300
RADIOLOGICAL CLEANUP OF ENEWETAK A
|
intakes of strontium and cesium, both of which were known to exis, 0
Enjebi. 78
BAIR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
At the 6 January 1978 conference, Mr. Tommy McCraw, DOE, hag
indicated that Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL) was being tasked to
make an Enewetak dose assessment study which could serveasa basisfo,
associating island
use
with concentration of plutonium and Other
transuranic elements./? On 3 April 1978, DNA was briefed on the key
finding of the study. Based on an assumption that the dri-Enewetak would
apportion their time on residence, agricultural, and food-gathering islands
according to 60, 20, and 5 percent, respectively, compliance with the Epa
guideline would be achieved if residence, agriculture, and food-gatherin
islands were cleaned to at least 10, 20, 40 pCi/g, respectively.80.81 (Tp.
remaining IS percent of the time was considered to be spent on the water
traveling or fishing, or away from theatoll; i.e., Ujelang, Majuro.) This
finding caused concern at DNA sincethe stringent criteria might prohibit
some islands from qualifying for their planned use as detailed in the Els,
and the required cleanup effort would be greatly expanded.
On 4 April 1978, DOE requested that the Bair Committee provide advice
on the soil cleanup questions raised at the 6 January 1978 conference ang
on other radiological support matters.82 The Committee, also referred to
as the Enewetak Advisory Group, met with DOE and DNA
representatives at DOE-NV on 13-l4 April 1978 and was briefed on the
status of the cleanup and its current problems. A key topic of discussion
was the recent LLL draft dose estimate study. The principal technicalpoint
of the study related to the unexpected large dose predictions to bone
resulting from inhalation of all transuranics, compared to those from
plutonium alone. The study indicated that inhalation dose to bone might
exceed the dose to lung by a factor of three or more (the ratio of dose
limits for lung and bone). The large dose was due to the less abundant
Am-24l which Dr. William Robison of LLL explained was the result of his
using a high Am-24l ‘“‘gut transfer coefficient.”’ The high coefficient was
challenged by some Committee members, but Dr. Robison stated that he
felt obligated to use the high coefficient since it had been notedrecently by
several experimenters. This draft dose estimate study caused Am-24]to be
considered an important contributor to dose and an important ingredient
in cleanup evaluations.
The Bair Committee met again on 26-27 April 1978 in Denver,
Colorado, to consider the following questions:
a. Is it possible to develop dose-related cleanup guidance that would
—————