In considering the reduction in exposure that may be achtevable through
removal of contaminated soil, the Task Group has taken the posi tion that these
predicted exposures are approximations only.
The effectiveness of such actions
to reduce internal exposures that come through the food chain must be confirmed through analysis of test plantings.
The Task Group does not favor soil
removal as a dependable or feasible exposure reduction action for the dietary
pathway.
However, such action is reviewed in the Task Group Report in order
to present a complete picture of the various possiblities considered.
In its assessment of dose reductions that might be possible due to
removal of contaminated soil, the Task Group posed the following question:
"Given the dose estimates of Tables 1-4, and the dose reductions that can
be expected due to the indicated actions,
can equivaient dose reductions
be achieved by removal of soil and, if so, what volume of soil would have to
be removed from contaminated istands?"
In order te address this quection
one must know or have estimates of the areas to be used for housing and
villages, for growing pandanus and breadfruit, for growing coconut, and for
raising domestic animals.
Figure 1 shows the Enewetak Atoll Land Use Plan as presented in the
Enewetak Atoll Master Plan.
Of the northern islands only Enjebi
(JANET)
would be used as a residence and agricultural island if this were feasible.
_ Aej
(OLIVE), Lujor (PEARL), Amon (SALLY), Bijile (TILDA), Lojwa (URSULA), and
Alamebel (VERA) are intended to be used as agricultural islands, and the
remainder (ALICE, BELLE, CLARA, DAISY,
IRENE, KATE, LUCY, MARY, NANCY, and
WILMA) as food gathering and picnic islands.
Figure 2 shows the land use plan for Enjebi Island (JANET), including
14 housing areas (560,000 ft’, assuming an average housing area to be 200'
x 200' in size), a community center (200,000 ft’), subsistence agricultural -
areas (1,100,000 ft“), and commercial agricultural areas (7,300,000 ft“).
-8-