Soil Cleanup b Planning | Atoll would t hat doses to future residents of of Enewetak SS ficantl exceed proposed EPA guidelines for transuranics? rence What advice can be given to DNA atits early May confe tak? " eifitate planning for cleanup of transuranics on Enewe d. ed which could impr What additional information can be obtain the confidence of the dose estimates and cleanup criteria transuranics? Can plowing be used as an effective cleanup measure for transura! 169 the simittee reviewed information and data provided by D¢ ; Division of Occupational and Environmental Safety, LLL, DOE-NV, DNA. The draft LLL dose assessment study wasthe basic documentfr nich the Committee was to formulate answers to the questions rai vad questions to provide advice. The Committee offered the following response m as they pertained to transuranic elements only (not fiss of sc resettlement the delay might understood products. which they stands for a number of years): 4, The Bair Committee did not find it possible to develop reason cleanup guidance which would assure that radiation doses fr transuranics to future residents would not exceed proposed E vuidelines to the extent to be of concern. Obviously, the m stringent the cleanup criteria, the greater the degree of assurance; uncertainties inherent in our present understanding of the prob precluded absolute assurance. One could not predict with certa the contamination levels that would exist in the islands after clean this would be determined at a future time. One could not predict lifestyle and dietary habits of every individual who returns to islands. Perhaps most important, many of the factors that involved in movement of transuranics in the environment and depositions and retention of transuranics in human beings are well established. However, the Committee was of the opinion that its recommen cleanup criteria would result in average transuranic radiation dose: subsequently exposed populations that would be commensurate v proposed EPA guidelines. The EPA consideredits guidance levels to equivalent to a lifetime risk of about 14 premature cancer deaths 100,000 persons exposed and to perhaps an equal numberof gen effects, although these estimates are based on many uncer! ussumptions and generally are considered to be quite conservative. estimate of 14 cancers per 100,000 people would correspond to a 3 perc chance of one cancer appearing in a population of 200 people expose: EPA guidance levels for their lifetime; or expressed differently, t probability of one cancer in every 2,100 years (assuming a cons’ population size).