With cleanup targets and priorities established, work began in earnest to remove contaminated soil
from designated areas on Janet and Sally. The Director, DNA elected to approach cleanup targets
incrementally, first removing soil bearing the highest concentrations of TRU, and working toward
lower and lowerlevels. As each target level was approached, DNA would evaluate the entire status
cleanup and available resources, then approve work toward the next lower target. Authority to
vlean Janet down to 50 pCi/g was issued 20 June 1978; down to 45 pCi/g on 17 August 1978; to
continue toward 40 pCi/g on 12 Sept 1978. The decision to remove surface soil from Pearl was not
madeuntil late spring 1979.
Priority decisions made during the remainder of the cleanup project were primarily of an operational
nature. By the end of eleanup, soil had been removed from irene, Janet, Pearl, Sally, the Aomon
Crypt, and Yvonne.
Table 7-5 summarizes soil excision data, and the final status of each island is
presented in Chapter 7.
2.2.6 Certification
Certification by AEC/ERDA/DOE that DNA had accomplished cleanup to AEC guidelines became an
issue during 1975-76, although the basis for disagreement was expressed as early as January 1974. In
his report of a multiagency coordination visit to Enewetak in January 1974, a DNA representative
notes:
"Commander Wolf (AEC/HQ) indicated that an element of AEC favored no participation
(in the cleanup) by AEC until the cleanup is 100 percent complete and then an AEC
party would inspect to certify satisfactory accomplishment. This position was labeled
entirely unacceptable by Maj. Gen. McEnery and Mr. Eagles (both from DNA). Mr. Ray
(AEC/NV) indicated that he considers an on-site rep with authority to make decisions
for AEC as a must." (Esser, 1974.)
DNA and ERDA representatives met in August 1975, to discuss an interagency agreement then in
draft form, to attempt to reach a clear and mutually agreeable interpretation of the draft, and to
identify details which might require clarification. Reporting on this meeting, the DNA
representative noted that ERDA/NV would be willing to certify that cleanup operations had achieved
certain specified goals but would not be willing to certify that it was now safe for personnel to
inhabit an island. It was also noted that certifying that guidelines have been met implies that
numerical guidelines exist against which cleanup can be measured. Numerical guidelines should be
low enough that, with imposition of certain lifestyle restrictions, future exposures would not exceed
the guidelines. This in turn implies evaluation of potential dose based on post-cleanup radiological
conditions and possibly monitoring of the returning population. Since these steps could extend over a
period of years,"... certification based on such data would clearly not be acceptable to DNA. The
point was made that the Certifier needs specific rules upon which to base his guarantee, and those
rules have not yet been established. . ." (Esser, 1975.)
The interagency agreement was signed by Major General W. E. Shedd, Deputy Director, Operations
and Administration, DNA, on 28 August 1975, and by J. L. Liverman, Assistant Administrator for
Environment and Safety, ERDA, 10 September 1975 (The Shedd-Liverman Agreement).
Although
neither agency had a clear, acceptable definition of what was meant by certification, the agreement
stated that ERDA would provide DNA "certification, on an island-by-island basis, when radiological
cleanup meeting the guidelines established by the AEC/ERDA in their Task Group Report has been
accomplished." Certification was discussed at numerous interagency meetings held during the
following year. ERDA held to the position stated in August 1975. DNA disagreed with the ERDA
position, and, while not suggesting an alternative definition, repeatedly sought clarification from
ERDA. The DNA position was clearly stated in a meeting at ERDA/HQ on 24 June 1976, when a
DNA representative ". . . quoted both the draft and final Impact Statement as explicitly using the
phrase ‘certified as safe’ and since ERDA (AEC)did not object to this phrase, they tacitly gave their
approval to cleanup leaving the atoll safe within constraints to be imposed." (An ERDA
representative disagreed) "and rebutted that the AEC did not approve of many aspects to the Impact
Statement, and claimed they were pressured to ‘agree not to disagree'’." (Schaefer, 1976.)
68