t - IN James L. Liverman August 12, 1977 opinion regarding their position re the clean-up. (You may recall that they signed off on the EIS with the caveat "until such time as EPA provides Federal guidance," or words to that effect.) Consistently EPA has told DNA and ERDA that Enewetak probably won't be affected by their guidance; nothing is in writing, however. At the moment it is not clear what, if anything, will happen to the TRU guidance, and, despize my request, I do not expect any enlightenment from EPA prior to the meeting next week. They do continus to state, however, chat the current Enewetak criteria are not unreasonable. The second objective may be more difficult, if indeed it is even possible. No one in ERPDA knows the details of the military plans for disposal (hence the. briefing on Monday), and there has never been an assessment made of the potential health and environmental consequences of such disposal. Ina letter from vou to Gen. Johnson dated April 10, 1975, it was stated that we assumed that EPA had done this since they opposed ocean dumping and advocated crater disposal, but we.are not aware of any such assessment. It is unrealistic to expect this review group to make such an assessment in a few days time. However, [ expect they will be able to offer an opinion as to the adequacy of the disposal plans, or, perhaps, a statement as to why it is not possible to assess their acequacy. I feel that we have some of the best people in the country to conduct this review, and, despite the short notice, time constraints, and a large quantity of material to digest, I expect they will provide you with appropriate guidance. on Bruce W. Wachholz, Ph.0. Office of Environmental Policy Analysis Attachment: As stated cc: Or. Burr Mr. Deal Dr. Coleman Dr. Cowser Mr. McCraw Dr. Watters Dr. uu Weyzen- Oe Mr. Hollister Mr. Facer oem hits