Issues, Facts and Questions Raised During the Meeting
Dose Assessment
a.
It appears that Pu and Am in coconut are big contributors to bone
dose estimates, but the doSe estimates are based On inadequate data.
b.
Inherent safety factors in calculations were not identified.
c.
A "new" data base was not identified.
Plowing - is it an acceptable cleanup option?
Maximum quantity of soil that can be removed with allocated
resources is 60,000 yd?!
Adequacy and timeliness of surface and subsurface soil sampling
are questionable.
Calibration of IMP.
Basis for correlation of IMP data with surface
and subsurface levels of Pu and Am was questioned by the Advisory
Group.
How does EPA expect new guidelines to be applied to Enewetak
cleanup?
Is it appropriate to apply an averaging concept to the soil
contamination cleanup levels?
What method for averaging could be
used?
Is air sampling and resuspension data adequate?
Where are the
data?
On what basis will DOE certify the cleanup?
10.
Perceived vs. actual responsibilities of DOES, DBER, DNA, NVO,
ERSP, LLL, BNL, University of Washington and the University
of
Hawaii--the Advisory Group senses that responsibility and
authority
lines are poorly established or identified.