-~3. defined by the EC&G aerial survey. Such an approach is deficient in that it does not adequately treat the reduction, if any, of the more significant exposures that are expected to occur from internal emitters coming through the food chain for crops grown on the islands. Sections 5.6.1.1 and 5.6.1.2 and tables 5-11 and 5-12 are not consistent with the Task Group report. 2. Debris and Soil Disposal Four other alternatives are mentioned, consisting of crater dumping (5.5.2.2), crater containment (5.5.2.3), return to the continental United States (5.5.2.4), and storage on Runit (5.5.2.5). Although a few advantages and disadvantages are mentioned for some of these alternatives, the specific environmental impacts of each are not discussed nor can the reader find which alternatives are proposed for which wastes. In the section on returning radioactive debris to the continental U.S. (5.5.2.4), Richland, Washington is cited as an example of “one of the low-grade disposal areas in the western part of the United States." There are two radioactive waste burial areas which can be identified as being mear Richland, Washington. One is overated by the AEC and ordinarily does not compete with private industry by accepting offsite-generated waste, either from private firms or from other Federal activities. The other is operated by a private firm which could or could not accept such wastes. The statement that ocean dumping was rejected (5.5.2.1) is in contradiction to the later statement that "Pucontaminated surface Soils would be removed from = Lows, Lu five islands and disposed of at sea" (first indented item, page 11-1). The quantities of radioactivity to be disposed of are rot quantified, nor is the environmental impact discussed, in the remaining text of Section 11 (irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources). Sea dumping is not. mentioned in the description of the "proposed (preferred) cleanup operation" (Séction 6) nor the discussion of adverse environmental impacts which cannot be avoided (Section 9). Radioactive sea dumping is not discussed in the section on environmental impacts, which is. a conspicuous omission since Section 8.18 discusses the impact of dumping noncontaminated materials at sea. Section 6.2.3 discusses the placement of plutonium-contaminated soil and scrap within a concrete matrix in LaCrosse crater: Section 8.19.1 states "maintenance of the crypt is a continuing problem" in referring to this plan, but neither section gives an indication of intent as to the responsibility for long-term surveillance and maintenance of this rather special case of transuranium waste storage. The proposed method of disposal of Pu contaminated scrap and soil assumes that LaCrosse crater can be pumped out. Has it been clearly established that this can be done? The reef is often porous and cracks may have been caused by the detonation. We would suggest that DNA should consider whether the craters can and/or need to be pumped out for this particular option.