Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
Office of the Assistant Administrator (, Energy Research dnd Development “Ihe Trarrsuranium Technical Group met in Washington, !I.C. on December 8, Tlie TTG views tt;e issue of transuranium eleme~t contamination of present and future residents of the Gikini atoll as consisting of four major Do the residents of Bikini have plutonium burdens higher than those If the Bikifii residents do have increased plutonium burdens, what is the source of these burdens? “ What future transuranic body burdens are residents and their descendants? projected for current BEST COPY AVAILABLE What potential health risks are associated with current and projected transuranic burdens of the Bikini residents?
Page 2
To Members of the Transuranium Technical Group Attached is our assessment of the plutonium contamination of the environment and population of Bikini. I hope this meets .with your approval since we have sent the original to Jim. We have tried to incorporate most of your suggestions into the final Sine rely yours, Transuranium Technical Group
Page 3
In addrussil]g the first of these questions, data presented to the TTG ~“ Unfortunately, the v.a-liclityof both these sets of urine ,mt~”~ cit-+ baseci on poolccl samples were not confirmed by a f~~>arefully collected large sample from one individual. This individual single samp-le vias 10-folcl lower than the pooled samples, and is in b~-~~ agreement with model estimates based on fallout plutonium burdens from autopsy data. The Bikin~ data are highly suspect because the samples were not collected in a manner to avoid possible contamination of urine by plutoniumcontnminatcd soil on the body and clothing of the person providing the sample, or from resuspended plutonium-contaminated soil in the air. Also, urine samples were generally pooled which prevented identification of possible sampling discrepancies. The TTG concludes that the first question cannot be answered with available data and recommends that an effort be made to obtain urine samples from selected representative residents of Bikini under carefully controlled
Page 4
conditions th t woulci minilnize possibilities o.. trhvel and recreational characteristics of’ tile sampled individuals should be accurately recorded. Control samples must be simila)-ly obt and analyzed. Tl)ese would most appropriately be obtai ed from nonexposeh Marshallese. It would also be important to esta lish the U.S. value for fallout plutonium in urine. Mith regard to the second question, the TTG was presented a brief review of information on plutonium in the Bikini environment and incomplete information on the dietary habits of the residents, and their sources of food . The TTG recognizes the need for continued monitoring of air, soil, water, and foodstuffs for plutonium and other transuranics. To %.,%.s.J2z.AAJiLT&-z_..minirni e the cost of this effort a Ion rtmge p ~n is ne ded that wi 1 assure identification of significant changes in levels.++ transuran~cx i++h~~ Samples are required that will be truly representative’ yti~”d of the air the residents breathe and the food they eat. This effort will, of course, become more important if the answer to the first question An answer to the third question requires answers to the first two. The TTG recommends that when answers are obtained to questions 1 and 2, estimates of current body burdens and projected future body burdens should be made for current residents and the best available models. The TTG does their descendants, based on not believe in-vivo counting
Page 5
offers much hope at the estimated current body burdens. However, if the The fourth question, regarding possible health risks, depends upon +%s current’and future body bur ens of .transuranics in Bikini residemts. Data presented to the T1-G,~uggests that the average burden is w 20 pCi 23g’2q0pu, but may be Iligher or lower by a factor of ten or more. Using risk factors in the BEIR and similar reports, estimates of the health risk associated with this “level of pl -toniu can be calculated Such estimates ;~ould better wait until the body burclens of the Bikini residents can be ascertained with more confidence. Also, such estimates :of possible health consequences must be done in context with other radiation exposure, such as from the beta-gamma radiation from fission products The TTG is aware that obtaining answers to the questions discussed above requires a considerable degree of cooperation from the Bikini people. Efforts to obtain this operation might result in ps “sociological stresses ~e@j~the potential hazard from radiation. The TTG is in no position to evaluate this problem, but wou~d feel that the overall welfare of the Bikini people should be placed above any concern for precise evaluation of minimal radiation risks.
Page 6
In considering these qurstions, the TTG Yi;s l~andicapped by the lack of a concise tJ(i~ comprehensive summary of information cm Bikini. Livermore, 13rookl;dven,IIA5L, the University of Nasl;irigtonand perhaps other aboratories
Page 7
Environmental and Safety Pacific Northwest Laboratories !, 1 have read your draft letter of 17 December to Dr. Liverman on the subject of TTG recommendations following the review of the Bikini residents plutonium situation. Whi.1.emy comments are hampered by my not being at the review, I have the following to ad(l to your letter: 1. Conversation with John Umbarger of LASL Ii-Division suggests that 239Pu burdens of 60 nCi whole bocly or 20 nCi in lungs i.sa lower limit to ~lp, -(‘ realistically consider measuring. This was a general agreement among J“ several laboratories at a recent meeting, altho~~gh investigators with much less experience i.n this field be].ieve (mistaken].y, we think) that they callmeasure levels much lc~wer than this. Based upon the average ~q ,;;$$ burden of --200 pCi in Bikini residents stated in your letter, the probability of obtaining meanin~ful numbers >0 is diminishingly small and ,% 2. There exists a fair data base on transuranic radionuclides in Bikini environmental. samples, much of it published by Nevissi and Schell (1975a 1975b); Nevi.ssi, Schell, ancl Nelson (1976), and more on hand (Lowman @L’ and Schell, pers. comm.). The Enewetak data (Nosllkin et al 1976; NVO- ~<; ~ 1~+0) further provide a reasonable baclcground for extrapolating the Bikini data into the future and t? substantiate whether or not a human \~&Q4co,,ta,ni.naEio,l,. situation possibly exists or can be expected in the future. ~’ \~c The very best data slmu].d be summarized, evaluated, and used in the model that you discussed in the third point; however, this higher-quality data will be of little value unless the model used is also of highest Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the meeting proceedin~s. Hope I make the next meeting.
Page 8
OAK RIDGE NATIOFJAL LABORATORY UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION NUCI EAR DIVISION POST OFFICE BOX X OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE 37830 The following comments are on the letter to Jim Liverman from the Transuranium Technical Group on the subject of possible Pu contamination of Bikinians. 1. Item 1 of our proposed letter may be too general. I WOUld ~J,~ have body burdens of plutonium shove those of other persons ~Wc \ inhabiting atol.1. in the Pacific in approximately the same 2. Third paragraph, first sentence: t,, Fourth paraurapll, addition: ,“We suggest that consideration be Liktanur as a clean environment in which urine samples can be collected during one or more of its quarterly visits to Bikini.” Sixth paragraph, last sentence: I suggest we say “. . then in vivo counting of all residents should be reconsidered. However, based ~lpon our experience to date with Spanish subjects, it is unlikely that the current technology would offer much hope of quanti.fyi.nglow chest burclens of plutonium under field conditions.” Seventh paraEraph, second sentence: I suggest “, . the average burden could be about 200 PCi 239,240Pu.
Page 9
T.also feel that Liverman should be appraised of the real situation ;( ‘“~ at Bikini in terms of other islands in the atoll and the potential ,.#/tl~ere is not mu~li informat:iollon the extent of PU contamination on Also , some portions of at least one island in the atoll have Pu contamination levels considerably higher than the average value reported for Bikini. The point is that Bikini is only one of the islands in the atoll and any decisions concerning potential health effects from plutonium to the Bikinians must be based on information covering the entire atoll. I also feel that we need to mention the potential problem of standards for plutonium in soil. For example, would the proposed EPA standards apply to Bikini? What would be the effort required to establish what the levels of contamination are for the various islands? Is the survey information adequate? What costs would be associated with surveys, cleanup, if required, and disposal of soil? Where and under what circumstances would the contaminated soil be these comments are helpful. nest personal regards. Associate Director for Biomedical. and Environmental cc: Transuraniurn Technical Group
Page 10
To Members of the Transuranium Technical Group If the enclosed draft letter to Jim Liverman reads like it was written on an airplane you can be assured that it was. I have not tried to polish this but will wait until I receive your comments. I used the outline that Roger prepared at the meeting but please don’t blame him for anything you find objectionable. I let a few of my own possibl,y biased views get into this draft. I’d like your comments in timr to gc?t a final draft to Jim I.iverman in Sine rely yours,
Page 11
Office Of the Assistant Administrator for Environment and Safety Energy Research and Development The Transuranium Technical Group met in Washington, D.C. on December 8,1976 to review the clata which suggest the possible contamination of the inhabitants of Bikini with plutonium. We believe this is an appropriate task for the TTG and are pleased to provide the following comments. The TTG views the issue of transuranium element contamination of present and future residents of the Bikini atoll as consisting of four major questions which need to be addressed. 1. Do the residents of Bikini have body burdens of plutonium above those of other persons throughout the world living in the same latitude? 2. If the Elik_iIIi residents do h~vc incrcasc~d pluton;um body burcicns, winat is the source of their pl[~totliumburclen? 3. Mhat transuranic body burdens are projected for the future for current residents and their descendants? 4. Nhat potential health risks are associ~ctxd with current and projected transuranic body burdens of the Bikini residents? In addressing the first of these questions, data presented to the TTG indicated that plutonium burdens of the Bikini residents were 10-100 times greater than p-lutoniurnlevels in residents of the cc)ntine]kal U]]ited States. These estimates were derived from plutonium analysis of urine samples from Bikini residents and subject to question. The New York CiL.y data vary by a factor of 10 (~ 0.1 to 0.1 pCi Pu/-l). The lower value appeatms to be rcconcilab”lc with the best estimate of plutonium burdens in U.S. residents fronl fallout, or 2 pC;. The Bikini data are highly suspect because of possible cross contamination. The smnplcs were not collected in a manner to rule out possible contamination of urine by plutonium-contaminated soil on ttlebody and clothing of the person providing the sampleor from resuspension of Pu-contaminated soil. Also, urine samples were generally pooled which prevented identification of possible sampling discrepancies . Thus, the TTG concluded that the first qucstiotl, whether the Bikini residents have elevated body burclens of trar]suranic elemcrrts, cannot be answered with available data. Therefore, the TTC recommends that an effort be nmclc to obtain urine samples from sclectcd rcpresentdtivc: residents of Bikini undf~r contdmirmti on. Sanlplus should not be poolod but clearly idcrltified with specific
Page 12
individuals. Dietary, work, travel and recreational characteristics of the sampled individuals shou”ld be accurately recorded. With regard to the seconcl question, sources of possible contamination, the TTG ~’ was presented a brief review of information on plutonium in the Bikini environment and incomplete information on the dietary habits of the residents and sources of ;~food. The TTG recognizes the need for continued monitoring of air, soil, water, ( and foodstuffs for plutonium and other transuranics. To minimize the cost of this k’~ effort a long range plan is needed that will assure identification of any gradual ‘:( or precipitous changes in levels of tr~nsuranics in these substances. Samples ~ -’~ “i are required that will be truly representative of the air the residents breath$, (%‘ 1.4 The third question regarding projected levels of transuranics in the current ~’$, residents and their descendants follows from the first two questions in that it . ‘u is necessary to derive reliable estimates of the body burdens of the current , , residents and determine the sources of intake--whether from worldwide fallout or from the Bikini environment. To do this adequately requires better models than now exist. A Lawrence Livermore analysis is inconclusive because the ICRP model used was developed for radiation protection purposes and is not necessarily valid for assessing body burdens from urine data or predicting body burdens from inhalation and ingestion routes. The TTG recommends that the available data be reexamined using an updated metabolic model to derive new estimates of current body burdens and to project future body burdens in cur!-cnt residents and their descendants. The TTG does not believe in vivo counting offers much hope at the estimated current body burdens. However, if the revised projections indicate body burdens attaining nanocurie levels, then in vivo counting of a“ll residents is urged. The fourth question, regarding possible health risks, depends upon current and future body burdens of transuranics in Bikini residents. Data presented to the TTG suggests that the average burden is w 200 pCi 239,240 Pu. Using risk. factors in the BEIR and similar reports, estimates of the health risk associated with this level of plutonium can be calculated. However, the TTG believes this WOUICI be premature and of no value in guiding decisions relative to the human occupation of the Bikini Atoil. Such estimates should not be attempted until the body burdens of the Bikini residents can be ascertained with confidence. Also, such estimates of possible health consequences must be doneiin context with other possible radiation exposures, such as from the beta-gamma radiation from fission products dispersed In considering these questions, the TTG felt somewhat handicapped in that a concise but comprehensive summary of information on Bikini was not available. Apparently Livermore, Brookhaven, HASL, the University of Washington and perhaps other Labs have collected data which could be useful in assessing the current levels of contamination on Bikini but also provide guidance in obtaining additional data.
Page 14
To Members of the Transuranium Technical Group If the enclosed draft letter to Jim Liverrnan reads like it was written on an airplane you can be assured that it was. I have not tried to polish this but will wait until I receive your comments. I used the outline that Roger prepared at the meeting bunt please don’t blame him for anything you find objectionable. I let a few of my own possibly biasecl views get into this clra-ft. I’d like your comnients in tilme to get a final draft to Jim Livermn in Environmental and Safety
Page 15
The Transurani utn echnictil Group met ‘inV$shington, D.C. on December 8, 197’6 to review the data 1~ & are pleased to provide tile fol ? wing …
The text continues in the original scan (41 pages).