p.12, lines 19-20. The statement that 20% of that on the filter is usually regarded as respirable raises the question of how this was included in the calculations. The definition of the AMAD of 0.5 um implies fractions deposited and, therefore, the “respirable” fraction. p.19, par. 2. It should be noted that such a program is in progress at Battelle and that numbers from their studies are not as extreme as those picked from reviews or articles for another purpose (i.e., Larsen). It.would be well to draw such conclusions from the published experiments rather than from an interpretation. The concentration ratios of vegetables seem low; probably should be closer to 107! and 1072, Thus, actual observations are needed and not an estimate from papaya and bananas. More data are needed for CR values as well as more fish sampled to validate the last sampling. | The estimates of Pu in cistern water is made using a Ka value (soil to water in ml/g) of 5.9 x 10°. This is a very high Ka value for Pu (VI) thus it probably represents the K4 for Pu(IV) and not the Ky for Pu(VI), which will dominate when the water is chlorinated. would probably be 10° to 10°. A more realistic Ky Also what is the concentration of Pu in soil particles that could be deposited on the roofs? As one can observe a Ka of 10° instead of 10° will make a great difference in the dose rate by) drinking chlorinated cistern water. I think a serious error is being made here by using the assumptions stated in the report. (Some recent work at Oak Ridge has shown that a gastrointestinal tract coefficient of 6 x 1073 is necessary to account for an observed lifetime body burden of Th indicating that the 5 x 1073 coefficient, as stated in their report, may be more representative than the 3 x 107° coefficient for Pu.) man, VE CRIYE®