Letter to Dr. Wachholz June 20, 1981 Page 2 know the results of the medical program promptly so that monitoring and sampling efforts can be adjusted as necessary. 4, Management Practices. I believe Charlie Meinhold has moved appropriately to gain effective control of this program by assigning John Baum to monitor the projects. I have known John for many years and have full confidence that he will take this responsibility seriously. I believe Charlie recognizes the concern that I and others have had about reviewing manuscripts to assure that irresponsible gratuitous statements are not made that would invite further unrest in the Marshalls. 5, 6. Quality assurance procedures appear to be adequate. I believe it is necessary to monitor persons who may eventually inhabit plutonium contaminated islands as a check on the Livermore assessment. However, I don't think this project should support the development of methods to increase the sensitivity of plutonium bioassays because it is not justified by the need. Also, the "tail would soon wag the dog" if this project became involved in plutonium bioassay methodology. This topic is under investigation at a number of places throughout the world, primarily to deal with potential occupational exposures where the need is much more acute. It is expensive research requiring funds well beyond the current level of effort of these two projects. I do believe the project leader should be aware of new developments in plutonium bioassay and should adopt new methods after they have been proven, but only if they would enhance this program. 7, It does not appear that there is a need for BNL to undertake environmental monitoring. Livermore has this well in hand and a duplication of their effort is not needed. Also I don't believe anything would be gained if Brookhaven collected a few samples just as a check of the Livermore effort--the likelihood of the results agreeing would be small considering the large variability of the concentrations of radionuclides in soil, plants, etc. PART 2 1. Perhaps the only really negative aspect of the review was the emphasis on ICRP in the leadoff presentation. what was intended. 2. I still don't know I strongly urge the staff doing the dose assessment work to con- tinually examine the reasonableness of their results. For example, as you remember I asked them if they had determined how much fish would have to be eaten to give the °°Zn burdens they predicted.