Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
At the invitati~n of Roger Ray, NVOO; Bill Forstcr, l~ll~~; _ Plarshall Islands Works hop,’ J-uric 27-29, 1977. I agrcc~ to submit my perceptions of the p~og ram in writing and ‘nqve restricted t’nese to four ma -i] areas. I identified thz followinq major areas of concern for attention by AES : 1) The lac~< of a and priorities . It is suggested that t!)e appointinerl~ of a scientific’ director for program management supported by a small steering committee is a priority requirement. 2) The rationale - for the Enewetak soil. cleanup ancl disposal operation i.s based been validated by empirical clata. The proposed soil guidelines for the removal of soil. do not appear to be technically supportcleanup ancl dispositj.on, including ocean clumping, should bc resuspension ancl the ~-esul.tant dose commitment cannot be aitered by the prol?osecl course of action. 3) Resuspension. researcP resettlemerlt p=oposals need to be considered. in greater de~:lth, BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Page 2
At the invitation of Roger Ray, NVOO; 13ill Fors’ceu, El IX; SI1OP at Lawrence Lj,vern’,ore Laboratory to take part in the research discussions. One ti]e first clay and park of ‘khe second each principal inves’ciqator presented an abstract. of ;Iis sttldy. ..-— segments of the overall program. It is pertinent to note t!lat this was the first time that tives f~oi~]AES, BER, and OES; NVOO; SAN; ancl principal invcs’ci- [Iawaii, Eowling Green State University had met. Since 1 was the only technical person p’resent wilo r,]asnot –. closely associated with the program, it was agreed by Bill !3urr, Bill F’orster, and Roger Ray that my ~,~Trittenperceptions of this workshop ~~ould he useful. 1 agreed to do this, but it should be borne j.n mind that 1 may have missed some of the finer p~i.nts in the technical and political discussions. In no way was I acting as a rapporteur for the workshop. While many project details were presented, I u7ill restrict-. my comments to four major areas” that I feel need ERDA senior mdnaqement attentjon. It was apparent that there was an ovcral.1 lack of direction in this prograin with the result that AES has a number of projects that do not necessarily share the same philosophy or ob]ecti.res. 17rom the Cliscussions the problem appears to exist ~liairllyat with DER. ‘Ihe issues and pro:~l-am Objcckl.vcs are not clear
Page 3
The one project that ]:eceived tile most attention from tl-,e worksholo vjas the proposecl cleanup. of the Znewetak LzcjoorI Iclzncs . Initially, concern pjas expressed regarcliilg the plZICCY~i?ll 01 contaminated materials ancl soil on Runit. In part.j.cular the _ rationale for using CaCtUS crater for the contaminated concrete slurry was not o’bvious . This particular operation appearec: ‘co have many C?isadvantages in that it does ]lot remove the matc~ial from environmental int~raction since there are data that indicate ocean water connections do exist ar,d that erosion, etc. , will ultimately result in tile material being returned to the uncontrolled situation. As a repository for relatj.vely short–1.i~’ed radioactive materials this concept could be useful, but the consensus of the m.~etin(j Vlas that the crater was not a.n acceptable solution for plutonium contamindtccl h:astcs. The discussion then moved Lo alternatives . The most obvious one cliscussed was ocean disposal. outsiclc the lagoon. It was reporteii thut this was not acceptable to l;.l>.~~. Th :.s is difficult to accept from a technical. standpoint. The United States is a signatory to the Lol]don Convcntioil on Resolution was si.gnecl by L’.P.A. on behalf of the United for radioactive materials, provj.djng the basj.s for ocean
Page 4
radiological. hazarcl to man or marine organisms. (1 S:lould point out that I v?as chairman and Uni’ted States represent at.ivc radiological basis of the Lonclon Convention for the United. concrete, metal, ground disposal sites from the Islan2s and to place this in some form of controlled state on R~nit. l~ov~evcr, from the islands was based on acceptable assumptions, i.e. , a resuspension problein, nor -had any attempt been inade to valiciatc rather than an inadequate monitoring program was called for. Adclitionally, the guidelines proposed for I.evel_s of plutonium in soil appeared to conflict with recently proposed federal guidel.i.nes and the basis for a double standarcl was not rnaile clear. Whiie it was accepted that the decisions to conduct. ‘ch.is operation fw,~erecompl.j.cated and had been made over the last two years, the consensus was that the soil removaL aspect and the of participants were sufficient].y concerned that they prepc.red a draft memoranclurn, which Bill Burr agreed to bring to the problcm. Ithile it. i.s obvious that there have been, ;l::e,al~d concluctcil to come to a clcci.5i.onacceptable to or for the islanders. ‘I’hcindications arc L!lat the present inhabitants
Page 5
appears to me rather naive to expect them l~ot to consume subsistence crops growing on their doorstep. Even if the clbout their way of life, they k~ill still cross to Bikini to harvest the available food. Ii the remainder of t!le island:ls -- are resettled there as Well, it is Cioubtfu.1 that !Zneu can support them, c.xac~rb~?ting the problem. Relative to the econol~,ir;base” for Bikini and Er,eu Islcnds, the consensus was thzt the copra meal would not be acncptahlc alt!>ougil the oil. might be. V/ilil.ethe interdcpenclencc of the economics of these tv~o pro-ducts might suggest some form of subsidy for the meal, the disposition of that material. only — raises another disposal. problem1 found it disturbing that, w!lile ERDA is very concernc?cl with the social and economic impacts of the clevelopj.ng energy technologies, there appears to be no one specifj.call.y acldressir,g the liarshall Islands as a part of present operations. FJi.th.out the best interests ot the islanders. need to be intensifi.ecl to refine the actual inta}<e of raclj.(JLhc problems of and].ysis of urine for plutonium at low levels. these Pu anaiyse~ (and even y scans) wi.Lh a high degree of confidence in thci.r data is surprisingly small..
Page 6
are available on drinking T:,7a~erfrom roof catcnment, .~ol.iar retention of res[lspended ,materi~l and inhalation. It was clear program (supportecl by OES) will be insufficient to define the sion researclh progra~n to determine the degree of r~st]spci~s~o]l -- of respirable particles for various activities, i.e. , in the villacjes, garden tilling, etc., the role of foliar uptake Ly garden crops, and the role of marine aerosols. The need for supporting meteorological clata i.s essential if any meanincjfc.1 data are to !>e gained. It was suggested that this program be conducted by the resuspension group at I,LL t~ho have had Many of the areas of concern expressed at the workshop were perceiv-ccl by me to stem from a lack of cortll~l~l~~icatio~l, on the one hand, within and l)et[lee:~cli’~.ision staffs in Heac:-
Page 7
While it is appreciated that the DOD operation at. Encv:e’cak has begun, I concur with the suggestion that the soil cleall).lp ‘l’hecons;jnsus was that it was not too late to redirect ancl r-estrict these effouts to the cleanup of COntilJT.iilatC8Clmateria].s While it mav be beyond the scope of mv commitment at the workshop , I would like to say that many of tl-lepartic:.]pants felt that there were some compelling moral fil>Clethic r:t~.Z!.5pfC.Ot.S by the government as soon as possible.
Page 8
feel that many aspects of tll(:proposed program are eCollOW.i C?Llly and environmentally unacceptable . based on assumptions regarclinq rcsuspensl. o n of Pu t;ha-=are lot t-he guidelines which have been established fo~ soil re~tove:~ are have to be removed and agree that this can be placed ander control on Runit islet. The present total inventory of plutonium in the terrestrial environment at Encwetak avai].able for resuspension an.5 resultant dose commitment cannot be significantly altered by th~ proposed course of action. The removal. of soil from Engebi and other isl.cts ;,IOUIC?cause (humus layer) , which cannot reaclily be replaced. T!le placement of contaminated concrete slurry into ~~.~us rater does not remove this material from environlnental