133
__ Planning and Programming
Personnel from the 20th Engineer Brigade, Fort Bragg, North Carolina,
working in three teams, surveyed cleanup worksites and provided detailed
input for the operations annex of the OPLAN. Their surveys were
organized according to the work assignmentsin CONPLAN I-76: Team A
surveyed the southern islands, Team B, the northern islands, and Team C,
the crater containment worksite on Runit. Personnel from the 84th
Engineer Battalion, U.S. Army Support Command, Hawaii (USASCH),
surveyed Lojwa and prepared a detailed plan for construction of the
forward camp to be located there. Personnel from the 485th Medical
Detachment, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, conducted extensive
entomological surveys to provide insect and rodent control data.3!5 Navy
and Air Force planners conducted surveys of the support facilities they
would be utilizing.
The general tone of planning at this second OPLAN conference was
more practical, less theoretical than previously, since the individuals
involved were, in many cases, either those who would actually supervise
the work or those to whom they would report. Recognizing that major
surprises in actual contamination measurements would occur over the
next 3 years, and to provide the cleanup project leadership with maximum
flexibility in decision making once the situation became clearer, the
planners translated the CONPLAN cleanup guidance for soil excision
into:3'6 ‘In general, the ERDA guidelines provide for removal of
concentrations of plutonium soil exceeding 400 pCi/g, and for selective
removalin the range of 40 to 400 pCi/g.’’317
.
For some reason not specified, the planners omitted reference to
removal of the crypts on Aomon where contaminated material had been
buried.3!8 This omission later led to suggestions from some that the
largest crypt need not be removed, suggestions which were not accepted
by the Director, DNA. The CONPLANtext requiring containment of
contaminated debris in contaminated soil-cement slurry3!9 was exparided
and revised into three OPLANprovisions.
The ERDA-NVinput to the OPLANclarified the conflicting guidance
on soil cleanup in earlier planning documents. The AEC Task Group
Report had, in one location, recommendedthat, once soil cleanup action
wasinitiated, ‘‘the concentrations would be reduced to the lowestpractical
level.’’320 In another location, and in the EIS, this suggested guidance was
inappropriately worded to the effect that, where initiated, soil cleanup
‘“‘would be to well below 40 pCi/g.’’32! Now, ERDAplannersinterpreted
this objective anew, providing guidance that the reduction should be ‘“‘to
some lower number which shall be determined by cost-benefit
considerations but will usually not be below local background.’’322 This
interpretation permitted intelligent focusing of effort, made optimum use
of precious cleanup resources, preserved the ecology of someislands, and
made possible the cleanup work that the dri-Enewetak urgently needed.
7