ore
a
SOSA
December 17, 1976
r,
/
¢
AS13:cure! eC
x KY
boalyopes :
Blahe eet
bochin
eo
ah
whe? pileve
Ne ae?
r
aie. Vilas
Cen erSeat oe (eM, “O462A
Dr. d. L. Liverman
Office of the Assistant Administrator 7
mySavywe eM
for Environment and Safety
x“ \
weevx
ae
f
ox
oe
Development
and
Energy Research
Administration
Washington, D.C.
20545
ow
Dear Jim:
The Transuranium
\ v
-
tng Cicer-
Que
ALN”
,
oy 4
“Ly
ony
Jost.
v weJ
()
.
-)
.
4
wy ——
5
KX
Aechnicdl Group met in Washington, D.C. on December 8, 1976 to
pNv oN
cantaminationoftheinhabitants—ef
review the data which—suggest—bhe—poss4
q"
a
and
TTG
the
for
task
Bikinicwith-pitterniim. We believe this is an appropriate
are
pleased
pleas
to
p rovide the
he
following
J
comments.
Pepraf conse
the obswued
Oucdigpuod
x
conteeiton-ofpresentan
ame
c
The TTG views the
y future residents of the Bikini atoll as consisting oF jour major questions which
jwwetlle- need to be, addressed.
£7 ©,
oe \
4.
Chie, bh ippimtneny prccrend.Dag chdy
deck
av he.Cobrate,
?tribrnealain 2
Do the residents of Bikini have body burdens of plutonium above those of
other persons throughout the world living in the same latitude?
2. If the Bikini residents do have increased plutonium body burdens, what is the
ee \source of their plutonium burden?
ae
™, J+ rte,J.a),
SM. -What—transuranic body burdens are projected for the future for current
= residents and their descendants?
versA
Hk
g(a
je
a
“,
ml
‘
Whatpotential.health risks “are associated with curnent and ordijec td )
transuranic body-burdens., of the Bikini residents?
herrsrd,
4, Deve
“2
’
_ th enh tae
In addressing the first of these questions , data presented to the TTG indicated
that ‘plutonium burdéns_ofthe Bikini residents were 10-100 times greater than
plutonium levels in -esidents of the continental United States. Trese-estimates
were-derived-fromplutoniun-anatysis—of-urine-samptes~ fromBrkint—restdentsard”
residents—ofNew-York-GHty. Unfertunatety | he validity of the urine data is
subject to question. The New York City data vary by a factor of 10 (% 0.1 to OTpci
Pu/i). Thes
elouer value appears to be rec¢ancilable with the best estimate
of plutoniinpurdens in U.S. residents from fallout, or 2 pCi.
The Bikini lata are highly suspect because of possible cross contamination.”The
samples were not collected in a manner to rule out possible contamination of
urine by plutonium-contaminatled soil on the body and clothing of the person
o~ 6 EUs
providing the sample or from resuspension of Pu-contaminated soil? Also,urine
“sglee
samples were generallypooledwhich preventedidentificationof possiblesampling « gc ™
descrepancies,
Thus, the TTG concluded that the first question, whether the Bikini
residents have elevated body burdens of transuranic elements, cannot be answered
with available data.”
Therefore, the TYG recommends that an effort be made to
obtain urine samples from selected representative residents of Bikini under
carefully controlled conditions that would minimize possibilitics of cross
contamination. Samples should not be pooled but clearly identified withne
Neer.
cerene anee a a
ABO
wae PUY