133 __ Planning and Programming Personnel from the 20th Engineer Brigade, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, working in three teams, surveyed cleanup worksites and provided detailed input for the operations annex of the OPLAN. Their surveys were organized according to the work assignmentsin CONPLAN I-76: Team A surveyed the southern islands, Team B, the northern islands, and Team C, the crater containment worksite on Runit. Personnel from the 84th Engineer Battalion, U.S. Army Support Command, Hawaii (USASCH), surveyed Lojwa and prepared a detailed plan for construction of the forward camp to be located there. Personnel from the 485th Medical Detachment, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, conducted extensive entomological surveys to provide insect and rodent control data.3!5 Navy and Air Force planners conducted surveys of the support facilities they would be utilizing. The general tone of planning at this second OPLAN conference was more practical, less theoretical than previously, since the individuals involved were, in many cases, either those who would actually supervise the work or those to whom they would report. Recognizing that major surprises in actual contamination measurements would occur over the next 3 years, and to provide the cleanup project leadership with maximum flexibility in decision making once the situation became clearer, the planners translated the CONPLAN cleanup guidance for soil excision into:3'6 ‘In general, the ERDA guidelines provide for removal of concentrations of plutonium soil exceeding 400 pCi/g, and for selective removalin the range of 40 to 400 pCi/g.’’317 . For some reason not specified, the planners omitted reference to removal of the crypts on Aomon where contaminated material had been buried.3!8 This omission later led to suggestions from some that the largest crypt need not be removed, suggestions which were not accepted by the Director, DNA. The CONPLANtext requiring containment of contaminated debris in contaminated soil-cement slurry3!9 was exparided and revised into three OPLANprovisions. The ERDA-NVinput to the OPLANclarified the conflicting guidance on soil cleanup in earlier planning documents. The AEC Task Group Report had, in one location, recommendedthat, once soil cleanup action wasinitiated, ‘‘the concentrations would be reduced to the lowestpractical level.’’320 In another location, and in the EIS, this suggested guidance was inappropriately worded to the effect that, where initiated, soil cleanup ‘“‘would be to well below 40 pCi/g.’’32! Now, ERDAplannersinterpreted this objective anew, providing guidance that the reduction should be ‘“‘to some lower number which shall be determined by cost-benefit considerations but will usually not be below local background.’’322 This interpretation permitted intelligent focusing of effort, made optimum use of precious cleanup resources, preserved the ecology of someislands, and made possible the cleanup work that the dri-Enewetak urgently needed. 7