94--
RADIOLOGICAL CLEANUP OF ENEWETAK ATOLL
The dri-Enewetak andtheir attorney were on recordas being Opposed ;
any disposal of radioactive material on the atoll. AEC-NV strong,
supportedtheir position in commenting on the preliminary DEIS.1!32
y
Considering the relatively short radiological half-lives of the fiss tOn
products and the induced radioactivity found on much of the debris, the
AECTask Group suggested that the debris be disposed of in Shallow burig
crypts on the land, in underwatercraters, or in the deeper portions of the
lagoon. The Task Group recommendedthat plutonium-contaminateq Soil
and debris be stockpiled on Runit, pending determination of a final
disposal method. Several methods were suggested, including returningjt
to the United States, casting it into concrete blocks, dumpingit into a
crater with a concrete cap, or dumpingit in the ocean or lagoon. !33
The EPA objected to the lagoon-dumping or ocean-dumping options
contained in the draft AEC Task Group Report,citing Title I, Sec. 101(c) of
Public Law 92-532 whichstates: ‘‘No office, employee, agent, department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States shall transport from any
location outside the United States any radiological, chemical, orbiologica
warfare agent or any high-level radioactive waste for the purpose of
dumpingit into ocean waters. ’’ EPA’s response to AECalso pointed out
that a United States national policy prohibiting ocean-dumping of
radioactive wastes had been in effect since 1970. Any proposal to reverse
such a policy would have to involve the Departmentof State becausethe
United States had already ratified the International Ocean Dumping
Treaty, 134
DNA’s overriding consideration on this issue was the identification of
an option which could gain eventual approval so that the cleanupproject
could proceed. EPA and DNA officials conferred on 8 August 1974
regarding disposal options in the DEIS. EPA took the samepositionit had
taken with AEC on the ocean-dumping option.!35 The intent of Public .
Law 92-532 was to prohibit ocean-dumping of materials produced for
tadiological warfare.136.!37 Even though materials had been used for
radiological testing instead of warfare, their toxicity and effect on the
environment was unchanged. Even if, by some unusual logic, the
contaminated materials were considered an unprohibited wasteeligible for
ocean dumping, the law required extensive research and special actions
before EPA would authorize ocean dumping. !38 The materials would have
to be placed in a container that would remain intact until contamination
radiodecayed to an environmentally innocuous material, which EPA
interpreted to be five half-lives.139 This would have required the
plutonium-contaminated soil containers to last for nearly 125,000 years.
Ocean dumping appeared to belegally difficult.
After the radiological cleanup at Palomares, Spain, 1,310 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and vegetation in 55-gallon drums had been returned to