Issues, Facts and Questions Raised Duringthe Meeting 1. Dose Assessment a. [It appears that Pu and Am in coconut are big contributors to bone dose estimates, but the dose estimates are based on inadequate data. b. Inherent safety factors in calculations were not identified. c. A "new" data base was not identified. Plowing - is it an acceptable cleanup option? Maximum quantity of soil that can be removed with allocated resources is 60,000 yd?! Adequacy and timeliness of surface and subsurface soil sampling are questionable. Calibration of IMP. Basis for correlation of IMP data with surface and subsurface levels of Pu and Am was questioned by the Advisory Group. How does EPA expect new guidelines to be applied to Eniwetok cleanup? Is it appropriate to apply an averaging concept to the soil contamination cleanup levels? What method for averaging could be used? Is air sampling and resuspension data adequate’ Where are tne data? On what basis will DOE certify the cleanup? 10. Perceived vs. actual responsibilities of DOES, DBER, DNA, NVO, ERSP, LLL--the Advisory Group senses that responsibility and authority lines are poorly established or identified.