e \ pack- U Cw jes . é ee fer, ANkis Vy DY tee lene tht er EADS Additional Guidance Needed for Enewetak Cleanup of Pu Contaminated Soil \\ x. . oy, 1. Over what area or areas should Pu-in-soil measurements be averaged: . 2. . . “fae coe tt vad of t 7 a i 3. - @ - vs cf . WO In-Situ measurements? b. Soil sampling? Cfee Oe Ape . ' rut Le LAs a a . La og pth she hu ” C hu cm a Benela cor ‘ COCe4 ¢ wf. werstiel ane oe comet. MENA =~ fawn 7 A UA fl henge -ge Ce eh Oa : go ite Looking at past survey results compared with the cleanup criteria, ° What levels of assurance that the criteria are met without cleanup are reasonable and attainable? A, 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? e. What are goals that are likely to be attainable in terms of the assurance that can be giver that the cleanup criteria have been met? .- For cleanup operations, is there some optimum combination of In-Situ, soil sampling, and wet chemistry meastirements 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 or should guidance be derived for the known conditions of each island requiring change? of! ‘ de To what areas should the Pu cleanup criteria, 40 pci/g and 400 pci/g, . which islands need cleanup? L \e a. be applied? L “ .