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,