84
RADIOLOGICAL CLEANUP OF ENEWETAK ATOLL
the rehabilitation and resettlement efforts. In January 1973, DNA engaged
H&Nto develop a DEIS.98
The NEPArequiresutilization of a systematic interdisciplinary approach
which insures integrated use of the natural and social sciences in planning
and decision-making. To satisfy this requirement, extensive information
was needed on the condition ofthe atoll, social and economic background
of the people, plans for future use of the atoll and, aboveall, guidelines on
the cleanup and disposition of radiological contamination. Some of this
information was available in the Enewetak Engineering Study; however,
much of the material was just then being developed in the Master Plan, the
Enewetak Radiological Survey, and the AEC Task Group Report and
Individual in Population
(AEC Task Group Report)
Whole Body
0.25
Bone
0.75
Bone Marrow
0.25
Gonads
|
Thyroid
4 remsin 30 years
0.75
These guides are Atomic Energy Commission Task Group Report recom-
mendations applicable to the Enewetak Atoll Situation. They are derived
from the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) Radiation Protection Guides
(RPG) by using 50 percent of the FRC RPG for individual exposure and
incomplete, information. Thus, when this preliminary DEIS wascirculated
to the participating federal agencies for review in April 1974,99it did not
reflect an approved position on radiation exposures and cleanup guidelines
80 percent of the FRC RPG guide for gonadal exposure. These reduced
values are recommended as a necessary precaution to allow for uncertainty in prediction of annual exposures to individuals in the alternative
programs.
(since the AEC position had not yet been defined). Rather, it contained
alternative solutions developed to show minimum and maximum required
resources. Some of the information in the preliminary DEIS concerning
potential impacts was quite controversial. The Director, DNA had planned
to publish the formal DEIS for comment by 15 May 1974 and the final EIS
on 15 September 1974.!00 As a result of the critical nature of some
comments on the preliminary DEIS and the concern over public
acceptance of the concepts, publication of the formal DEIS was delayed
until approved radiological guidelines were available on 16 August 1974.
Instead of 15 May 1974, it was 7 September 1974 before the formal DEIS
FIGURE 2-1. DOSE GUIDELINES FOR ENEWETAK ATOLL ({REM/YR).
The cleanup would remove as much radioactivity as possible from the
islands, after which other remedial measures would be relied upon to
reduce the predicted dose to lower levels, if necessary. If the cleanup did
not result in a predicted dose less than the AEC guidelines for Enewetak
Atoll, the return of the dri-Enewetak to the atoll would not be
recommended. !@3
The DEIS consisted of three volumes. Volume I included a review of
the radiological and physical condition of the atoll and described several
cleanup and habitation alternatives, an evaluation of their effects, a
selection of a preferred cleanup operation, and a proposed rehabilitation
and resettlement plan. Volume II contained extracts from related
In accordance with the recommendations of the AEC Task Group
Report, options for cleanup of radiological hazards were limited to removal
of contaminated scrap and removal of plutonium-contaminated soil. A’
third possibility, that of removing soil contaminated with fission products;
i.e., cesium-137 and strontium-90, was determined to be counterproductive at best and possibly irrevocably destructive. It required removal of
such vast amounts of soil that it would result in severe ecological damage
calculations and other supporting data. VolumeIII was a resumeof the
was decided to leave the fission products to decay naturally. (The fission
products have half-lives of about 30 years in contrast to the plutonium
was issued for public review and comment. !0!
2 Teae
Critical
Organs
85
would not be available for more than [8 months. Meanwhile, there was
pressure to provide plans and cost estimates for MILCON program
authorization and appropriation requests. In responseto these pressures, a
preliminary DEIS was prepared, based on the best available, albeit
TREAT
Planning and Programming
reference documents, including the 1972 Enewetak Radiological Survey
and the 1973 Master Plan for Rehabilitation and Resettlement, plus
Lyi
into English. !92
d
Hiihude
aiid
4
a
a
LJ
uv
a
Cl
The approach taken in the DEIS wastoidentify all reasonable courses of
action, evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each, and arrive at
the safest and most effective solution. The AEC had established
recommended guidelines for use in the radiological cleanup (Figure 2-1).
and would not positively assure the radiological safety of the people. !4 It
anleemerinprlneeneriedaenenie
Following the alternatives and recommendations of the Enewetak
Radiological Survey, the Master Plan, and the AEC Task Group Report,
the DEIS outlined several options for habitation as a means of minimizing
predicted doses. These were based on restricting the use of various islands;
i.e., using only the cleanest for residence; the next cleanest for agriculture,