. . . . . , The exposu.re-to-$ose rate conversion factor . 11. Page 11, parsgrsph”2. For tx~le, does it produce tissue dose (gonadal), deserves explanation. ucount for body shielding, etc? NVO-140 externa.i dose estimates 8re should give rationslc *e8-&iT gatma plus Cosnlc Ye... Thus, the explanation for devicting fros the approach used in WO-140 and on which the cltanup/rehabThe estimates using the proposed conversion fsctor~ill ilitation is planned. be *bout 30 percent lower thm given in NVO-140, ~is is a change which ctnnot gouncxplxined. . . Resuspension studies to derive enhancement facters are 12. Page 14-1s. Psge 4, lsst paragraph ~d page 1S, based on O-S cm soil sample data. p8t*graph 2, indicate that smple dats fox inhalation dose estimtes are .Msed on 0-3 cm data. To US8 O-3 cm data with factors based on 0-5 cudsta introduces emors sinilar to using 0-1S cm soil sample data with Concentration ● s being and LLL has objected to this practice Ratios based on 0-40 cmdata, !tecommend discussion be ● dded to erplsin @act of using enhtnceUnacceptable. -nt factors determined for onc soil depth with transuranic concentrstiens detemined for another depth. . . . 1S. Page 1S, paragraph 3. Recemend explanation be given as to why data collected in Feb 77 and My 78 cm only be discussed as ‘~reliminary anaIYsi$” DDE to=mduct & “co=pre~ensi~e air The Cleanup EIS obligates in Aug 79. ==pling program over a period of 12 consecutive =onths... coticidcnt ~~th md support cleanup.” Is the Feb 77 d.aw the product of that pregran? discussed only as they 34. Page 15, *’Drinking Water.” Tables”7-9s~ t81Me to drinking water but the tables cover ciomstic meat and chicken ●ggs. Recomnend additional discussion. Also, total d~ily intake of fluid ● s one liter; this appears 10U: specified 7-9, SS cited on pege 16. Tables 7 sn~ 8 clai= Sr 90 ml RI 239 concentration in pork md chicken are the sas in r-t EWCIC as reported slthough the footnote uses “rat in NVO-140. Table 9 is probably equivalent tls$ue” xather them ‘!rat mscle” and Sr 90 is ~signed footnote “a” which [Is *}&*’h Table 9 to ~ “d”?) NVO-140 gives S? 90 zoferences Bikini data. -h &uscle of S Enjebi rats ●nd the ●verage is 2.66 pCi/g, N 239 was detected is 0.0J3 using Volune I Table 59 Sfi 4 of these rat tiuscles snd the avertge (The difference is due to an error in 0.03S using Volume 111 data. dstam dsta for rat !nuscle No. 1191s210. ) Explsin if ths-reduction fron 2.66 pCi/g On the other hand, ?WO-140 dose esticates tO 0.S1 pCifg is due to cleanup. but on ● statistical correMC not based on the rat mscle concentrations, lation of radionuclides in soil ●nd messerschaidia and scaevolsi leaves, a for rat mscle and lea~ts~ statistical correlation of the transfer coefficient snd an assumption that edible pork and chicken (domestic neat] aze equivalent to rat teat. Thus, clarify if the 0,S1 pWg is based on the correlation aPP~ The correlation approach suffers, among other ur the actual rat analyses. reasons, becsuse the dat~ tre not l’paired’r and they arc based on 0-1S CCI $0~1 $=ple dsta which m.ay not be tht SSBU as used in the present study. 1S. . u Tables s . .