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