96 RADIOLOGICAL CLEANUP OF ENEWETAKATOL, crater entombment.!47.148 They recommended that the Crate, entombment option be deleted from the EIS and that the contaminatey soil be stored temporarily on Runit while other options for eventual disposal were studied by AEC.!49 However, they advised that AEC wa not committed to provide any additional recommendation on the eventual disposal of contaminated soil and that disposal was a DNag responsibility. !50 The basic argumentpresented by proponents of ocean dumping was one commonly heard: compared to the amount of long-lived alpha contamination already dumpedin the ocean, the amount from Eneweta, would beinsignificant. The AEC estimated there were only a few hundreg gramsofactual plutonium in all of the contaminated soil of Enewetak, ang that at least a hundred kilogramsof plutonium had already been dumpeq in the ocean from 1947 through 1974.15! In other words, the additiona| damage that might be done was negligible compared to the possible damage that had already been done. The counterargument was also familiar: past damage probably cannotbe undone,butany additional abuse to the system should be stopped completely. DNA continued planning on crater containmentof contaminated soil and debris because this seemedto be the only option that would be acceptable. On 14 February 1975, representatives from the action agencies met with the POD in Honolulu to refine plans for cleanup and rehabilitation. Conferees included: Mr. Peter T. Coleman, Deputy High Commissioner, TTPI; Mr. Oscar DeBrum, District Administrator, Marshall Islands; BG Peel, Division Engineer, POD; Mr. Earl Eagles, HQ DNA; Mr. Tommy McCraw, Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA,.formerly AEC); Mr. Harry Brown, DOI, COL Esser, Field Command; and Mr. Earl Gilmore, H&N. Much of their discussion concerned development of POD contracts for the cleanup and rehabilitation effort. (These were never written due to subsequent Congressional actions.) More useful discussions were held on the matter of crater entombment. DNA requested that POD develop a design for the crater and cost estimates for that part of the project. Also, POD was asked to provide cost estimates for the complete (Case 5) cleanup which MLSC desired. DOD and DOItasks in the cleanup and rehabilitation efforts were reviewedin detail. The conferees also agreed that DNA and ERDA would develop a much needed Radiological Support Plan.!52 On 24 February 1975, DNA, ERDA, and EPA representatives conferred again on the disposal method for radiologically contaminated materials. ERDA was able to presentits case directly to EPA. No allowance had been made in the AEC Task Group’s dose assessment for any radioactivity that might leak from the crater-entombed matrix into the lagoon or nearby ocean. For this and other reasons, ERDA preferred