Additional Guidance Needed for Enewetak
La
Cleanup of Pu Contaminated Soil
Over what area or areas should Pu-in-soil measurements be averaged:
fe
.
a.
In-Situ measurements?
b.
Soil sampling?
.
:
a
flat hat on
.
:
.
a
ca
4
”
/
write
apie
-
ct
oe
ony
:
.
al
et
a.
oy
t
eo
.
*
Yul
Manek itares
To what areas should the Pu cleanup criteria, 40 pCi/g and 400 pCi/g,
Bis cr tie Lp ta OO
.
be applied?
:
a
(otic yp
.
oy
cher eg
te
r
yt
ta
-
tat ts
fo
Dente
Me on
~7
«4 &.
Looking at past survey results compared with the cleanup criteria,
a
oe
which islands need cleanup?
v
oe
What levels of assurancethat the
criteria are met without cleanup are reasonable and attainable?
For certification of islands for which cleanup of Pu has been
performed:
a.
What data are required?
b.
How are the data to be evaluated?
c.
What are goals that are likely to ba attainable in terms of
the assurance that can be given that the cleanup criteria have
been met?
For cleanup operations, is there some optimum combination of In-Situ,
soil sampling, and wet chemistry measurements that yields the most
relevant information to guide contaminated soil removal at the least
cost?
Can a generalized approach be developed for use with all islands