P.1 

PICK-UP DATE: 

BOX 10 OF 10 

Step 2: FOR ASRC INTERNAL USE 

ONLY 

(PART A_ of__B ) 

EPA DOCKET ID: 102RQ-RN 

41) 102RQ-RN-5-3 

43)152RQ-RN-5.-^ 

45) 102RQ-RN-5-7 

47) 102RQ-RN-5-9 

49) 102RQ-RN-5-11 

51) 102RQ-RN-5-13 

53) 102RQ-RN-5-15 

55) 102RQ-RN-3-4 

57) 

59) 

61) 

63) 

65) 

67) 

69) 

71) 

73) 

75) 

77) 

79) 

Step 3: FOR ASRC INTERNAL USE 

ONLY 

CL.: 

QA: 1 

42) 102RQ-RN-5-4 

44) 102RQ-RN-5-6 

46) 102RQ-RN-5-8 

48) 102RQ-RN-5-10 

50) 102RQ-RN-5-12 

52) 102RQ-RN-5-14 

54) 102RQ-RN-5-31 

56) 102RQ-RN-2-5-1 

58) 

60) 

62) 

64) 

66) 

68) 

70) 

72) 

74) 

76) 

78) 

80) 

Step 1: FOR ASRC INTERNAL USE ONLY 

Are there more documents for this Docket in another box? XiESj/ NO 

*Fill out Continuation Sheet and go to Step 2 

fsj 

Internal SFUND Box Number 35 OF _283. 

Initials/Date: _LDS /3-8-2007 
P.2 

./ . 

/i^^ f -v-fc>-_r~.SCOMBUSTION^ENGINEERING 

August 18, 1986 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Barbara Hostage, EPA 

FROM: Patricia Scofield, EMSI 

SUBJECT: Advantages and Disadvantages of Methods for Estimating Release 

Fractions for the Ingestion Pathway 

As you requested, Table 1 has been developed to identify the advantages and 

disadvantages for using either solubilities or retardation factors for 

estimating ingestion pathway release fractions. Table 1 summarizes these results; 

however, should not be considered complete since additional information is forthcoming from the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory and the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. If you have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to call. 

Xy Xt •-:.. / 

"/'/'>-, 

Patricia Scofield 

Combustion Engineering, EMSI 

Enclosure 

Environmental Monitoring & Services, Inc. 

Combustion Engineering, Inc. 

2421 West Hillcrest Drive 

Newbury Park, California 91320 

(805) 498-6771 
METHOD - SOLUBILITIES 

TABLE 1 

RELEASE FRACTIONS FOR INGESTION 

METHOD - RETARDATION FACTOR (Kd) 

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES K(d) 

2. 

Does not have to take 

into account specific 

scenarios. 

Less inherent uncertainities 

as compared to the K^ value 

l.The amount of material that 

would be soluble in pure 

water would almost always be 

greater than the amount 

required to deliver the ALI 

2. Parameters that would need 

assessed — 

• Dissolution rates 

• Precipitation 

• Particle size 

• pH 

3. There are no current accepted 

values used, e.g., Regulatory 

Guides. 

1. Numerous references 

for K^ values for 

a variety of media. 

The sand aquifer represents a conservative 

scenario, especially 

if pure water(distilled) 

is assumed. , 

1. Inherent uncertainties associated with K^ estimation: 

a. Laboratory test methods 

yield different results, 

e.g., column versus batch 

b. Kd is a ratio of two 

concentrations; a small 

of error in soil or water 

can produce a large amount 

of error. 

2. Variation in soil type — pH, 

soil composition, particle 

size distributions, etc. 

3. Time factors — 

a. The Batch test requires only 

a few hours, if equilibrium 

is not achieved then error 

is introduced. 

b. There are problems associ 

ated with using short term 

tests to simulate leaching 

over long time periods 

4. The NRC (Mike Bell) is not fori 

fond of Kd values. 

v 

V

1!