310 >. RADIOLOGICAL CLEANUP OF ENEWETAK ATOLL Ry The13 millirad dose assumed the worst case where residence, commercia) agriculture, and food gathering took place on islands with Soil contaminated to 40, 80, and 160 pCi/g, respectively. If the people followeg the EIS Case 3 habitation plan and lived only on the southern islands. which would measure less than 2 or 3 pCi/g—the dose to bone would be much lower. 95:96 DOE endorsed the new guidelines as fully in keeping with the recommendations and cleanup criteria contained in the EIS. The requirement to removeall concentrations over 400 pCi/g was unchangeq Specific guidance was provided for concentrations in the 40 to 400 PCi/g range which were to be decided on a case-by-case basis. The doseestimates were done with the best models available, using the EPA criteria as a goal. DOE hoped the cleanup would come within a factor of three or fourof the EPA goal, in which case it could meet the spirit and intent—if not the letter—of EPA guidance.97 SOIL CLEANUP BRIEFING Thefinal briefing covered the estimated volumesofsoil to be removed, the assets available to excise and transport soil to Runit, and someofthe options for accomplishing soil cleanup. It was a revised version of the briefing given to Director, DNA on II April 1978. Although data were presented on all 21 northern islands, only five required soil cleanup to satisfy the original dri-Enewetak desires for use: Runit and the islands from which soil would have to be transported by boat, i.e., Aomon, Boken, Enjebi, and Lujor. The soil volume data varied somewhat from the DOE-ERSP estimates. The most significant factor in Field Command’s estimates ofsoil to be removedandtransported wasthe so-called ‘‘Treat Factor.’’ This wasa soil removal ‘‘experience factor’? which COL Treat developed to adjust the initial estimates of soil volumes. The principal aim of the “‘Treat Factor” was to provide decision-makers with a reasonable approximation of the amount of soil that would ultimately have to be removed from an area with high surface contamination in order to reduce it, by means of successive 6-inch cuts, to a designated level. It was based upon consideration of experience from other soil cleanup operations; e.g, Hattiesburg, Rocky Flats, etc. Application of the Treat Factor caused estimated volumes of soil which had a surface contamination of over 400 pCi/g to be multiplied by a factor of four. (This meant that it was estimated that soil removal teams would have to make four 6-inch cuts to bring the surface levels down to acceptable residual levels of radiation. In essence,it was a compensation for the fact that experience had indicated that onecut normally was not sufficient, spillage and cross contamination could be