In considering the reduction in exposure that may be achtevable through removal of contaminated soil, the Task Group has taken the posi tion that these predicted exposures are approximations only. The effectiveness of such actions to reduce internal exposures that come through the food chain must be confirmed through analysis of test plantings. The Task Group does not favor soil removal as a dependable or feasible exposure reduction action for the dietary pathway. However, such action is reviewed in the Task Group Report in order to present a complete picture of the various possiblities considered. In its assessment of dose reductions that might be possible due to removal of contaminated soil, the Task Group posed the following question: "Given the dose estimates of Tables 1-4, and the dose reductions that can be expected due to the indicated actions, can equivaient dose reductions be achieved by removal of soil and, if so, what volume of soil would have to be removed from contaminated istands?" In order te address this quection one must know or have estimates of the areas to be used for housing and villages, for growing pandanus and breadfruit, for growing coconut, and for raising domestic animals. Figure 1 shows the Enewetak Atoll Land Use Plan as presented in the Enewetak Atoll Master Plan. Of the northern islands only Enjebi (JANET) would be used as a residence and agricultural island if this were feasible. _ Aej (OLIVE), Lujor (PEARL), Amon (SALLY), Bijile (TILDA), Lojwa (URSULA), and Alamebel (VERA) are intended to be used as agricultural islands, and the remainder (ALICE, BELLE, CLARA, DAISY, IRENE, KATE, LUCY, MARY, NANCY, and WILMA) as food gathering and picnic islands. Figure 2 shows the land use plan for Enjebi Island (JANET), including 14 housing areas (560,000 ft’, assuming an average housing area to be 200' x 200' in size), a community center (200,000 ft’), subsistence agricultural - areas (1,100,000 ft“), and commercial agricultural areas (7,300,000 ft“). -8-