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