98 RADIOLOGICAL CLEANUP OF ENEWETAK ATOLL inherit yet another temporary storagefacility, one constructed contrary to ERDA’s advice.'>> The 24 February conference ended with no changein the Agencies’ positions on disposal, but it helped set the stage for a top, level policy conference. FINALIZING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: APRIL 1975 The normal period for review and commenton the DEIS, which was filed on 7 September 1974, ended on 11 November 1974.!56 However, MLSC, the legal counsel for the dri-Enewetak, was allowed almost § months to prepare comments out of consideration for the gravity of the commitments that would be made based on the document. Mr.Mitchell, Executive Director of MLSC, submitted the comments on 1 February1975, These comments confirmed the basic position the people had taken at Majuro in 1973 and from which neither they nor the MLSC had wavered throughout the project. They demandedtotal cleanupoftheatoll, disposaj of the radiological contaminated material away from the atoll, and restoration of theatoll, insofar as practicable, to its original state. !57 LTG Johnson called a conference of action agency officials on 25 February 1975 to discuss the MLSC position and to makepolicy decisions necessary to establish the future course of the project. Conferees included: Dr. W. A. Mills, of EPA; Major General Ernest A. Graves, USA, Dr. William Forster, Mr. Joseph Maher, Mr. Joe Deal, and Mr. Tommy McCraw, of ERDA; Mr. Harry Brown, of DOI; Captain E. D. Whalen, USN, of ASD(ISA); Colonel A. M. Smith, USA, of MSN; and senior DNAstaff officials. !58 LTG Johnson opened the meeting with his analysis of the situation. The plans for cleanup described in the DEIS of September 1974 appearedto be’ technically and economically feasible, and, although they imposed some unwantedrestrictions on the dri-Enewetak, these restrictions represented a reasonable compromise between the goal of maximum freedom andthe needto guard the people’s health and well-being. The AEC guidelines had been adopted, although there were some whofelt they were excessively restrictive. Although ocean dumping of radioactive material was preferred by some,it had to be recognized that this might be legally impossibleor,at best, require several years to obtain authorization. Thus, crater entombment was adopted as a reasonable alternative. Based on these compromises, there had appeared to be a reasonable consensus among those involvedat the time the DEIS was published. !59 Now, according to the Director, it appeared that the consensus was disappearing. It seemed there was no consensus even within ERDA,and