The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Defense’s Environmental Restoration Program lists 61 current or former military installations in South Carolina that have been contaminated with toxins. While several have been remediated, six are still designated “high risk”, including Donaldson AFB. In fact, Donaldson has more “high risk” locations on its base than any of the others in its related area, including three that are considered “still active”. According to Billy Birdwell, senior public affairs specialist for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the contamination at Donaldson stems from “small dump sites” used during World War II.

“We didn’t have environmental science back then, so we just threw these materials into the ground and covered them with dirt.”

Trace amounts of hazardous, toxic, and radioactive materials remain present in the groundwater, soil, surface water, and sediment near the contaminated sites at Donaldson. The most serious site on the former base property is the landfill, where, like many other bases, indiscriminate dumping of toxic chemicals took place during a time where awareness was low. Various chemicals have been found in the ground including chromium, mercury, cadmium, the carcinogenic cleaning agent trichloroethylene (TCE), and tetrachloroethylene (PCE), a cancer-causing solvent once used widely in the textile industry. There are also indications that these chemicals, including elements from RDX, may be leaching into the nearby acquifer affecting water supplies.

According to a recent ProPublica report, the Donaldson dump site poses a risk to visitors and workers who might be exposed to contaminated soil in the industrial park. It also said anyone wading in nearby streams could be exposed to particles in the water or sediment. Residents of the area also could be exposed through consumption of groundwater. It also indicates that there are 112 underground storage tanks on the property and those tanks are believed to contain RDX for making bombs for the military. 

The federal government has already spent $21.4 million on environmental monitoring and remediation efforts, with an additional $13.9 million remaining to completely remediate Donaldson. The government anticipates completion by 2031. Monitoring will be extended until 2034.

Relevant Links & Research:

• FUDS Document –https://www.sac.usace.army.mil/Portals/43/docs/congressionalvisits/2017/civilprojects/FUDS%20Donaldson%20AFB.pdf
• ProPublica Data Set – https://projects.propublica.org/bombs/installation/SC49799F4946009799
• Greenville Online Article – https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/local/south-carolina/2017/12/27/pollution-donaldson-airfields-wwii-era-dumping-stillfb-home-high-risk-military-era-pollutants-study/968890001/
• GAO Office Report on SC Sites – https://www.gao.gov/gao-01-1012sp/zSC.html
• WYFF4 Report – https://www.wyff4.com/article/toxic-chemical-contaminating-water-and-soil-in-greenville-county-report-says/14466467
• Fuds Inventory – SC – https://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/Environmental/FUDS/FUDS_Inventory/FUDS_Inventory_SouthCarolina.pdf

PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, also known as C8, a chemical that for six decades was used by DuPont in the production of Teflon and other products. Research on people in West Virginia and Ohio who had consumed water contaminated by leaks from a nearby DuPont factory showed probable links between the chemical and six diseases, including kidney cancer. Cervera soon discovered that the very same chemical, as well as a related one, PFOS, had been found in drinking water in her area. Both were part of a larger class known as perfluorinated chemicals, or PFCs, “emerging contaminants” that were still being studied — and had yet to be regulated. And, according to public notices from the local water and sewer authorities, both had come from foam that was used to put out airplane fires and train soldiers at two nearby military bases — the Naval Air Warfare Center in Warminster and a former naval air station at Willow Grove, now owned by the Pennsylvania Air National Guard. – (The Intercept, Dec 2015)

As you may recall, we recently profiled the Willow Grove site and noted this very issue.  In recent months, the DOD has come out and said that it will begin testing at 664 military sites around the country for potential groundwater contamination that is coming from the use of this firefighting foam.

By the way, here’s a link to the AP article on that development.

This is another example where best intentions usually lead to unforeseen results.  Here’s why the foam is so bad:

The sudsy liquid, dubbed “Aqueous Film-Forming Foam,” or AFFF, put out hydrocarbon fires more quickly and effectively than ever before by smothering them. Since it was developed, the military has been using huge quantities of the foam, which has been heralded for saving firefighters’ lives. Unfortunately, 3M’s miracle product also contained PFOS. And the other official formulation of the foam purchased by the Department of Defense contains “telomers,” compounds that can break down into PFOA and other PFCs. In addition to being linked to health problems, PFOA and PFOS stay in the human body for years and, unless they are removed, persist in the environment indefinitely. – (The Intercept, Dec 2015)

Of course, PFOAs are linked to some nasty stuff.  It’s also proliferated around the world at bases and installations in other countries.  Many of those folks are just waking up to the nightmare.  At one area in Holland, most people didn’t even know about the dangers of PFOA. Their reaction, well, is obvious. When you read the following, I’m sure it will sound familiar to most of you at Lejeune and other bases:

“They’re pissed off,” said Paul Brooks, a physician from West Virginia who went to Holland and told people about the research that enabled epidemiologists to link PFOA to preeclampsia, ulcerative colitis, and two types of cancer, among other conditions. “They knew absolutely nothing about the links to disease, nothing,” said Brooks.

It would appear that there is a groundswell of activity now in regards to the public waking up to chemical contamination.

Are the DOD’s “chemical chickens” coming home to roost?

————-

Were you a firefighter at a military installation in the US?  Did you use this firefighting foam or know of others that may have been exposed to it?  Let us know your stories and experiences as we uncover more about yet another deadly contaminant in base water supplies in the US.

Relevant Links:

• http://www.c8sciencepanel.org/pdfs/Probable_Link_C8_Cancer_16April2012_v2.pdf
• Funding deal requires Pentagon to report water contamination at bases

The Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base site covers 125,000 acres in San Diego County, California. The base provides housing, training, logistical and administrative support for the Fleet Marine Force units. Past disposal practices have contaminated the groundwater and soil. In an initial investigation, the Marine Corps found nine areas of contamination. Waste generation operations at this site include maintenance and repair of vehicles (trucks, tanks, and aircraft); landfill operations; waste disposal areas, such as scrap yards; and fire fighting drill areas. The base contains wetlands, streams, and rivers which feed into the Pacific Ocean. This land is the only remaining undeveloped area between Los Angeles and San Diego.

Groundwater and soils are contaminated with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), spent oils, fuels, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, metals and herbicides. Though groundwater provides drinking water to the entire installation, the current drinking water supply is within drinking water standards.

For complete information on Camp Pendleton contamination, please visit this link: Camp Pendleton – EPA Superfund List

According to the EPA Superfund website:

The 6,400-acre Patuxent River Naval Air Station (NAS) site is located in Lexington Park, St. Mary’s County, Maryland, at the confluence of the Patuxent River and the Chesapeake Bay on a peninsula known as Cedar Point. NAS operated several landfills and other historical disposal areas which release hazardous chemicals that contaminated soil, sediment, groundwater and surface water. The landfills received solid and hazardous wastes such as sewage treatment plant sludge, cesspool wastes, spent oil absorbents, paints, antifreeze, solvents, thinners, pesticides and photo lab wastes. 

EPA Superfund

It has been established that there are 67 hazardous sites located at Patuxent River NAS. Many sites have been declared “clean” by the DOD but are still not safe for people. According to research, 12 active sites remain for contaminated groundwater, sediment, soil and surface water. There are 55 inactive sites. These are sites where military cleanup actions are complete, according to the DOD. Note that this status does not necessarily mean the site is no longer hazardous, as many of these sites are put under long-term monitoring or other restrictions.

Chemicals of Concern

• PFAS
• Ddt
• Dde
• Ddd
• Gamma-chlordane
• Dieldrin
• Aldrin
• 1,4-dichlorobenzene
• Barium
• Silver
• 1,2-dichloroethane
• Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (svoc)
• Iron
• Tetrachloroethene
• Manganese
• Copper
• Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
• Methylene Chloride
• Naphthalene
• Aluminum
• Selenium
• 1,2,3-trichloropropane
• Cis-1,2-dce
• Antimony
• Heptachlor Epoxide
• Lead
• Chromium
• Zinc
• Chloroform
• 2-methylnaphthalene
• Cobalt
• Potassium
• 1,1-dichloroethylene
• Tce
• Vinyl Chloride
• Alpha-bhc
• Beryllium
• Calcium
• Vanadium
• Carbon Disulfide
• Vanadium, Metal And/or Alloy
• Xylenes
• Nickel
• 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
• Pce
• Trichloroethane
• Heptachlor
• Arsenic
• Cadmium
• Sodium
• Benzene
• Toluene
• Dibenzofuran
• Trichloroethene
• Thallium
• Magnesium
• Voc
• Tetrachloroethylene
• Pesticides
• Aroclor-1260
• Pah
• Mercury
• Ethylbenzene
• 4,4-dde
• Pcb-1260 (aroclor-1260)
• Alpha-chlordane
• Dde (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene)
• 4,4-ddd
• Pahs (polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons)
• Aroclor-1254
• Ddd (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane)
• Endrin
• Vanadium (fume Or Dust)
• Aluminum (metal)
• Ddt (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
• 4,4-ddt
• Aluminum (fume Or Dust)
• Xylene
• Pcbs
• Methoxychlor
• Metals
• Trichloroethylene
• 1,1-dichloroethene

Since 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the NAS Patuxent River, has been investigating the water resources of the Piney Point-Nanjemoy, Aquia, and more recently, the Upper Patapsco aquifers in the vicinity of the air station and Webster Outlying Field (WOLF) to understand the effects of water-use practices at NAS Patuxent River and WOLF on the water resources of the surrounding area. In addition to saltwater intrusion, the NAS Patuxent River groundwater-quality assessment was designed to evaluate the occurrence and distribution of arsenic and tungsten.

Groundwater Quality and Occurrence and Distribution of Selected Constituents in the Aquia and Upper Patapsco Aquifers, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, St. Mary’s County, Maryland, July 2008

PFAS

PFAS is an emerging concern for Patuxent NAS.

The fire extinguishing foam has been used on military bases across the country, including, potentially, on 18 sites at Pax River. Known as aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), it contains a substance called per- and polyfluorolalkyl (PFAS) which the Navy called  an “emerging public health concern.” In addition to Pax River sites, also being investigated is the Webster Field base in St. Inigoes, MD. (Lexington Park Leader)

Lexington Park Leader

These ‘forever chemicals’ were allowed to leach into the groundwater and drain into surface water, contaminating St. Inigoes Creek, the St. Mary’s River, the Patuxent River, and the Chesapeake Bay.

The state of Maryland recently announced plans to test waters and sea life for PFAS contaminants near two military installations that have been known to use aqueous film-forming foam containing the carcinogens in routine fire training exercises.  PFAS chemicals  are known to be devastating to human health and the environment.

LA Progressive

The PFAS concentrations range from none to 1,100 parts per trillion, according to the Navy. Other outside estimates, however, place that number slightly higher.

As is the case with most bases using Aqueous Film-Forming Foams (AFFF), PFAS has been extensively used in hangars and at multiple locations on the base in fire-training exercises. Much of the contamination is associated with Site 41, an old firefighting burn pad, as well as Site 34, a drum disposal area. Site 34 is located a quarter-mile from Rt. 235 near the southwest corner of the base. The area adjacent to the base is populated with many homes served by groundwater wells.

Cleanup Activities

Risks and pathways addressed by the cleanup include health risks from people ingesting or touching contaminants in soil, sediment, surface water and groundwater.

Cost So Far: $82M (Money already spent on the evaluation and cleanup of hazardous sites.)

Expected Additional Cost: $34.9M (The estimated amount of money needed for evaluation and cleanup of hazardous sites at this installation.)

Expected Completion Date: 2028 (The date by which the DOD estimates cleanup of all sites will be complete. Long term monitoring may continue after this date.)

For Current Status

Regional Contacts

Region 3:
Within the region: (800) 438-2474
Outside the region: (215) 814-5000

Remedial Project Manager:
Andy Sochanski S
(215) 814-3370

Additional Contacts: Ms. Jenny E. Herman, Maryland Department of the Environment

Relevant Links

• ToxicSites: Patuxent – http://www.toxicsites.us/site.php?epa_id=MD7170024536
• EPA Superfund Site: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0300429
• ProPublica: https://projects.propublica.org/bombs/installation/MD3170024536001700
• US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/superfund-sites-identified-by-epa-to-have-pfas-contamination
• Beryllium Use at Patuxent: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-476R/html/GAOREPORTS-GAO-01-476R.htm
• CDC/ATSDR Site Information: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/HCPHA.asp?State=%27MD%27
• CDC/ATSDR PFAS Info: https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.atsdr.cdc.gov%2Fpfas%2Frelated_activities.html

In addition, the PACT Act ensures veterans can receive high-quality health care screenings and services related to potential toxic exposures. The PACT Act also expands access to VA health care services for veterans exposed during their military service. It further codifies VA’s new process for evaluating and determining presumption of exposure and service connection for various chronic conditions when the evidence of a military environmental exposure and the associated health risks are strong in the aggregate but hard to prove on an individual basis. 

The legislation also removes the need for certain veterans and their survivors to prove service connection if they are diagnosed with one of 23 specific conditions. Plus, the PACT Act requires the VA to conduct new studies of veterans who served in Southwest Asia during the Gulf War and analyses of post-9/11 veterans’ health trends.

The bill also ensures veterans get the care they need. This includes ensuring that they are screened for toxic exposure and that VA personnel have the appropriate education and training. It delivers critical resources to VA to ensure it can deliver timely access to services and benefits for all veterans eligible – including those already enrolled. The PACT Act provides VA with mechanisms to enhance claims processing and to increase the workforce. The bill also invests in VA health care facilities by authorizing 31 major medical health clinics and research facilities in 19 states.

For a full fact sheet on the legislation from the White House, click here.

This is a developing story. We will have a complete breakdown of the legislation, those that voted for and against it, and other items in a detailed report in the coming days.

#pactact #burnpits #lejeunewater #civilianexposure #lejeunejustice #lejeunecontamination

This is a developing story. We will have a complete breakdown of the legislation, those that voted for and against it, and other items in a detailed report in the coming days.

#pactact #burnpits #lejeunewater #civilianexposure #lejeunejustice #lejeunecontamination

#pactact #burnpits #lejeunewater #civilianexposure #lejeunejustice #lejeunecontamination

Over the course of two decades, the US military has operated in country establishing and maintaining several bases, air fields and facilities, or adding new ones. As part of these facilities, hangars and other areas utilized the same fire suppression equipment and chemicals found on almost 700 bases within the United States: aqueous film-forming foams containing PFAS.

From the start of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. military and its contractors have burned solid waste every day in open burn pits on or near military bases.

GAO-11-63 Report: ‘Afghanistan and Iraq: DOD Should Improve Adherence to Its Guidance on Open Pit Burning and Solid Waste Management’

Why is this important? Because of the substances typically burned, firefighting foam made of PFAS has been incinerated and continues to be.  According to a 2010 GAO report:

Open pit burning is the most prevalent waste disposal method in both  conflicts, and operators of burn pits have not always followed relevant guidance to protect servicemembers from exposure to harmful emissions. According to DOD, U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq generate about 10 pounds of non-hazardous solid waste per soldier each day. The military has relied on open pit burning to dispose of this waste mainly because of its expedience. In August 2010, CENTCOM estimated there were 221 burn pits in Afghanistan and 22 in Iraq. CENTCOM officials said the number of burn pits is increasing in Afghanistan and decreasing in Iraq, which reflects U.S. troop reallocations and efforts to install waste incinerators.

GAO-11-63 (2010)

The DOD has been burning a lot of things, and one of those most dangerous to the environment and health are PFAS foams. And the DOD has no plans to stop. In fact, it’s planning to push ahead with more burning of accumulated firefighting foams containing carcinogenic PFAS. According to a 2019 report from the Intercept, “more than 3 million gallons of the foam and related waste have been retrieved from U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, National Guard, Army, and Air Force bases around the world.”

PFAS is operationalized within the military for the following uses:

• 1st Response Rescue Operations
• Airports and Aircraft Hangars
• Public Buildings
• Heliport and Helideck Fire Protection
• Fuel Transport Locations
• Refinery and Petrochemical Sites
• Coal Mines on Special Response Vehicles
• Frack Tank Fire Protection

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are manmade chemicals found in many industrial and consumer products because they increase resistance to heat, stains, water and grease. Uses include keeping food from sticking to cookware, making sofas and carpets resistant to stains, and making clothes and mattresses more waterproof. (Defense.gov)

Present in firefighting foams used by both civilian and military firefighters, they are known as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment or in the human body. They do not break down.

In the 1970s, the Department of Defense began using AFFF to fight fuel fires. The release of these chemicals into the environment during training and emergency responses is a major source of PFAS contamination of ground water on military bases.

Veterans Affairs (VA)

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ASTDR), some studies in humans suggest that certain PFAS may be associated with:

• Fertility issues and pregnancy-induced hypertension/preeclampsia
• Increased cholesterol
• Changes in the immune system
• Increased risk of certain cancers (e.g., testicular and kidney cancer)
• Changes in fetal and child development
• Liver damage
• Increased risk of thyroid disease
• Increased risk of asthma

PFAS are absorbed (usually through ingestion, inhalation or absorption), and can accumulate in the body. PFAS stay in the human body for long periods of time and those exposed to PFAS may see levels increase to the point where they suffer from adverse health effects.

In Afghanistan, these military bases have been handed over to Afghan National Security Forces, and most likely are now in the hands of the Taliban. But so are the environmental and health issues that come with them. Many of these facilities, as part of standard operating procedure, generated tons of waste, including substances that increase the reisk of cancer and other diseases, notably PFAS.

These materials can produce long-lasting environmental hazards in and around such sites as they seep into the ground, remain exposed in uncovered landfills and—when some items are incinerated—drift into the air as smoke particles.

Scientific American

In fact, according to a 2013 digital report on the US Army’s news website, the base at Kandahar had plenty of hangars equipped with fire suppression systems utilizing PFAS-laden foams. And they released PFAS heavily not due to fires or incidents, but because the DOD has a rule that all fire suppression systems in certain hangers require mandatory performance tests before aircraft can even be stored or maintained in them. All of these tests involved large amounts of foam released. One account speaks, proudly, of the amount of foam present for such tests.

The hangers filled with foam to a depth of almost seven feet in about two minutes.

US Army

Disposal of PFAS is even trickier. Although incineration is the military’s chosen disposal method, there has been little research on the safety of burning the foam. While two studies concluded that the incineration of PFAS chemicals would not be a source of further contamination, both studies have a big caveat. Both were funded by companies with a vested interest in making the problem go away. These include funding from DuPont and 3M. 3M has had a partnership with the Navy since the 1960s to be the exclusive supplier of PFAS-laden aqueous film-forming foams for firefighting needs. But some of the scant research on the topic suggests that incineration may not fully destroy PFAS. (The Intercept)

Back here at home, DOD continues to contract facilities for incineration of the millions of gallons of excess AFFF. And they’re using questionable facilities, with oft inadequate burn protocols, to do it. And the violations are out of this world. To adequately cover this issue requires a completely separate, in-depth report coming soon.

Also, due to a variety of legal and practical hurdles, cleaning up burn pits and other chemicals left behind abroad is also a big problem. These sites can leave behind substantial chemicals and cancer-causing agents. The burning of everything from paint to metal, plastics, medical and human waste, and unexploded ordnance leaves behind a smoke that is unmistakeably toxic. Such smoke is known to contain “particulate matter, lead, mercury, dioxins and irritant gases”, as outlined in a 2014 report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). (Scientific American)

Inhaling these contaminants “can negatively affect organs and body systems, such as the adrenal glands, lungs, liver, and stomach,” causing conditions that include asthma, rhinitis and sinusitis.

Scientific American and Veterans Affairs (VA)

The health impacts are hardly limited to uniformed personnel. As the American Public Health Association noted in a statement in 2015,

This is also true of consistent, high-volume discharges of PFAS into the environment. Even if use is limited to rare fuel, aviation or other fires, the use of AFFF containing PFAS also comes from routine maintenance and testing of hangar suppression systems, or frequent outdoor firefighter training. The chemicals are absorbed into the soil and remain there…eventually migrating into nearby wells, acquifers or other water sources via runoff.

The health issues have already begun, with some alarming reports already coming out of Afghanistan from various doctors in country. According to Dr. Mustafa Siddiqui, a health specialist from Kabul,

“People living near the military base in Bagram are coughing up blood, find it difficult to breathe, and have problems with their kidneys and livers.”

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

Steven Markowitz, professor of environmental sciences at Queens College, City University of New York, says U.S. soldiers returning from Afghanistan are also showing significant increases in respiratory problems. He attributes this to the soldiers being exposed to open burn pits at Bagram and other U.S. military bases.

“If we know American soldiers are being affected, then we know it is quite possible for local laborers on bases and the local population to be affected,” Markowitz says.

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

Cleaning up military bases within the US has been a slow, tedious and mammoth undertaking. The difficulty goes to an entirely new level overseas. In the case of Afghanistan, legal obstacles and the need for diplomacy with a foreign government often hinder efforts. And at the moment, there is no relationship between the US government and the new Taliban-led Afghan government. Therefore, no coordination exists to address the impending health crisis that will ultimately develop over time for citizens of Afghanistan.

In fact, the DOD has specific rules prohibiting money or resources to be directed to cleanup of bases on foreign soil.

The U.S. can fund the remediation of environmental hazards at its bases only while they are in use: when the military withdraws from a base, a specific rule prohibits the DOD from directly spending money or using its resources “to meet requirements that are the responsibility of host nations, as stipulated in applicable international agreements.”

Scientific American

That’s very convenient for the Department of Defense, isn’t it?

“What happens when environmental damage occurs and a host nation or local national does not have the leverage or resources to demand compensation or demand mitigation from the U.S. military?” wrote Jennifer Neuhauser, then a judge advocate at the U.S. Army, in a 2015 paper. With a hostile power now in possession of these sites, the U.S. is unlikely to participate in local cleanup efforts. As Neuhauser stated in her paper, “There are very few enforcement mechanisms under international law to compel U.S. forces to resolve these issues.”

Scientific American

Excellent questions. The answer to that question is the very same answer at home. As with most contaminated bases around the United States, they’re in no hurry. DOD is not compelled to do anything, other than perhaps quickly and quietly incinerating the evidence of their ongoing, systemic pollution.

Relevant Links:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/a311370.html

https://www.rferl.org/a/us_military_waste_an_afghan_health_issue/24374413.html

https://www.army.mil/article/97822/anatomy_of_a_fat_fire_suppression_systems_on_kandahar_airfield_pass_the_test

Click to Subscribe to the Civilian Exposure Newsletter for Latest News & Updates Today!

In this episode, we sit down with guest Joe Mangano to discuss the mission and purpose of his group The Radiation and Public Health Project (www.radiation.org) We have a fascinating and eye-opening discussion about radiation exposures, the impact on human health , and the broader DNA impacts. Finally, we focus in on his latest project – The Tooth Fairy Project – testing 100s and 1000s of baby teeth from as far back as the 1950s to uncover the true impacts of radiation exposure on the population.

Joseph Mangano is a health researcher who has served RPHP since 1989. Mangano managed the study of Strontium-90 in baby teeth and is author or co-author of 33 medical journal articles on radiation health. Author of the books Low Level Radiation and Immune System Damage: An Atomic Era Legacy (1998) and Radioactive Baby Teeth: The Cancer Link (2008).
Mr. Mangano currently manages the citizen-based radiation monitoring programs near the Indian Point NY and Oyster Creek NJ nuclear plants.

Stay tuned for more podcasts on a variety of base contamination issues, plus interviews and stories. Our goal is to develop a weekly series. You can always find our episodes here, or on our podcast site.

In this episode, we sit down with guest Paul Griego, a radiochemist, to discuss his involvement and exposures during the cleanup of the Marshall Islands from 1977-1980. The Marshall Islands Atomic Cleanup was a Joint Task Force of military and non-military personnel. During the atomic cleanup, all personnel lived on two military bases – Enewetak and Lowja.

As young men and teenagers, they were given a futile and dangerous task to ‘cleanup’ the nuclear fallout and debris of 43 atmospheric nuclear weapon tests. The group attempted to gather the highest level of radioactive material and dump it into a nuclear blast crater. They dumped 110,000 cubic yards into a nuclear blast crater on Runit Island before covering it under a massive concrete containment dome, which today is leaking. 

We dive into the various radiation exposures and issues endured by enlisted and unenlisted participants, the impact on health and bodies of those exposed, the broader DNA impacts, and the toll these exposures take on loved ones and family members. 

Employer during Enewetak Atoll Atomic Cleanup Mission:  Department of Energy subcontractor Eberline Instrument Corporation

Rank:  Civilian Supervisor

Job Title: Soil Sampling Supervisor, Eberline Instrument Corporation

Unit: Eberline Instrument Corporation

1st Enewetak Atoll TDY Tour: 4/11/1978 – 7/12/1978

Island Lived on at Enewetak Atoll:  Enewetak

Islands Worked on at Enewetak Atoll: Enewetak, Enjebi, Lujor, Lojwa, Aomon, Boken, Kirunu, Bokombako, and Runit.

Stay tuned for more podcasts on a variety of base contamination issues, plus interviews and stories. Our goal is to develop a weekly series. You can always find our episodes here, or on our podcast site.