.4.
Pqe 4, pxrlgraph
3. Nstural baclcground is Siven as 3.5 uR/h (ShOMTI .
u 3.Sr/hr]
●nd it is omitted from dose tsti~t?s.
WO-140 estimatts
backgro~d=
~olume I, page S02], on the other hand, include nstuml
lDdividual
risk is dependent on total
dose, not just that received fran
nucleaT weapon test debris.
‘T%us, reco=end
the report justify
the edssion
@f %tural
background” ●nd perhaps ●xplain uhythe same suthors used thh
eoqxment
irk hVO-140 esti=tes.
Exponential
depth distributions
are not necessarily
5.
Psge S, Iast.sentence.
rt~$onable
and frequently
soil smple data demonstrates some other distribution
which may not be amenable to snalytic=l
expression.
Thus, ●bout one-third
of
the NVO-140 profile
dsta fail to shou an exponential
depth decrease.
Tables
2-4 indicate
sonc 2,000 profiles
were snalyzed sspart
of the 1979 fissionPage 8$ last paragraph
says ~%ore precise data can be obtained.
product
survey.
if the depth distribution
is better
knom.”
Remend
the dsta available
be
ussd to test the exponential
hypothesis.
6. Page 8, paragrsph
2 and psge 9, pars”raph
waIid seference
{incomplete).
.
1. Citd
reference(4)
as not*
Page 9, paragraph 3. The miniml
detectable
sctivlty
(MDA) for Am 241 is
In pCi/g whereas that for Co 60snd Cs 137 is given as uR/h.
The “pCi/g”
isprcsumd
tobe over 0-3 cm @age 4, last pxmgraph]
tiheTeas the ‘%R/h” iS at
1 B (page 8, paragraph
2).
Recomend the MDAbe reported
for all 3 nuclides
in
Mth Wit$o TII~s might ●now sssessing
ieportmce
of h 24X to exposure rste an
smsitfvity
of in situ versus seil s~plfng
for quantifying
suburanic
gmaa
dtters
in soil (vR/his
xefcrred to ● s R/h $n various locations].
7.
given
8. Page 9, paragraph 3. MIA is claimed to vary from locstion
to location
but on page 10, pmragraph 3, it is claimed to be single-valued
over the entire
&toll.
h%ich is correct?
If the fomier is curmct,
which seems reasonable,
then xecomend r.e-evaluating
data inlstble
4 @ discussion
on page SO-II.
9. Psge 10, paragraph 3. DRI Ss indicated
as determining
~ean concentrations
.. - froa in situ data.
Trmsuranic
concentrations
reported to the ~Gwete
dcrivl
frtxsh
241 data and sre given as %ionconfident data” ●nd “70 percent confidenl
d.ats~’based
on ‘%ri~~ing.”
me confident
datg were used to guide cleanup actiol
and deternine
“c-~”tion~’
of each island.
Areview of Table 4 indicates
the nonconfident
data is used in the draft dose study.
Since confident
data
U* used to govern cleanup and cleanup iS to reduce dose, it would seen that
the sme data should be used to predict
dose. .Recorflend an explanation
be
is used to clcanuplccrtify
islands
and another
given ● s to why one set ofdats
●et $S used to estimate close.
.4, ● s cited on ptge 10. A $pot comparison of data in Table 4
fomarded
to CITG shows differences;
e.g. “N” is 25 vs 24 for
I%t average AnJ241 for Kate is given as
Clara ●nd 71 vs 64 for Alice.
&09 pCi/g whereas the ERSP Tech Note show it to be 9.46 using confident
deta and 8.17 using nonconfident
data.
Recomem? ●ny changes to data given
CJTG be corrected
and * check on arithmetic
of Tables 2-4.
AdditionaSJy,
Peax
●ntbely from the study tnd data for Pearl was reported to ~Gs
- SS mitted
10_
Tsble
tith
that
.
.
.
2
.
.