“=.
STON
UNITED STATES
a7
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
re
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20545
pec 9
wr
‘7a
Warren D. Jolson
Licutcnant General, USAF
Director
.
Defcase Nucloar Agency
Washineton, D. C.
20305
Dear General Johason:
ED
This is in response to your Jetter of September 3, 1974, transmitting to
the U. S. Atomic Enerzy Commission (AEC) the Draft Environmental Impact
Statenent (DEIS) prepared under supervision of the Defense Nuclear Agency
(DiA) for the proposed cleanup, rehabilitation, and resettlement of
Enewetak Atoll.
We have reviewed the Statement and are providing the following corments,
and the enclosure of supporting comments for your consideration in preparing
the Tinal Statcment for this proposed action:
In general, the DEIS reflects'a careful and thorough study of the
possikle cleanup of Enewetak Atoll and the future return of the people.
We agree that the Case 3 approach, as presented in the DEIS, should be
the preferred option for the cleanup project.
This approach is based
on successtul past experience, appears to be feasible, and ensures
the health and safety of the people insofar as“practicable. Further,
the quantity of material requiring disposal is more manageable than
in Cases 4 and 5, and the residual levels of contamination would not
7ppear to be hazardous judging from present knowledge of contaminated
levels in soils.
The presentation of the AEC radiation exposure criteria is satisfactory;
however, the turm "standards," as used throughout the DEIS is inaccurate
to describe the AEC criteria and should be replaced by the word
“euidelines."” While these radiological criteria are based upon current
national and international standards (see AEC Task Group Report, Volume II,
Appendix 1) we view them only es guides for the Enewetak cleanup project.
_The AEC Task Group report clearly indicates that ad hoc guidelines,
derived from the existing recognized standards,were required and formulated for the particular conditions existing at Enewetak Atoll and because
future hunan habitation was planned for there.
We further note that the
plutonium guideline numbers, while having no particular scientific basis
for establishing a standard, appear to be reasonable for the particular
conditions existing at Enowetak Atoll.