios observed in each of the three time periods was notsignificantly different from the number expected (a= 0.05) (Table VII).

8

County

Gray

HutchinsonPotter

Randal 1

Roberts

GrayHutchinsonPotterRandal 1

CarsonHutchinsonPotterRandal 1

TABLE V

SIGNIFICANTLY LOW MORTALITY RATE RATIOS FORSELECTED TEXAS COUNTIES (1950-1978)

Site

LeukemiaStomachLeukemiaLiverLymphosarcomaAll cancersLungAll cancers

ProstateLiverLiverAll cancersLiverLungLung

LungLeukemiaLiverLung

No. ofSex Deaths

1950to 1959

F 1M 7M 4M 2M 5M 59M 11F 1

1960 to 1969

M 11M 1M 7M 177F 1M 45F 4

1970to 1978

M 10rd 2F 9M 86

Ratio*

0.100.470.270.170.330.600.540.14

0.550.170.420.840.090.680.38

0.470.200.490.79

ConfidenceInterval**

0.00-0.570.19-0.970.07-0.690.02-0.600.11-0.780.45-0.770.27-0.970.00-0.78

0.27-0.980.00-0.950.17-0.850.72-0.970.00-0.510.50-0.910.10-0.96

0.22-0.860.02-0.700.22-0.930.63-0.97

*County rate divided by the state rate.**Exact 95% confidence interval (Pearson 1966).

An analysis using the sign test (Bowker 1972) showed that 29 of 36 sex-county-decade specific groups demonstrated no difference in the number ofcancer mortality rate ratios above and below unity. The remaining seven sex-county-decade specific groups had significantly more cancer rate ratios lessthan one. A second sign test (Bowker 1972) demonstrated that there was not a

9

TABLE VI

MORTALITY RATE RATIOS FOR SELECTEDCARSON COUNTY, TEXAS, COMPARED WITH THE STATE

Cancer Site

All cancers combinedBreastLarge intestine

LeukemiaLung

Males

CANCER SITES:OF TEXAS, 1970 TO 1978’

No. of

Deaths ConfidenceICDA-8** (N) Ratio Interval——

140-207 48 0.77 0.57-1.03174 0 -- --

153 6 1.31 0.48-2.85

204-207 6 1.98 0.73-4.30

FemalesNo. of

Deaths Confidence(N) Ratio Interval— —

41 0.96 0.69-1.317 0.88 0,35-1.8090

162,163.0,163.9 10 0.47 0.22-O.86*** 5

1.72 0.78-3.26-- --

0.94 0.30-2.18

*Limited to cancers where N > 5.**Eighth Revision, International Classification of Diseases (USDHEW 1968

●**significantly lower than expected: 95% CI.

TABLE VII

CHI-SQUARED GOODNESS-OF-FIT TEST FOR NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANTLYDIFFERENT CANCER MORTALITY RATE RATIOS

Observed Number Expected NumberTime of Significant of Significant

Period Results Results*

1950-1959 11.0 10.21960-1969 12.0 10.21970-1978 9.0 10.2

X2(1 degreeof freedom)

0.0630.3180.141

Probability**

0.8020.5730.707

*Expected number based on a = 0.05.**Probability of obtaining a value larger than the one given (Rothman 1979).

significant difference between the number of significantly high andsignificantly low results for each decade (1950 to 1959, 1960 to 1969, or1970 to 1978) or for the entire period (1950 to 1978) (Table VIII).

VIII. DISCUSSION

These resultsregion surrounding

demonstrate that county cancer mortality rates in thethe Pantex Plant were not unusual when compared to rates

10

TABLE VIII

SIGN TEST FOR HIGH AND LOWCANCERMORTALITYRATIOS

Number Number NumberSignificantly Significantly of

Time Period Hiah Low Trials

1950-1959 3 8 111960-1969 5 7 121970-1978 5 4. 91950-1978 13 19 32

*If below or equal to this value, the null hypothesis1972) .

**NS = Not Significant at a= 0.05.

CriticalValue* forSign Test(a = 0.05) Result

1 NS**

2 NS1 NS9 NS

is rejected (Bowker

for the State of Texas. This indicates that the past operations of the PantexPlant are unlikely to have affected cancer mortality in this region.

Some of the rate ratios differed significantly (a= 0.05) from the nullvalue of 1.00. These significant rate ratios probably represent a chanceoccurrence because (1) a chi-squared goodness-of-fit test confirmed that thenumber of significant rate ratios (in each time period) was not greater thanthe number expected by chance alone (a= 0.05); (2) a sign test indicatedthat when there was a difference in the number of rates above and belowunity, there were significantly more ratios <1.000; and (3) a sign testdemonstrated that the number of significantly high results was not differentfrom the number of significantly low results.

Because a long latent period would be necessary for cancers related tothe operations of the Pantex Plant to develop, we concentrated our emphasison comparisons of rates for the 1960s and 1970s. Comparisons for both the1960s and 1970s did not indicate any pattern of significant excesses incancer mortality for the study area.

The significantly elevated mortality rate ratios were not distributed ina fashion consistent with estimated air concentrations of plant emissionsthat decrease rapidly as the distance from the plant increases. Because mostof Carson County lies to the north and east of the plant (in the path of theprevailing winds), it should receive the heaviest exposures to air emissionsand, therefore, should be the best indicator of effects resulting from the

operations of the plant. Carson County did not display any significantly highmortality rate ratios. This observation further supports the conclusion thatsignificant ratios observed in the other counties were random statisticalevents. There is no reason to suspect that more distant counties woulddisplay effects related to plant operations when the most proximal countydisplayed no effects.

The results of this study should be interpreted in light of itslimitations. First, the region consists of counties with 1970 populationsranging from 950 to 90,511 (US Bureau of the Census 1973). Many of the age-adjusted cancer mortality rates for these relatively small populationcounties were based on few deaths. This results in unstable rates with largevariances that limit our ability to detect significant differences with thecorresponding state rates.

A second limitation was that the cancer mortality data (Riggan in press)were not specifically generated to study the Pantex Plant. Only county-,state-, and national-level data were available, and therefore, ourcomparisons were limited. We were unable to compare those individuals livingwithin the 10-km radius of Pantex with suitable nonexposed controls.However, the estimated potential exposure level for the heaviest exposedindividuals was less than 1% of radiation exposure from natural sources,making related cancers unlikely.

Other cancer-related factors not controlled included (1) migration inand out of the region, (2) the presence of other industries in the region,

(3) the personal habits of the decedents (patterns of smoking, diet, alcoholconsumption, etc.), (4) familial history of disease, (5) medical exposure todrugs and x rays, and (6) occupational chemical and radiation exposures.

Because occupational exposures at Pantex are higher than ambientexposures, we have initiated a study of the work force as a more sensitiveindicator of health effects due to the plant’s activities. Employee radiationand chemical exposure histories will be used to determine whether there is arelationship between occupational exposure and mortality. If excesses arediscovered, case-control studies that allow for careful consideration ofconfounders such as smoking history and occupational exposure to radiationand chemicals can be designed.

IX. CONCLUSIONS

This investigation did not find any evidence that Pantex Plantoperations have resulted in abnormally high cancer mortality rates in theregion. Cancer mortality rates for counties in this area were similar tothose for Texas.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Richard J. Waxweiler, Michele Reyes, and membersof the Epidemiology Advisory Committee, especially Roy E. Shore and StrotherWalker for their valuable suggestions and advice. We would also like to thankB. Joan Essington and Laverne S. Martinez for their reliable statisticalabstraction of the state and county rates.

REFERENCES

Beebe 1978: G. W. Beebe, H. Kate, and C. E. Land, “Studies of the Mortalityof A-Bomb Survivors. 6. Mortality and Radiation Dose, 1950-1974,”Radiation Research 75, 138-201 (1978).—

Blot 1977: W. J. Blot, L. A. Brint.on,J. F. Fraumeni, Jr., and B. J. Stone,“Cancer Mortality in U.S. Counties with Petroleum Industries,” Science198, 51-53 (1977).

Bowen 1981: B. Bowen, “Pollutant Air Concentration Surrounding Pantex,” LosAlamos National Laboratory memorandum H8-81-549 to L. ldiggs (May 15,1981) .

Bowker 1972: A. H. Bowker and G. J. Lieberman, Engineering Statistics(Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1972).

Buhl 1982: T. Buhl, J. Dewart, T. Gunderson, D. Talley, J. Wenzel, R. Romero,J. Salazar, and D. Van Etten, “Supplementary Documentation for anEnvironmental Impact Statement Regarding the Pantex Plant: RadiationMonitoring and Radiological Assessment of Routine Releases,” Los AlamosNational Laboratory report LA-9445-PNTX-C (1982).

Cole 1980: P. Cole and F. Merletti, “Chemical Agents and OccupationalCancer,” Journal of Environmental Pathology and Toxicology 3, 399-417(1980) .

Court Brown 1965: N. M.Other Causes AfterMedical Journal ~,

Court Brown and R. Doll, “Mortality from Cancer andRadiotherapy for Ankylosing Spondylitis,” British1327-1332 (1965).

Grahn 1975: D. Grahn, “Analysis of Population, Birth, and Death Statistics inthe Counties Surrounding the Big Rock Point Nuclear Reactor PowerStation, Charlevoix County, Michigan,” Argonne National Laboratoryreport ANL-8149 (1975).

73

Hoover 1975: R. Hoover and J. F. Fraumeni, Jr. , “Cancer Mortality in U.S.Counties with Chemical Industries,” Environmental Research ~, 196-207(1975).

Horta 1978: J. da Silva Horta, M. E. da Silva Horta, L. Cayolla da Motta, andM. H. Tavares, “Malignancies in Portuguese Thorotrast Patients,” HealthPhysics 35, 137-151 (1978).—

Lambert 1980: J. Y. Lambert and R. G. Cornell, “A Study of Vital Rates Near aNuclear Reactor,” Archives of Environmental Health 35, 235-239 (1980).—

LATA 1982: J. M. Greenwood and T. M. Rudell, “1990 Population Forecasts forthe Pantex, Burlington and Hanford Areas,” Los AlainosTechnicalAssociates (February 1982).

Macdonell 1982: D. G. Macdonell and J. M. Dewart, “SupplementaryDocumentation for an Environmental Impact Statement Regarding the PantexPlant: Estimated Releases and Downwind Concentrations of Air Pollutantsfrom Waste Organic Solvent Evaporation, Waste High-Explosive Burning,and High-Explosive Test Shots,” Los Alamos National Laboratory reportLA-9445-PNTX-G (1982).

McMichael 1975: A. J. McMichael, R. Spirtas, L. L. Kupper, and J. F. Gamble,“Solvent Exposure and Leukemia Among Rubber Workers: An EpidemiologicStudy,” Journal of Occupational Medicine 17, 234-239 (1975) .—

Menck 1975: H. R. Menck, B. E. Henderson, M. C. Pike, T. Mack, S. P. Martin,and J. Soohoo, “Cancer Incidence in the Mexican-American,” Journal ofthe National Cancer Institute 55, 531-536 (1975).—

Pearson 1966: E. S. Pearson and H. O. Hartley, Biometreika Tables forStatisticians, Vol. 1 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England,1966), pp. 80-83. –

Purt~un 1982A: William D. Purtymun, Naomi M. Becker, and Max Maes,“Supplementary Documentation for an Environmental Impact StatementRegarding the Pantex Plant: Geohydrologic Investigations,” Los AlamosNational Laboratory report LA-9445-PNTX-H (1982).

Purtymun 1982B: W. D. Purtynun and N. M. Becker, “Supplementary Documentationfor an Environmental Impact Statement Regarding the Pantex Plant:Geohydrology,” Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-9445-PNTX-I(1982).

14

Riggan in press: W. B. Riggan, J. Van Bruggen, J. F. Acquavel la, and J.Beaubier, U.S. Cancer Mortality Rates and Trends, 1950-1978 (USGovernment Printing Office, Washington, DC, in press).

Rothman 1979: K. J. Rothman and J. l).Boice, Jr., Epidemiologic Analysis witha Programmable Calculator -(US Government Printing Office, Washington,DC, 1979) .

Satoh 1981: K. Satoh, Y. Fukuda, K. Torii, and N. Katsuno, “EpidemiologicalStudy of Workers Engaged in the Manufacture of Chromium Compounds,”Journal of Occupational Medicine 23, 835-838 (1981).—

Shore 1976: R. E. Shore, R. E. Albert, and B. S. Pasternack, “Follow-Up Studyof Patients Treated by X-Ray Epilation for Tinea Capitis, Resurvey ofPost-Treatment Illness and Mortality Experience,” Archives ofEnvironmental Health 31, 21-28 (1976).—

Shore 1977: R. E. Shore, L. H. Hempelmann, E. Kowaluk, P. S. Mansur, B. S.Pasternack, R. E. Albert, and G. E. Iiaughie, “Breast Neoplasms in WomenTreated with X-Rays for Acute Postpartum Mastitis,” Journal of theNational Cancer Institute 59, 813-822 (1977).—

Tabershaw 1974: 1. R. Tabershaw and W. R. Gaffey, “Mortality Study of Workersin the Manufacture of Vinyl Chloride and Its Polymers,” Journal ofOccupational Medicine 16, 509-518 (1974).—

Tiede 1980: T. Tiede, “Pantex Nuclear Plant Out of Date,” Borger News Herald(December 7, 1980).

Tomatis 1976: L. Tomatis, “The IARC Program on the Evaluation of theCarcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man,” Annals New York Academy ofSciences 271, 396-409 (1976).

Tomatis 1978: L. Tomatis, C. Agthe, H. Bartsch, J. Huff, R. Montesano,R. Saracci, E. Walker, and J. Wilburn, “Evaluation of theCarcinogenicity of Chemicals: A Review of the Monograph Program of theInternational Agency for Research on Cancer (1971-1977),” CancerResearch 38, 877-885 (1978).—

US Bureau of the Census 1973: US Bureau of the Census, County and City DataBook, 1972, A Statistical Abstract Supplement (US Government Printing

fice, Washington, DC, 1973).

75

USDHEW 1968: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public HealthService, National Center for Health Statistics, Eighth Revision,International Classification of Diseases, Adapted for Use in the UnitedStates, Vols. I and II (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC,1968) .

USERDA 1976: “Environmental Assessment, Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas,”United States Energy Research and Development Administration,Washington, DC (June 1976).

Waxweiler 1976: R. J. Waxweiler, W. Stringer, J. K. Wagoner, J. Jones,H. Falk, and C. Carter, “Neoplastic Risk Among Workers Exposed to VinylChloride, ” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 271, 40-48 (1976).

APPENDIX

TABLES OF CANCER MORTALITY RATE RATIOS: SELECTED TEXAS COUNTIESCOMPARED WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS, 1950 TO 1978

17

aJ

ur--

CId

CD

>-O

L,-

CIJ

++cc0

)-4u

coS

-II.1

r-lm

lI

6er=!

RI

GLo

om

l

RI.1

Lo

ml

IGeNm

l.10G

O

m.

hm

Oca

ml+

Am

“e-cm9-44

-0Cu

IIII1I

!IIIII

IIIIII

O-I

*.

mNo6

m-

mh.

.m

m

ES

66Into

mm

mm.

.+03

(WN

ahWln.

.A

U)

mm

No

o“

&

ma

00ho

o“

4“

m!+

m.

t-nm8-I

o“

.

mN

too

9-IN

lx”o“

Wo

AN

IIII1I

IIIIII

Izl1.

(vm

1!21.

01%

IlnIm

.m

19+

IIIIIIIIIIIII

&ltoaJ

4JC

5.i-

c+Inm00

Ow

Wo.

.l.n

r-

r=m

oh0“&

0-01.nco-.

.N

ml

de

Nm

.

es9-IS

-I

i%

No

mr-i

Com.

.L-lw

940

0ml.1

03

hml

IdwW

Im

l.$-l

e-o

a).

1%

m

1=

w“

Ou

lm

ls-1

&m

“01.ncu

d

00It-oI

m“

axu1-

0INI

m“

I+In01.n

0“o

“

hri

C-of%

mm

o“

G

lx1.

aw

ml-l.

.00O

Nh

aA

h..

-10

nwLw

0eIm10

.8+

Om

l.nm

oo

.(/

3<xLL.1

1-

ml

6coA>

“1-

50v

Coh

melw

m01.

nalm

cocnW

ds-il

-11-1

$-l

I

IAm

““g-0

“(um

aw.Pm*u

)0k

-0

L“aJ

>mc.3

r%-1

18

m1:1.

mS-4

Is-+1.

IIII

1=Ln

cd%6mo

.!-l

IIII

ww.

l-l$-l

11I1II

:IIII

0

II

.w

m“

eml

0“

ml

al

!-l.

s-l

II0

*o-tLn

18!0-)0“

1III

II

+-m

Oc.%

Oa)

zn

0000

ma

03

m0

Iml

III

..(nw1-

AN

Iml.n

1.*&

mLo

0.

*S-IS

-ION

1.n

too

..

..

I-lG

lefo-)

IIIII1II

u“1-

8-III

.r-l

lJ-

0

IzRi

I0“

o“

dmo“

III1

in

aA

mcuo

Alm

mh

+m

mel

..

..

mo

od

IIII

0“o

“.

0d“

ON

Ow

08-+*oh

o

m.

mwo“.

m.

1=m$-4.

-WOm

cud

4-u+”

oL

nm

l+

ml

o-lm

ml

Wo

AN

.cd”oW

o+C

w

Ev)t%sI

m

19

I1

II

0co.l-lmmdInhco

Wm

INC

-I!

&d

e-

1IIIII

IIIIII

hq-l.1

me01.1

0001

*I.

l-l-10

0Im

l1.1

m

1IIIII

0

II

Om

lC

oo.

Go

1=

ICO

lI

IG

II

II

Ln

dm

mm

a)

mIIIIII

IIII

co1=

mA1=

m

.m

l

or-l

m0:.

0“l=om

do

oLn

9-1

..

Om

wo

ml

Imcom

mm

l1

..

..

.

mla)o

me-

Ioe

or-d

I.

..

60”000

O-lw

coC

Q++l

.1660

II

n+-0co

II

0

Cx)cn

s-lhh

Imlo

mr=w

lwm

Nm

!-1

Wh

We-o

elm..

00

l=wl-

rlr=m

l*A

WI

..

.w

oo

IIII.

mr-iC

vr)e-oo

oO

dad

wsl

at.

mLo0“

.v-l<xw1

-

Co

>1-

.C

ON

Wo

+&

l

N“

o“

Wo

AN

Nml-i4“m

.PaL(n

“>(n‘n

:--0

0-:

-0-l

-oV

I-r

.1-0

+Lu-l%

eEI

.Fw--et-

W)m

w%-k%*-X

*

20

Lo

Iml:ls

1.1I

coN

“*“

IIII:

0eo-l.

mt-f-loo“

hLO

o.

d

mm

ma)o-)m

lm

hm

ll.

0o

“+“

oIIm

l%ls

ls-llol~

..

c--l

Om

o“

1$+1

+

Im1

m

bh

cncoa

)lm

eN

e-AI

.o“

o“o

o“0“

O-lm

Wal

o“o“

tnaJ

1Aawu-i

mall-loo-)

lm9-lalo-lm

lmom

a3!-i

Nm

mJo-lh

mm

emm

l=m

o=J-

all.

..

..

9+0+00

Q-0.4Jav.1--

oemc-ocJ

to

inVI

la..

m.

ma

.0

.

-0avco.-

mm

tooS

-IN.

N“o

too9+W

%-c+ucu.

.lJaJ

L(cl

0>iic

.-(JI

.-0cm

mV

ILaJ

Fav

v.1-+.1--

v.-“mm

u-

-KumE01%h-k*

“3u

*C

omN

oe&N

aoomm

..

..

..

f3Jr-

e-a..

ml!+

&l@

aoCSC5

-ml

Sz

.L

o

KIN

U)r%

mm.

.4

s-4

Com

me-

&o“

1-1oL

no

No.

.A

s-1

ha

bm.

coar-l

o“.W

INW

oC

-INe.

No

SE

I.1-.u

mm

IInlo

1.!m

“

inml.

cocohG=J-

1=

II

$-l0

10107I

IG

&m

cnow

r=l--l

Ln

hm

omm

lII

m0

1-!0Icvlm

IIo-lwm

1

.0

1+

.m

l

IN

0wmI

I

Oed

owIm

wm

m,-1

1.

..

..

IIIIII

elcomm

o1+1.f)oo-lm1

..

..

.00000

IInw1-

Vw-1%C

cl&Iw

oC

90ewC

ocnm

r=.

..

.S

looo

ewo-ih

Irlhm

cvm11.

nm

r=wm

..

..

.O

oo

1-1o

IIII

.-

U-)s-!s-icn

ooS

-Is-l

w“

<xI&l

1-

a).

mf=l-n

eiwm

Om

col.n

cocnC

ut-1

!-idrls-1

><txCI

L.1-

nkEC

04-

Vo

ucl-e

22

Is1.N

IUi

IG

18103.

s-l

oh

2%C6N

“

r%m

mh

o“o“

mm

r-tof-m.

.N

s+

CK

loNm.

~gA

T-

I

~

*NO

”)*U

3C+R

..

..

.z.‘w

hw

QC

x31%?

l%.

.l.!.

$-IAN

h

oeo“

In=1-

Gm

eal

W)o

mlsis

oc.oN

lmh

..

.rloel

0“(s

wEo“

o-l04

.9-I

00-)0+1s1%m

olmllco

..

or-ld“

+“

mhm

.m

-lO

lcole+A

II

-m-

too-l

**m.

m.

..

..

.W

col-iell-1

1-l

Ln

o-)mt-oo-lm

I-mecomo60”0”0”0”6

*.

l-lo“

.f-fam0N

0+0(0O

mom

lsm

cnc2m

Jlo

..

..

.A

orit+(v

Q-0

00*

0“.F

)m.

s’

N0ml“

zml

V’)h

mrl@

cq01.n

comm

mtu

t-ldt-(eld

I.-

23

K’.

A

E.N

mcoom

mo

Weld

u-s+o

..

..

..

r-lmt-lu

)l-lm=a-

mR

:lslo.

.1.1.

mfxl

Nmm

l

mInmCA

ms

ma)

m.

N

.

mm

mm

lmele-m

s-ie-lmll+

If

.

2.N

e-mooC

--locomtl

..

..

IIN

ml+

ml

mm6

,5:

I&&

1..1..

0000

I+0G

*Nm.

84

9-I1=

Om

mo

e-ml

.

co.N

1-

.ms-+

%1-

w“

Olm

&m

l+

wm.

0r-r-1

I.-

1%L

24

l-.IIIIII

0

1A!.

ml

9-IIwI

GLO

10I-.

1+

ICO

!II

1IIIII

0

:IIII

“a2aJueu0

I

Oria

mcn

olzg

CG

mm

llcno

.O

“CW

SG

A

..V

Iw1-

WY

u-l

l--*

II

iAIsz!N

gl.

.!..

Lo

elmt-o

Inm

$-lml

..

.000”0

IIwr1-

OA

-OO

rdu)

-m(-lo

Ln

hm

Q-

Ocoeto.

..

Noo”o

II

.Hv

emln

u)oo

G-

.inu

)la

.v

2xw1-

..uaJ

..uaJ.u

N.

>1-

“roc0mccl

a“mL&”

l-n

mo-l.

.mal

-@?

5(/lzH

.@

I.-

c!”0

tiaJ

G-

y**25

mm

mdm

cn.

..

riwr-1

I%z

l..Q

-IN

Wu

lO

m..

(WN

ho

-m.

IAN

I=om

l=

G&

of=m

mW

m..

‘A18-I

Wrl

~z..C

-ON

t-lml

Nu

)..

00

))-1

:tuJ

>;JG-

0,

--PE

C>

u’

)

o

IIIIIIII

IIIIII

o

mm

mt-ld

cnC

oa)m

l

Ww

lms-1

Ims+G

d“.

.Ooi

Com

SJ

F-1

U)w

S-1A.

.A

C-o

-

Am

Icnw

Ihm

..

9-10

mk

Ow

Cn

w..

0s-4

Nw

cclocn

oQ

-ol.no

No

Om

lcno

e-o.

..

..

.ds-los-ldmJ

CcJm

lgw

dd

%-

0c0

omu

Josl*

Com

w

.o

-t.mw0“

.

co.

Co

r%m

+wm

Omc.omcomN

ds-1

,-fdd

4-J

aJaJ

mt--

r--(n

-0ctu

‘0)aJ

II

mu)

G

l-iwo“

Noo“

II

ho

.l+

mr%

I1u

-la)

o“.

..

.—

..

$-l

Aoq

-ds+

.

coII

s-lal

wm..

1-

wm.

*II

.!-l

m

8(nCo

ww

Ln

lnm

o-lcvIom

oeo1

..

..

.+0000

s-l9-4

G

@-

0.

0II

Ws-ld

l+f=

IecxJm

Qw

lhN

mh

l-i.

..

..

s-lt--iooo

00UT.

s-l

w0e-m

ode-e

m

u.

m.

Nh

.a-i

0!

ccl.

hw

Om

&cu

d.

*mP

-)4&m

”bcom

wom

ril-1

8-1

$-l&

19-l

0+wo“.cow

ml

omo“oN

.Nw

mr-lw

mC

omm

cnI-11-i

s-11-lt-l

27

mm

mm

Noel

mIN

NO

mN

s-1.

.$48+

rlmm

m66-Nm

a)h

-

tomcow.

.amoh

ho-i

.G

o

*Nmm.

.N

+

9-10L

nk

G&

me

ml-n

$-1

o.

.S

-IA

CocnN

**

co101.

..

.O

-IN

$-4

rll-lmC

oww

..

.000

0I-1.

0II

**mO

N(W

Om

lol

s-lla

lIw

mwal

dAtom

II.

..

Al-lo

..

040$+

8-lb8-I

w8-lt-oot-n

fNC

n!-lm

sld

,-L$Nm

lcwt)

1*9

-4C

OC

OC

CI

1.

..

..

Nrlelc+o

+C

KIO

WS

JC

OW

o-ls-+e-m

d0s+O

w..

cod

r%l%

Nm.

.A

l-l

(na(nlaa)

VI

.-

C.0

C08-I

WA

NA

f%w

l-wo

..

..

..

Wcn

em

l=Io

lmew

+1

..

..

.9+0000

+00000

mm

cou3m

Ie-rllowel

Iwcom

me

..

..

.40000

N(-O

Om

S-lm.

.A

l-1

hm

ooooW

!-lt-ohom

l-locoo

of=.

..

..

.N

s-lor-lt-lo

me

Ln

weo.

.A

s-i

hcw

N

m.

mw84o“.m

lm

od“

km

As-l

V)N

Wo

S-IN

mh

m-lw

mO

mm

mm

mcvA

dd9-1

s-1

E1-

i-0nL

(/l

-0

28

Ocooco

r-:!+

O-ler-ld

m.

..

..

.ell+

del

-lo

coIm!.

c+mIw

al

INIGo

10

.8+

cvcoaIm

J=rcw

*@-m

oeml

..

..

.600000

al

0-3.

0

omN.

9+

Is10

.s-!

1:Ico.

A

NININ

ImI

-k-kew

.N

wm.

s-i

F)w

oalmm

o---ohm

..

..

..

o-lr-4dN

d4

Cod

ohN

mlbm

er=

mm

mm

..

..

.8-I

AS

-19-ICO

iIIII

Cocod

m=r

rowom

ml

..

.G

OA

OO

ow.

0

Ow

ww

mm

O$-lco

mr-m

Wdot-lm

cn.

..

..

.C

U8-49-1$-4!+0

0z.r-l

.U

Nam

cvs-lhrim

9-1

u9-1

@-

m

..m

.03

w0“.

~vaJnxaJ

m.

Nh

.m

mm

lto

oA

N

N“

o“

Wo

dm

l

t-id“m9-I

of=s-l

mr%

ms-lw

mO

mco

mco

mC

US

-IA8-+

8-1

4

a

I.-&a

Js-L2-P0

(no)

c!=la

.r

InEo“aJ2

‘zm-0ca

@(nawL%

ul

.--P(A

2

.L(IJ>

wE!’

Id

-0c6.m

-1-1

29

—

S-4

a-lm

Jm

q-.

..

S.-IC

ON

IL%

I.

cGtN

=J-e-

tuc’v.

.S

-IN

Cn

wC

98-I

66

dr%

r-las-lb.

.(’C

IO

N&

)

1%lo.

u)

m0d000.

dd

1IIIII

II

NC

N9-I

mol=

(5Gd

II

Am

Q-l

Coocn

Wtom.

.00C

4

amledIm

m0“G

II

.

gmZ=E3-

(naJInfuw(n

.1-

nu-0

fno

*ha

mr=.

.amr-m

lm

m

66cod=1-1

+lr)L

o

GA

S-n

o

m.

mLo0“.

C-O

NW

oA

N

N“

o“W

oA

N

I.-eoL

ON

ImI

I

hh

wo

mcoel.n

I

Ow

ll.nt-i

I.*A

m

II

dw

od00N

CU

C50”

GC

SIIII

Om

lmow

ms-l

NLn

moo

....

=-u

aJ

a)+

!*Vva

Jano-xX

w0c%Id

sS

.@

vm

.N

.1=

(n9-I

w“

mm“

2

mal

ml

m&.

hoNc!oN

e-Q-1

8-Iw

-Pcl-+

-0aJ

c“0L

‘L -rnaJ

E=

O.IJ

Vo

wu-0mucK

fu.-

“mG

-(u

.-CvtuE0i%

L“aJ>

-0ca

+

i-1

30

IIIIIII

!IIIII

0

=1-

Q-r-

*wh

Om

m.

..

+00

.-mwo-l

..(Aw+m

II

c+

*C

mbw

%m

Imlm

mJ

cow1

..

..

.C

vdf

AJm

ll+

Cm

mcol-lccl

Imm

os+

+1

..

.0004”0”

AW

hcw

ml

00?03-01

IO

“O”

GO

”C

5nw1-

VI.lJ-1%

’

ux1-

neelm

mlm

lm&

lN

emIoh

walw

..

..

.+0040

.

owcn

cxIoJ=f

Wi-

mr=L

nrlw

mO

lmm

mcom

mJ9-1

ri9-4

c-lt-1

I

5“nr-oEo$

(n

-a

.-“K

fm

.!-.1-

CJ)y

**-k

—

Wln

am..

!-IN

s-ia3

U30

66a30

mm

mw

o“o“

Ww

ml

ml

mm

0-.

.A

N

mlm

mm●

.00

40Nm

mm

l

o“d“

gmN

m.

-mOco

ml!+

&m

“*C

OA

d

km

030.

.A

N

e-oW

1.n66m

l%m

mU

lo..

04

mm

N*h-ml-n.

.O

N

030W

coG

Gm

o2$o“

4“

WC

-Ocod

ot-iwr-l

o“.C

ON

tooA

N.

N“

oW

oA

N

Iv-ua

J

w1!+11.1

mm

II--Nl..

$-+94

IIIIII

0

II1III

mm

1070I

G(5

m10!1.10w101030“

103I

Om

Ln

at-lbO

t-om.

..

S-i

r-lo

cum

loe-Im

ecclr-0

I

IIiIIIIII

0“o“

.

;w1-

U)

.

we-l

NLn

mJ

Imw

ml

of=1

..

..

.l-ld

mlcv

l-1

ber-lm

OW

N!+

..

..

RJS

-IS-4A

IL0

(naJ(nlaa)

m

nuLw0w-

.P2I

UJ

a)l.nw

mIm

r=c+

mm

Ims+w

mcn

..

.0,-l

od

”o”

Coh

mm

lO

e-r%al

r=or=

ml

..

..

0s+04

.

u-

.i-InU)

Id..

v

i-

>“t-50v

.

LtiEo-

-ucI-d

a-Q.-

lnw

K$#

alla

L.@

vu-l

co!mL

n-n

..@

-1

32

s-la)

.f=03

1!IIII

IIIIII

IIII1I

IIII11

IIIII1

!IIIII

IIIIII

IIIIII

IIIIII

IIIIII

IIIIII

IIIIII

III1II

I11III

:I1,II

.-

!-lC

)00IIIIIIIIIIII

00

Nm

.

esd

,+~

000000

11111!11111!

0

II

A

1I

II

0cou

)m..

(Aw1-

1I

.

%?(u-@c1--1

inm

l0

.C

-4

h00“al*m0“

hI

INI

11.1IIIIII

I1I1

m

111111II

118111

11111111

IIIll

dwrl--

LO

IllIll

III

IllIll

IelllII

IIm

lll(s

.uv

V)

0(-00

m.

r%m

amcurl

Am

“emA

8-I

-0a

00000000m

.coto0“.m

md

Wo

S-IN

w“

o“

ao!-ltu

00s+000

1-

<CK

....

-0aJ

-0w*v(IJ0.xw

a3.N

1=mm

“m

.

W1-

I

c“0&(IJL

inW

.n“am“o-l

u-

u-

s-”a>.--1

33

IIIIII

IIIIIIIIIIII

IIIIII

IIIIII

1I1II1

IIIII1

IIIIII

IIIIII

IIII

I:1IIII10I

.

Qm

00IIIIII:

IIII

00

Nm

0d“

!22

z

OJ

o-looo000-)

WI.

IinoW

II

o“

1=ml

AI

4*Om4wo“

.C

ON

mo

AN

N“

o“

LO

O9-IN

I

00101

111111111111

11111111111[

111111!111!1

1111!1111111

1111!1111111

11111111111!

.

000000000000

a.

N1%m

m“

ah

m“

&E

s

C-oh

l.nrlm

m01.

nm

mm

mm

leleidr+

,-1

i-lmEo

34

*xlI%

lmll

I.!.1

Ou)s-l

w

IIIIII

IIIIII

1IIIII

ItIII

IIIIII

mto

Ihlm

lI

.1.1O

N

Nv)

10910111.

nlm

l.

.m

N

+Om

om

o

.d

0000

-+000

10IIII1

0

dmN“

m&mInU2

IIII

IIIIII

IIIIII

IIII

(naJUI

maJm.Fn

No

1?:+1

I.1

00

am000“d

IIII1I

I%lg

lIm

lml

II

o“.

m“

N

co●

.-

c00

S-IOAO00

C-IQ-400

EQ-1

1.-

35

—=

PaKc Ranw

00102s02605003I 07s076.100101.12s126.1$0

/

!4Tss

Price code

Printed in the United States of Ame&a ,, “,

Availabk fmm

Netiaml Technical Snfornw”mn SUVke

US Dcpanmcnt 0( Commerce

3265 POII Royal Road

Sprin@d. VA 22161

PW Range

Miiofdw {A(t I )

NTISPrice Cede

NTIS

Price code

NTfS

Pane Range Prfu Code

A02

A03

A04

Aos

A06

A07

1s1.17s

176.200

201 12s

226-2S0

251.275

276.300

AOS

AW

AIO

,411

A12

A13

301.325

326 3!0

151.375

J76 400

401425

426.350

A14

AIS

A16

A17

A18

A19

43 I ’47s A20

416.500 A21

sol 52s A22526.S50 A23551.s?5 A24S76.600 A2S601 up” AP9

“Contact .NTIS for a price quote.