tt Col. Charles J. Treat 3 justified in this range makes that action mandatory as well. The "should" and the "may" previously underlined were intended to separate situations where a decision has already been made from situations where a decision is yet to be made in the field. These terms and attendant language do not establish two categories of action such as mandatory cleanup to be given priority and caseby-case cleanup to be left until last. This is a very fundamental concept we must agree upon if cleanup is to achieve the greatest good. I do not consider that anything in the EIS or Op Plan changes or supersedes the interpretation of the AEC soil cleanup criteria just outlined, and believe we must engage in a continuing dialogue to insure that interpretation of these criteria do not change with time. My specific is that the instance, I and between comment on the draft minutes, item 3, pages 1] and 2, section does not adequately reflect what I said. For did not say that the priorities for cleanup above 400 40 and 400 pCi/g were the same so longas resources were available. I stated that they were the same, period. Further, the statement read and used as Enclosure 4 is a very brief summary of the recommended soil cleanup criteria without the interpretative text that was provided and as such is not as good a reference as quoted above, i.e., pages 8 and 9 of Appendix III. Further, as to the FCDNA position on mandatory/priority cleanup above 400 pCi/g, I stated that in my opinion this was not a proper interpretation of the Task Group's recommendations. The final point to be made concerns an important exchange of views not covered in the draft minutes. This was the question of whether or not the soil cleanup criteria for Enewetak apply to 239Pu alone. The position several members took was that even though the Task Group report used the terms "plutonium" and "239pu," the criteria apply to all the transuranium elements in Enewetak soil. Also, the 400 pCi/g value comes from Jack Healy's report wherein a mix of transuranium elements in soil was assumed. If part 3 of the draft can be revised to accommodate the comments above, my signoff can stand. as addenda. Also, this letter may be included Sincerely, rE Fpeme - Mes Mesthat | Tommy F. McCraw, Acting Chief Surveillance Projects Branch Division of Operational and Environmental Safety * ‘ 1 eePUESbesiderepigen —e TY * ve ee REEE EE TeNESEY erage é of eit es oo fore bt ae ay * Maye ea ad vi fg eto Ray Coa e wETE eo? ” rey. Me ee ay " *% nad, ar Rove