76
RADIOLOGICAL CLEANUP OF ENEWETAK ATOLL
advise on plutonium cleanup operations.5? Others in AEC CXPresse
concern that numerical standards provided for Enewetak woulg
misconstrued or misapplied to other locations such as the NevadaTest5
ite
or Bikini Atoll.
After consideration of comments on the drafts, the AEC Task Group
recommendations (discussed below) were published in final form on 19
June 1974. At a meeting of the Commissioners of the AEC on 12 Auguy
1974, the recommendations were approved and subsequently forwarded to
DNAon 16 August 1974.50 The Director, DNA responded on 20 August
1974, advising the AEC that the recommendations had been adopted and
would be reflected in the DEIS.6!
The Task Group Report pointed out that the tasks required fo;
Enewetak were similar to those carried out for the Bikini cleanup ang
rehabilitation, 62 and it stated that its recommendations for Enewetak were
therefore similar to those that guided cleanup and rehabilitation of Bikin;
Atoll.
The Task Group Report adopted radiation protection criteria for
evaluation of the significance of dose estimates, and it recommended that
the samecriteria be used for planning the cleanup and rehabilitation. The
criteria for dose limit to individuals were set at 50 percent of the Federa|
Radiation Council (FRC) annualrate limit, and 80 percent of theFRC 30.
year genetic limit. These more stringentcriteria were deemed appropriate
so that individuals would not receive doses at the maximum level of
current U.S. standards from weapon-test residue alone and to accountfor
uncertainty in predicting doses.64 Although the Task Group Report
discussed the FRC annualrate limits for population as a whole, it did not
use or recommend these FRCcriteria. Instead, the Task Group Report
recommended that the population dose ‘‘should be kept to the minimum
practicable level.’’65
The Task Group Report noted that no criteria existed for radiological
contamination of soil and food and that there were definite pathways
whereby such contamination could lead to dose to individuals. The
Enewetak Radiological Survey had obtained environmental data especially
for evaluating dose via these pathways, andforall significant radionuclides
at Enewetak. The Task Group Report singled out the soil-resuspensioninhalation pathway for plutonium as a key one on which experts could not
agree howto estimate dose properly. Guidance on plutonium in soil was
therefore considered needed, and the Task Group Report wascareful to
point out that any guidanceit offered would not apply to the AEC at other
locations. Thus, the Task Group Report recommended guidance on
plutonium in soil that was unique to Enewetak Atoll. This guidance was
that soil should be removedif the plutonium concentration exceeded 400
pCi/g of soil, and that it could beleft in place if the concentration wasless
-
_