- 25 States mainland for storage. We appreciate the practical and political difficulties presented by the various disposal methods which would remove the scrap from the Atoll entirely, but the People of Enewetak are adamantly” opposed to any disposal upon or within theenvirons of the Atoll. Ocean cumping, according the DEIS (Vol. I, S 5.5.2.1), was rejected ‘in view of the difficulty in obtaining a permit and certainty of international complications.’ Disposal to the United States mainland was disfavored for Similar reasons. (Vol. I. 8 5.5.2.4) Disposal on the Atoll must be rejected and the other methods should be explored, the necessary permits and authority obtained and disposal off the Atoll selected as the preferred method. "Removal and disposal of contaminated soil presents more serious cost and practical difficuities, but here again the complete removal and off-Atoll disposal of all contaminated soil must be the stated objective of the program. “Even using the high plutonium contamination standard set by the Task Group (40 pCi/g, etce.), the total amount of Atoll soil which would have to be removed and disposed is 779,000 cubic yeards. (Vol. I S 5.5.2). If the soil standards are lowered as they should be, that volume will increase." Comments: The comments pertaining to disposal of contaminated material are most appropriately dealt with hy agencies other than ERDA because of the legal, political and fiscal implications. Page 16, lines 15-18 - "... but a clear decision must be taken to study and fully assess the relation of soil removal to dose reduction (including the risk from airborne hot particles) and the likely ecological effects of soil removal and replacement." Comments: From a radiation exposure consideration, there is in fact little choice in the level of protection that can be provided the Enewetak people. The choices for cleanup degree at Enewetak are limited in one direction by the basic FRC standards considered as an upper Limit to what might be acceptable (this is a health consideration), and in the other direction by a rapidly increasing engineering effort that is required for even small increments of exposure reduction below the recommended guidelines (this is a cost consideration). It would not take much excess conservatism in cleanup "monitoring" or changes in the Task Group numerical guides to upset the delicately balanced position on cleanup guidance that has been Mew em w Re me Be SRR MRE IR EYES SORE WE EPL NET SRRSTIR TEPER IEE LATING FETTPOS NDEBS OY