ADDENDUM Quantitation and Char id ication: fel) Minimum Detectable 10 FCi/liter at Range of Lo- 10 Vu in tevel far Urine (LASI. procedure): y47 coufidenee Limits urine trom Bikini Islands (EML procedure): FCi/tteer *EML, has ceased its Pu analysis operations since Plutonium concentration in Rongelap/Utirlk Islands: teeth samples (initial data): Ronyelap 1854167 £Ci/gm Utirik 2074198 £Ci/gm tooth weight between 1 and 2 gms Definitely detectable using the BNL procedure. Note: Bikini/Rongelap or Utirik ratio for Pu in urine is comparable however, Pu in soil 2) Assumptions (EML data) Bikini/Rongelap Pu in soil is at least 4X and Bikini/Utirik that is 20X. have to be made insolying for the Pu body burden from excretion data a. b. 3) ICRP LOA excret iguymodel holds for Marshallese Distribution of Pu in man model (see attached) ‘the average error of 25% expressed in I. LASL accuracy for precision is 239 is applicable Rationale 1(b) needs to be corrected. . . g Pu determination in urine is 100Z !102Z chemical recovery ranges 41 - 46% 24 hour urine sample for reference adult man - 1.4 1/day Some samples ure as low as 340 ml/day whlch amounts to 764% error. An average of 890 ml/day results in 36% error. The error then averages 46% and can be as high as 86% as long as the chemical recovery factor is known accurately aud no other systemic error come contro] to play. A urine program to screen non-24 hour samples should decrease the erroc considerably. 9009553