23.04.2013 Views

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste - U.S. ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Issue<br />

114<br />

DOSE CALCULATIONS<br />

Several commenters questioned comparisons <strong>of</strong> manmade and natural doses.<br />

Draft p. 1.11--The comparison <strong>of</strong> natural radioactivity received in any particular sec-<br />

tor with that artificially induced is totally fallacious and has no place in the serious<br />

consideration <strong>of</strong> radiation doses. (144)<br />

Draft p. 1.11--All values in this section should be based on the same units. The term<br />

man-rem/yr/individual may be confused with population dose. (196)<br />

The frequent comparisons with background radiation are irrelevant. (8)<br />

When comparing resulting doses to the natural background, the concentrations should be<br />

compared to the maximum permissible concentrations given by the International Commission on<br />

Radiological Protection (ICRP). (28)<br />

Response<br />

The comparison <strong>of</strong> dose from natural sources to that received from waste management<br />

operation is provided to give the reader perspective. Such comparisons are not intended to<br />

imply that background radiation levels are harmless and were made when doses were large<br />

enough to warrant comparison.<br />

Statement.<br />

The use <strong>of</strong> man-rem/yr/individual was unfortunate and was avoided in the final<br />

Comparison <strong>of</strong> MPC's must be done nuclide by nuclide to be meaningful. Comparison <strong>of</strong><br />

doses obviates such long lists which would not add clarity to the presentation.<br />

Draft p. 1.11<br />

Issue<br />

Having set an (arbitrary?) annual dose radioactivity at 0.1 man-rem/yr/individual, a<br />

new unit <strong>of</strong> man-rem/yr is referred to in sentence 4, followed by another unit, man-rem/yr<br />

population. Will people in Colorado receive natural radiation at the dose rate <strong>of</strong> 258,000<br />

man-rem/yr, with an additional burden <strong>of</strong> 2,000 man-rem/yr from reprocessing? Will Louisi-<br />

anans receive natural radiation at the rate <strong>of</strong> 0.1 man-rem/yr/individual with an additional<br />

2,000 man-rem/yr population (what population?) from reprocessing? The sentence begs for<br />

more information: How many individuals in Colorado and Louisiana? How many individuals in<br />

'population?' It seems all apples and oranges and will either totally confuse the general<br />

reader or provoke rash quoting <strong>of</strong> the raw numbers on a comparative basis when there is no<br />

basis for comparison. (181)<br />

Response<br />

The material comparing population dose from natural background between states has been<br />

removed from the final Statement. The thrust <strong>of</strong> the regional material was to indicate that

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!