ing
Programm
. Planning and
, was contingent 0
rn
tu
,
in
s
i
h
dt
t;
an
ec
oj
g and funding the pr
up oblems and devel
cies resolving the radiologuicndalincgleparnograpmrs.
en
df
more comp
approvin
action a8
lete cleanup plans an
RADIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS AND ISSUES: 1974
The cleanup and disposal of radiological hazards at Enewetak .
osed problems whichstill have worldwide interest. Cleanup ofradioa
contamination and disposal of radioactive waste are potential peace
roblems for the nuclear nations, as well as attendant problems di
nuclear war. Enewetak Atoll was not the first peacetime radiolc
cleanup project. It was preceded by more limited efforts at Palom
Spain; Thule, Greenland, Bikini Atoll; and Los Alamos, New Me
They all posed the same basic questions:
e
e
e
e
How
How
How
How
muchradioactivity is there?
muchradioactivity is too much?
can one remove any excess radioactivity?
can one dispose of any excess radioactivity?
The data on locations and amounts ofradioactivity provided by
Enewetak Radiological Survey were adequate for development of ge
plans and gross cost estimates for removalofall or part of it. Howeve
the DEIS indicated, detailed field surveys would be required to provid
precise data needed before radiological cleanup could begin. Identi
contaminated debris is relatively simple compared to the proble:
detecting and measuring contamination in soil. The Enewetak Radiolc
Survey and DEISreferred to soil contamination in termsofactivity
per unit weightofsoil; i.e., measurements of pCi/g. Sampling every |
on every island was clearly impractical, even if it had been possible.
technology for conducting radiological field surveys of contaminatec
was still in the developmental stage and it remained so until well int
actual cleanup operations. This problem did not delay development c
EIS or MILCON program, however.
Probably the most complex radiological question was (andstill is): '
amounts of radioactivity constitute a hazard? Answering that que
requires data on the potential sources of exposure (air, water, soil, |
etc.); access to exposure (lifestyle, diet, etc.); organs affected (I
bone, etc.); and potential adverse effects. All of these factors mu:
known before a dose assessment can be made and the hazard ca
evaluated. Many of the comments on the DEIS recommended actio
quantify these factors, such as including the contribution from gr.
water in the dose estimates,!!1,112,113 conducting an air sam