risk. The actual risk may actuary be zero or negligible when compared to effects resulting from natural or background exposure. be “a tamer +e f oa . : Reviewing Table 5-12, it can be seen that several alternative programs result in health effects which are estimated to be no greater ‘than those induced by naturally occurring background radiatign. These programs, yielding the greatest reduction in radiological risk, also are either the most restrictive in terms of habitation plans or the most costly in terms of cleanup. For example, Case 2 restricts the Enewetak Atoll people to the scuthern islands with no agriculture or visitation on the northern islands and Case 5 places no restriction on residence, agriculture or visitation of the people but imposes enormous costs as is shown in later discussion. : Short of reducing radiological risk to background levels, it can be NONE SURETY BoSUNTERSYRye. seen that Cases 3 and 4 offer compromises which increase the extent of Enewetak Atoll people's agricultural, residence and visitation activities without causing significant increases in risk. The Case 3 risk estimate indicates that, as a maximum, the number of health effects vented miyht increase to twice the background level although the actual number of added health effects may be no greater than those observed in the background cases. For Case 4 the total number of health effects (Case 4 plus background) is estimated to be no more than about 4 times the background case. Again it should be noted that actual number of added health effects may be no greater than the background effects; however, as suggested by the Case 4 risk estimates, the Enewetak people will be exposed to somewhat a Le ee s because of the Enjebi agricultural activities. increased radrolesiial nie As shown in Table 5-12, the cleanup actions introduced when going from Row Ito Row II do not significantly reduce the overall estimate of. radiological risk for any given habitation plan. These added cleanup ru actions consist of radioactive scrap removal] and wae removal of ” accordance wa, mu cleseue gad mes. . plutonium concentrations “ t. Such cleanup results in negligible dose reduction since these actions mitigate the external and inhalation pathway doses which contribute only small fractions to the total dose. This result does not mean that cleanup actions defined by Row II should be omitted. They are desirable from the standpoint of eliminating the possibility of undue individual exposure and the accessibility ef radioactivity anywhere on the atoll. . +o In summary, the radiological risks displayed in Table 5-12 suggest that further consideration of alternative programs can be restricted to Cases 1 through 5. Case 1 represents the risk, clearly unacceptable, associated with unrestricted use of the atoll and no cleanup action and we ee ae Y\aP 7st a se enw oe | 5-40