T%t stst~t
of limited difference.
Page 32, paragraph
“!nhtlation.”
P??rtin ●nd Bloo= (NB) and ICRP is incomt
in that the W erroneously
neglects
to ●ccount for exhtXation of xir.
This2s
confirmed b noting that
3
~ defines
inhalation
rate as product of respiration
Tam (ZOEI /d for
stmdsrd
man) and I% concentration
in sir and then MB ●ssigns 100percmt
of tht
inhaled
to the respiratory
tract [30S toDL snd 70% to URT). For
SO\ deposition
in the DL, only 23f may deposit
b the URT with the renaining
to dese. The error uo~ld
47% bclng ●xhale? an~ thereby not contributing
=ke little
difference
in the dr~ft results
sincc it SCCOUntSonly for the
However,
in
view
of the relatively
large
vslue (().~]) fOr
DL coqonmt.
fractional
clearance
from URT to blood,
(which tbtn leads to dose to bone]
neglect of URT clearance will lead to under-esttites
of bone dose.
27.
Mtuccn
●
Ifkii
241 is”ClsSS If, then the chicken study (Set cement sbvve) iS~DM9
M the cmcentratien
of soluble
transuranic
clenents
in egg yolks
he transfer frsction used for
is ach greater than insoluble.
Mmeover,
incor- k 243 is less than retecmended b~3EPA {10- 1 mlcss ‘biologically
pmrtted’; in which case it is SX1O ) sncl there M been zmjor efforts
to
Rcconmend
discussion
be
included
on
xatfonale
ce=ply with EPA guidance.
for not corglyfng
with EPA.
.
iqotimt
..
.
Use, parsmettrs
for inhalation
model have been chxnged and xesult in subConsistency
with the new ICRP
stEntial
differences
in dose ●stimtes~
calculations
is a msto
28. Page 34, paragrsph 1. Readers sheuld be suaxe that the Enjebi option
‘
muld raqu.ire residence
te begin on E.njeM 8 yeus ●fter Tesidence begins in
.t.he seuth since S years sre xequixed to produce food which then serveS for
the first
S yesrs
at Enjebi.
qticm
cannot comence at the
Enjebi residence
tl~e Southern island residence cmmences forthedost
esttiates
to hold.
.
.-,
:
●
✎
.
‘ “
✚
.-.i
1
,
.
.
,
29.
Page 3S, last paragraph.
77’te living pattern
described
here is ve~
sidlar
to Case 4 ~f the EIS w}ich was rejected
in part because “inporting
would be a long-term burden on the
focal for the Enjtbi inhabitants...
dri Enjebi which wuuld eventually
becone objectionable
to them.”
2. Discussion
hert is mtirelymisletdlng!
Refeten(
30.
Page 49, paragraph
.“ Previous discussion
highligfits
that dsl
iS nade to the %aximm individual
iS distributed
Iog-nomally
but dose estimates
sre based on azitlmctic
avezal
for this, page 49, parsgrgp$
1 recomtnds
the ‘?naxir,um individual’
‘Tosctount
be ●ssigned three tiEes the =verage dose.
7?ae sax.imum bone dose rate for
Enjebi residence
is given in Table 29 as 2S0 rnrea/y (for 65% of population}
which