- 25 States mainland for storage.
We appreciate the practical and political
difficulties presented by the various disposal methods which would remove
the scrap from the Atoll entirely, but the People of Enewetak are adamantly”
opposed to any disposal upon or within theenvirons of the Atoll. Ocean
cumping, according the DEIS (Vol. I, S 5.5.2.1), was rejected ‘in view of
the difficulty in obtaining a permit and certainty of international
complications.’ Disposal to the United States mainland was disfavored for
Similar reasons.
(Vol.
I. 8 5.5.2.4) Disposal on the Atoll must be
rejected and the other methods should be explored, the necessary permits
and authority obtained and disposal off the Atoll selected as the
preferred method.
"Removal and disposal of contaminated soil presents more serious
cost and practical difficuities, but here again the complete removal
and off-Atoll disposal of all contaminated soil must be the stated
objective of the program.
“Even using the high plutonium contamination standard set by the
Task Group (40 pCi/g, etce.), the total amount of Atoll soil which would
have to be removed and disposed is 779,000 cubic yeards.
(Vol. I S 5.5.2).
If the soil standards are lowered as they should be, that volume will increase."
Comments:
The comments pertaining to disposal of contaminated material
are most appropriately dealt with hy agencies other than ERDA because of the
legal, political and fiscal implications.
Page 16, lines 15-18 - "... but a clear decision must be taken to study
and fully assess the relation of soil removal to dose reduction (including
the risk from airborne hot particles) and the likely ecological effects of
soil removal and replacement."
Comments:
From a radiation exposure consideration, there is in fact
little choice in the level of protection that can be provided the Enewetak
people.
The choices for cleanup degree at Enewetak are limited in one
direction by the basic FRC standards considered as an upper Limit to what
might be acceptable (this is a health consideration), and in the other
direction by a rapidly increasing engineering effort that is required for
even small increments of exposure reduction below the recommended guidelines
(this is a cost consideration).
It would not take much excess conservatism
in cleanup "monitoring" or changes in the Task Group numerical guides to
upset the delicately balanced position on cleanup guidance that has been
Mew
em
w Re me
Be SRR MRE IR EYES SORE WE EPL NET SRRSTIR TEPER IEE LATING FETTPOS NDEBS OY