The above becomes tied into the applicability of the EPA Guidance to the Eniwetok return. This has literally forced OES to consider dose projections from transuranics, something that heretofore had been either not considered or considered to be insignificant. Obviously both "considereds" were in error. It is felt that the EPA Guidance should be considered to be what it is -guidance. The closer we can get to or below it, the better off DOE and the Eniwetok people will be. However, it is doubtful that EPA will insist on the use of their Guidance as an upper exposure level and have indicated that if it can be met we should by all means do so, but if it cannot be met the reasons are understandable because of the uniqueness of the situation and because the benefits, while intangible, no doubt exceed the additional risk. Furthermore, EPA stated that their Guidance was intended for use in land deeds, development and use, and that these concepts undoubtedly do not apply to the Eniwetok culture. In addition, it was stated that the Guidance was intended for U.S. public/private land use, and was not directed toward sites of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests (i.e., NTS, N.M., Bikini, Eniwetok). Consequently we should make every reasonable effort to assure that the Guidance is complied with, but it is not necessarily a prerequisite for resettlement--at least from EPA's perspective. How all this will help OES within 2 weeks is a mystery to me. Any suggestions or help in determining clean-up levels for residence, agriculture, and visiting islands would be most gratefullyappreciated. While the bone dose exceeds EPA Guidance to a much greater extent than does the lung dose, the largest single contributor to the bone dose is translocation from the lung. If the inhalation assumptions are conservative by up to a factor of 10, the lung dose becomes quite acceptable and the bone DOE ARCTHVES m4