CLEANUP OF ENIWETOK 1. Recent CEQ guidance: General Dickman was making reference to a memo from the Council of Environmental Quality's General Counsel of May 16, 1972 (copy attached). In that memo Mr. Atkeson highlighted the point raised ef e by Mr. Train. dew . at asf" pace Al J ' "In particular we are interested in finding ways of consolidating numbers of impact statements into fewer but broader and more meaningful reviews." DNA interpreted this as directive that the Eniwetok cleanup and rehabilitation should be one statement rather than be split into . at least two as AEC had suggested. 2. DBER's special role regardingplutonium: You will note from the attached M/R from Capt. Gay, the DBER role with regard to cleanup criteria relate to activities of the Radio- , logical Assessment Review Group under Dr. Barr. Those actions KR affect the cleanup criteria development activities under DOS. 3 \ 4. criteria for the plutonium cleanup problem. (dnp _ 2 bane ay Relation between cleanup and PACE EIS: will erey ~- ; cheney fradaaeny coytetad, DOD hopes to complete the PACE cratering project before the U.S. commences the cleanup and rehabilitation of Eniwetok. The two projects are supposed to be entirely separate. before the cleanup that EIS must go first. Since PACE goes Relation between cleanup EIS and rehabilitation EIS: It is our understanding that the cleanup and rehabilitation will be consolidated into a single joint DOD-Department of Interior environmental impact statement. AEC will merely contribute in areas where it has responsibilities (radiological survey and radiological cleanup criteria) or expertise. olga 5. ee How will cleanupplans be developed: s could be a chicken and egg situation with us waiting for cleanup plans from DOD, and DOD waiting for cleanup criteria from us. Neither the criteria nor the plans can be decided without ee the other; the two must be developed in concert. A ag Meanwhile, we 0233