in the root zone?
I would guess that in undisturbed areas
it would be less and in disturbed areas {it could be greater.
The potential impact of plowing should be considered,
P. 5, line 4.
A reference should be given to the work of
Stuart.
The coefficient Listed appears high to me, but I
will have a review available in the next week or So,
P. 5, lines 16-17.
It should also be noted that the EPA made
no attempt to justify their numbers and they appear to be
assumed.
In particular, there seems to be no justification
for using a higher uptake for 238pu, except, possibly, with
““"PuOy particles.
In fact, Weeks, et al. in 1956 reported
on uptake from nitrate solution over a range of 0.019 to 140
ug intake with no difference in uptake.
used to obtain the low mass feedings.
P, 6, lines 1 and 2.
Plutonium-238 was
The three orders of magnitude should
not be taken as a result of experimental work by Larsen.
I
suspect that it will be lower but must finish the review.
8,
P. 6, lines 13-14.
Justification should be given for the 1073
uptake by americium.,
While data are scarce, what we have
indicates a somewhat lower value.
<Aqain, this will be in
the review,
The discussion on the uptake is unsatisfactory in that the
liver is not ineluded and many of the values quoted included
the urine component so that they are not strictly comparable.
10,
P. 6, line 21. It sould be helpful to provide a better derivation for the plant uptake factors in Table II including the
actual data used, This would enable the reader to better
assess the validity of the values.
Was americium assumad to
have the same plant concentration ratio as plutonium?
Wa.
jl2.
P, 7, par. 1.
It would be useful to the reader if the data
for the birds and bird eggs were included.
In particular,
the concentration ratios that were used in the calculations
should be included.
In the dose calculations throughout it would be useful if the
exact paramaters (bone weight, energy of alpha, etc.) along
with the calculation methods ware given,
It is not clear, for
example, whether the decay of 24. am and 238py over the 70-year
period is included.
13,
P, 12, lines 6-7,
justification,
Tha mass Loading of 100 jiq/m? needs greater
For example, the time period of sampling and
the activities in progress for the 80 ug/m3 mentioned Later