then attributable not to soil migration but rather to plant uptake and other losses. - Yo develop this pseudo dose rate, the following equation was used: we zmax A(Ci/n) = px 10 8 f a(z)dz 0 - ' where a is the activity density in pCi/g, 2 is the depth in em, 6 is the soil density (1.89/er>) and the factor of 1078 provides the con- , version from pCi to Ci and from cm? tom, The dose rate for ¢s!37 - ¥s given by 4 D(R/HR) = 6.21 A(Ci/m®) } : Table 3 summarizes the comparison between the estimated and measured cst3? Gose rate and the.pseudo dose rate as well. As can be seen, the , estimate is a factor of about 20 higher than the measured value and that roughly half of this difference can be accounted for by mechanisms _ Other than soil migration. This comparison indicates that simple estimates can be used to provide bounding upper limits and that it might be possible to refine these estimates to within an order of Megnitude by correcting for soil migration. The conditions for this refinement would be: @.) - b.) that for the location of interest, there had been no cleanup or major earth moving prior to the survey and that the soil profiles would be similar to that found on undisturbed Enewetak islands receiving fallout (such as Fig. 1409 of “Summary of Findings" chapter of NVOO-140). Having compared dose rate estimates with survey results for - Enewetak, we can now turn to those islands in the northern Marshalls that were contaminated by fallout from shots at Bikini. DOE ARCHIVE Because the estimating scheme being used requires the one-hour dose rate as input, it is important to first establish that off-site Measurements were made in all cases where there was fallout on the 4stands of interest. If these data are incomplete, estimations cannot z0