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