RADIOLOGICAL CLEANUP OF ENEWETAK ATOLL
90
rf
4
\
2
i
1
o£.
abtgy’
A socal 4. com
a
eo
ete een
{
'
A aiken
\
Souttwertt
Punage
N
7 nem
a“
a Ara ii eRaoe
ores
PS)
.
*y
eo
os
LZ
“
re
X
\
.
RADIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS AND ISSUES: 1974
1
2
3
4
ANANW Cp 7th Sb
jem het
Deep Entrance
|
|
rl
x
Es nonaNDAEIOK @ Te
Wida Parepe
;
i
ENEWETAK ‘E Ty o7��
we
Case Summary:
1.
Jee intarisiend Trovel
Pu CleanupYoLessThan
To Less Than49
40pCr’g On Soken, Lujor & Runit
PuCleanup
2. No Restrictions On Fishing.
+ Pomc ttanc
3.
All Radioactive Scrap To Be Cleaned Up From All Islands.
“e~ Uniimited Ute of Hid Birds & Epgt
4.
Physical Hazard & Obstructive Debres Cleanup On All Islands.
oF Coconut Crab island
&.
Liveon Southern Ilands, Jinedrol Through Kidrenen
Unlimited Fishing
t sevene
TP
Subsistence Agriculture Except for Pandanus & Breadfruit
omarAt ia
Except That Pandanus &
™
Te Untimited Agricutture
®
How much radioactivity is there?
How much radioactivity is too much?
How can one remove any excess radioactivity?
How can one dispose of any excess radioactivity?
The data on locations and amounts of radioactivity provided by the
Enewetak Radiological Survey were adequate for development of general
plans and gross cost estimates for removal of all or part of it. However, as
5&5
LEGEND
The cleanup and disposal of radiological hazards at Enewetak Atoll
posed problems which still have worldwide interest. Cleanup of radioactive
contamination and disposal of radioactive waste are potential peacetime
problems for the nuclear nations, as well as attendant problems during
nuclear war. Enewetak Atoll was not the first peacetime radiological
cleanup project. It was preceded by more limited efforts at Palomares,
Spain; Thule, Greenland; Bikini Atoll; and Los Alamos, New Mexico.
They all posed the same basic questions:
©
®
@
MEDREN “f =F® Tr
Nautical Miles
*S
Bre
No Restrictions On Travel
© Pu-239 Cleanup To Less Than 40pCi/g
seher eert> wwe
"
JEDROL ve Of JAPTAN D Tre
Lagoon
- Rt 77% IKUREN
+—~. a
NINEDRAL £ TO
yvan h
“My INEOROL 4 FE Te
:
.
°
or Pt
ned eras
.
et
fl BOKEN
net 4 Fewer
o
a
ee wr
6G
\ SUNIOR404?
~~
;
approving and funding the project; and this, in turn, was contingent on the
action agencies resolving the radiological cleanup problems and developing
more complete cleanup plans and funding programs.
Orcese
\ RUNIT &)
rd
7
wr
o
9]
|
nt
.
aen
|
1a
Planning and Programming
the DEIS indicated, detailed field surveys would be required to provide the
precise data needed before radiological cleanup could begin. Identifying
contaminated debris is relatively simple compared to the problem of
detecting and measuring contamination in soil. The Enewetak Radiological
Survey and DEIS referred to soil contamination in terms ofactivity level
per unit weight of soil Le., measurements of pCi/g. Sampling every gram
on every island was clearly impractical, even if it had been possible. The
technology for conducting radiological field surveys of contaminated soil
was still in the developmental stage and it remained so until well into the
actual cleanup operations. This problem did not delay development of the
EIS or MILCON program, however.
Probably the most complex radiological question was (andstill is): What
FIGURE 2-5. ENEWETAK ATOLL, CASE 3.
amounts of radioactivity constitute a hazard? Answering that question
requires data on the potential sources of exposure (air, water, soil, food,
etc.); access to exposure (lifestyle, diet, etc.); organs affected (lungs,
elemenchnneprnen hemnhamntaleereeenbereareeeeeteares
known before a dose assessment can be made and the hazard can be
evaluated. Many of the comments on the DEIS recommended actions to
quantify these factors, such as including the contribution from ground
water in the dose estimates,!!1.1!2.1!13 conducting an air sampling