Dose Reconstruction for the Fernald Facility A Review of Task 4 (1994) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
APPENDIX: SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT
APPENDIX: SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT REPORT
Pages 32-41
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 32... ...
Serious consideration should be given to using the new ICRP model in the final dose estimation or the new NCRP model when it is available. However, because radon dosimetry is evolving rapidly, and the authors of the report are advised to follow the literature in that field closely.
|
From page 33... ...
It also might be useful to validate the highest estimated doses; this would require identifying a limited number of persons (S to 10) who are thought to be members of the critical group and providing detailed estimates of their individual doses.
|
From page 34... ...
The executive summary should include an analysis of error to prepare the reader for "reasonable" dose estimates that vary by orders of magnitude. It is not clear what expectations the authors have about the range of reasonable estimates and whether the error is primarily due to the choice of environmental model or to miscalculating the source term.
|
From page 35... ...
3: The authors state the relative contribution of uranium for atmospheric releases and the relative contribution of radium for the surface-water releases. They should also provide information about the relative contribution of atmospheric releases versus water releases.
|
From page 36... ...
On this basis, although the report is elaborate and covers most of the area in considerable detail, in many cases it clears with some modeling subjects generically without ever focusing on specific areas of concern that are highly site-specific. This applies particularly to the issue of uranium dust as the principal material released from the plant.
|
From page 37... ...
It emphasizes the agricultural pathway (food chain) but does not specifically include the air-exposure pathway or the inhalation model, except to the extent that Appendix T describes the lung model and provides some dose-conversion factors for inhalation.
|
From page 38... ...
39. Given the uncertainties and magnitude of this total dose assessment and the very small total populations exposed, 5,300-6,300 in 1960 within 5 mi, it would be useful to discuss in the Conclusions section whether this is a large enough population on which to base statistically valid epidemiologic conclusions.
|
From page 39... ...
This is not very acidic in a moderately clayed soil, and so it is questionable whether the procedure illustrated in Table N-7 for deriving cumulative deposition from measurements by assuming a value for Kd is valid. This, incidentally, underlines the importance of indicating the chemical form of releases in the source term report.
|
From page 40... ...
is greatly improved over the draft versions of the Task 2 and Task 3 reports, which will need to be updated. Unfortunately, there still is no correlation between the radium-and-radon inventory in the stored waste and the airborne releases, and hence there is no stated justification for the release terms quoted on p.
|
From page 41... ...
R-6 could make the origin of the source stream unimportant in any case, except that the solubility characteristics of the measured uranium impinge on any derived dose values either for drinking water or for irrigation. Exposure parameters for the maximum individual seem unrealistically high, although in view of the very low final dose estimate in Table R-5 this might not matter.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.