- LGLS SUBJECT: in hs . . . . * a . Mceting to Discuss Disposal Methods for Radiologically Contaminated and Non-contaminated Materials - Enewetak Atoll Cleanup ~ EPA~ 24 Feb 75°. Oe :: c. llr. Rowe asked Mr. Wastler, EPA to discuss the requirements involved obtaining a permit for ocean dumping. Mr. Wastler said that while the statutory act listed nine criteria for consideration in issuance of a permit, they could be summarized as follows: (1) Establishment of a need to dump, (2) The lack of an alternative means of disposal, (3) Definition of the potential damage that could result to the marine environmentand effect of the proposed dumping on other users'of the area. He said that a permit could be granted only for an approved dumping site. To obtain approval for a dumping site requires selection of a definite site, a survey of the dumping ', area including the benthic community, ocean currents and definition of the monitoring process to be used while the dumping is carried out. He thought a min: of at least 4 months would be required after receipt of a properly executed application before final action could be expected from our request to EPA. Involved in the process was the requirement for a public notice of 30 days _and then a public hearing 30 days after expiration of the public notice, followe ~- fe ~~ by allowance of, another 30 days for the EPA hearing officer to reach a finding. No assurances could be provided that the finding would not be adverse, particularly if any controversy exists. He stated that if you have a DEIS which states anqther feasible disposal method, it virtually eliminates one -of the requirements for an ocean dumping permit, namely the lack of an alternative disposal method. He was apparently supported by other EPA representatives in this statement. se ‘ . a. There was also a general discussion on the requirement for containerization of the material to be ocean dumped and just what was meant by the requirement that the container should hold the material in tact until it was innocugqus. This discussion discounted the impression we received last __, August that there was a requirement for a containerization module for 5 | half lives of the contaminant. ���Instead he indicated that the material should be containerized until it reached an innocuous state in relation to the environment in which it was placed. The key here being whether or not its release from containers would have an adverse effect on the surrounding eco- System. Since the half life activity of plutonium is so long (24,360 years), it is apparent that the ecological system into.which the release is made en tee ne has a dominant effect on this interrelat ionship. e. Mr. McCraw of ERDA next gave the ERDA position for ocean dumping. He briefly reviewed ERDA's desire to make the contaminated material unavailable to the food cycle of the returnees. . Since it has been agreed that radio- activity in scrap metal is locked in its own matrix it appeared more likely a permit for its deep ocean dumping could be granted. Mr. McCraw made the case that no allow:nce had been made in the. computations of the dosage projected for the returnees for an increase to be received from leakage from the cememt-matrix of plutonium bearing soil into the lagoon and near ocean. For this reason ERDA/AEC preferred ocean dumping. Mr. McCraw made the statement that the lagoon was already heavily contaminated with plutonium and other radioactive materials which was readily discernible in the heavier concentratior found in outflow measurements as compared to those made of the inflow. 2 .a . w~hem!.mTmUle oh ' ae ” ae eere fhe ; ’‘ . . , ~ Vee 1M aed wi a, py). Te : . i ae Re x , iP fle a . “ oif i * re ira Laas ale 8 Py * ans ka aM it4) » i Ae . he e ee arw nes ssPy er eee oe sy Fe AS Sa aT) pad + 5 1 ft ey#2,ul mh ae Ep ea ape te?> . mph. Fe oe, rerece eyve reeov ah ae w abit, ashe ro. ¥ rer Rey. vy to va! :"whee : vw ane