e
\ pack- U
Cw
jes .
é ee fer,
ANkis
Vy
DY tee lene
tht er
EADS
Additional Guidance Needed for Enewetak
Cleanup of Pu Contaminated Soil
\\
x.
.
oy,
1.
Over what area or areas should Pu-in-soil measurements be averaged:
.
2.
.
.
“fae
coe
tt
vad
of
t
7
a
i
3.
-
@
-
vs
cf .
WO
In-Situ measurements?
b.
Soil sampling?
Cfee Oe
Ape
.
' rut Le
LAs
a
a
.
La og
pth
she hu ”
C
hu cm
a Benela cor ‘
COCe4
¢
wf.
werstiel
ane
oe
comet. MENA
=~
fawn 7
A UA
fl
henge -ge
Ce
eh
Oa
: go ite
Looking at past survey results compared with the cleanup criteria,
°
What levels of assurance that the
criteria are met without cleanup are reasonable and attainable?
A,
For certification of islands for which cleanup of Pu has been
performed:
a.
What data are required?
b.
How are the data to be evaluated?
e.
What are goals that are likely to be attainable in terms of
the assurance that can be giver that the cleanup criteria have
been met?
.-
For cleanup operations, is there some optimum combination of In-Situ,
soil sampling, and wet chemistry meastirements that yields the most
relevant information to guide contaminated soil removal at the least
cost?
Can a generalized approach be developed for use with all islands
or should guidance be derived for the known conditions of each island
requiring change?
of!
‘
de
To what areas should the Pu cleanup criteria, 40 pci/g and 400 pci/g, .
which islands need cleanup?
L
\e
a.
be applied?
L
“
.