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