98
RADIOLOGICAL CLEANUP OF ENEWETAK ATOLL
inherit yet another temporary storagefacility, one constructed contrary to
ERDA’s advice.'>> The 24 February conference ended with no changein
the Agencies’ positions on disposal, but it helped set the stage for a top,
level policy conference.
FINALIZING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
APRIL 1975
The normal period for review and commenton the DEIS, which was
filed on 7 September 1974, ended on 11 November 1974.!56 However,
MLSC, the legal counsel for the dri-Enewetak, was allowed almost §
months to prepare comments out of consideration for the gravity of the
commitments that would be made based on the document. Mr.Mitchell,
Executive Director of MLSC, submitted the comments on 1 February1975,
These comments confirmed the basic position the people had taken at
Majuro in 1973 and from which neither they nor the MLSC had wavered
throughout the project. They demandedtotal cleanupoftheatoll, disposaj
of the radiological contaminated material away from the atoll, and
restoration of theatoll, insofar as practicable, to its original state. !57
LTG Johnson called a conference of action agency officials on 25
February 1975 to discuss the MLSC position and to makepolicy decisions
necessary to establish the future course of the project. Conferees included:
Dr. W. A. Mills, of EPA; Major General Ernest A. Graves, USA, Dr.
William Forster, Mr. Joseph Maher, Mr. Joe Deal, and Mr. Tommy
McCraw, of ERDA; Mr. Harry Brown, of DOI; Captain E. D. Whalen,
USN, of ASD(ISA); Colonel A. M. Smith, USA, of MSN; and senior
DNAstaff officials. !58
LTG Johnson opened the meeting with his analysis of the situation. The
plans for cleanup described in the DEIS of September 1974 appearedto be’
technically and economically feasible, and, although they imposed some
unwantedrestrictions on the dri-Enewetak, these restrictions represented
a reasonable compromise between the goal of maximum freedom andthe
needto guard the people’s health and well-being. The AEC guidelines had
been adopted, although there were some whofelt they were excessively
restrictive. Although ocean dumping of radioactive material was preferred
by some,it had to be recognized that this might be legally impossibleor,at
best, require several years to obtain authorization. Thus, crater
entombment was adopted as a reasonable alternative. Based on these
compromises, there had appeared to be a reasonable consensus among
those involvedat the time the DEIS was published. !59
Now, according to the Director, it appeared that the consensus was
disappearing. It seemed there was no consensus even within ERDA,and