Major General Frank A. Camm, USA - 3- The AEC is concerned that DNA (or DOD) will prepare and float a draft EBYS without adequate information on present radiological conditions. Sueh action would tend to establish the radiological cleanup and habitation criteria used by DNA as a position of the U.S. Government. Assuming that these criteria would not coincide with those of the AEC, a very difficult problem would be created. At best, this would pose a difficult and needless problem for the AEC to explain. Much more likely, however, it would jeopardize AEC intereste vis-a-vis nedical follow-up of the Rongelapese, Bikini cleanup standards, and a variety of eituations involving plutonium and other contamination. Publication of premature and 11l-considered Eniwetok criteria could well jeopardise the Eniwetok rehabilitation effort itself. Mr. Palmiter of EPA offered his own opinion at a meeting on April 26 that the EPA would view any such draft EIS, lacking sufficient radiological data (specifically plutonium data) as unacceptable. 1 feel the AEC should support EPA. If this should happen, the U.8. Government would then ba in the position of needlessly discussing a aplit decision in the public forum. Recommendation: Undertake this EIS only when complete radiological data from the AEC atudy are available and have been reviewed. The rough draft then should be fully coordinated with AEC and such other agencies as may be appropriate. ENGINEERING SURVEY Holmes and Narver completed an engineering survey on likely Eniwetok cleanup actions. DNA provided aome tentative guidelines and assumptions. Tha concern existe that once a report has been printed and diatributed (auch as thie one has been), “assunmptions™ may become realities in the winds of some readers. Recommendation: That ali references to the Holmes and Narver report place strong emphasis on the fact that the radiological assumptions are for planning purposes only.