300 Soil Cleanup Planning RADIOLOGICAL CLEANUP OF ENEWETAK ATOLL assure that doses to significantly exceed ; b. What advice can be intakes of strontium and cesium, both of which were known to exist on Enjebi. 78 facilitate planning fo: BAIR COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS c. What additional infc the confidence of transuranics? d. Can plowing be used in soils? The Committee revie: Division of Occupational DNA. The draft LLL dos: which the Committee w: and to provide advice. Ti the questions as they per At the 6 January 1978 conference, Mr. Tommy McCraw, DOE, had indicated that Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL) was being tasked to make an Enewetak dose assessment study which could serve as a basis for associaling island use with concentration of plutonium and other transuranic elements.79 On 3 April 1978, DNA was briefed on the key finding of the study. Based on an assumption that the dri-Enewetak would apportion their time on residence, agricultural, and food-gathering islands according to 60, 20, and 5 percent, respectively, compliance with the EPA guideline would be achieved if residence, agriculture, and food-gathering products, which they un islands were cleaned to at least 10, 20, 40 pCi/g, respectively.89.8! (The remaining 15 percent of the time was considered to be spent on the water, traveling or fishing, or away from theatoll: i.e., Ujelang, Majuro.) This - finding caused concern at DNA since the stringent criteria might prohibit some islands from qualifying for their planned use as detailed in the EIS, and the required cleanup effort wouldbe greatly expanded. On 4 April 1978, DOE requested that the Bair Committee provide advice on the soil cleanup questions raised at the 6 January,1978 conference and on other radiological support matters.82 The Committee, also referred to as the Enewetak Advisory Group, met with DOE and DNA representatives at DOE-NV on 13-14 April 1978 and was briefed on the Status of the cleanup and its current problems. A key topic of discussion was the recent LLL draft dose estimate study. The principal technical point of the study related to the unexpected large dose predictions to bone resulting from inhalation of all transuranics, compared to those from plutonium alone. The study indicated that inhalation dose to bone might exceed the dose to lung by a factor of three or more (the ratio of dose limits for lung and bone). The large dose was due to the less abundant Am-24l which Dr. William Robison of LLL explained was the result of his bee we using a high Am-24] “‘gut transfer coefficient.”’ The high coefficient was challenged by some Committee members, but Dr. Robison stated that he felt obligated to use the high coefficient since it had been noted recently by several experimenters. This draft dose estimate study caused Am-24l to be considered an important contributor to dose and an important ingredient tn cleanup evaluations. The Bair Committee met again on 26-27 April 1978 in Denver, Colorado, to consider the following questions: a. Is it possible to develop dose-related cleanup guidance that would ‘ t | islands for a number of 5 a. The Bair Committe: cleanup guidance v transuranics to futt guidelines to the e stringent the cleanu} uncertainties inhere precluded absolute the contamination le this would be deterr lifestyle and dietary islands. Perhaps tr involved in movem depositions and rel well established. However, the Comm: cleanup criteria would 1 subsequently exposed f proposed EPA guideline equivalent to a lifetime 100,000 persons expose effects, although thes assumptions and genera estimate of i4 cancers pe chance of one cancer ap EPA guidance levels fc probability of one cam population size).